# Revenue Sheriff - goods seizure



## roadrunner (18 Jul 2007)

I got a telephone call from a baliff yesterday demanding money for PAYE that was due from our company  - usually we offset our Vat refund against PAYE due - so on balance the Revenue actually owed us. The upshot of it all is the baliff was trying to extract €1700 and then dropped to €800 for his fees. Do we have to pay this seeing as technically we didn`t owe a debt? I rang revenue and explained situation - they called off the baliff but said the fee issue needed to be sorted out amongst ourselves and they were having nothing to do with it.


----------



## lightup (18 Jul 2007)

Had you contacted Revenue to ask them to offset your refund against your liability?  If not you technically did owe a debt as they are not obliged to offset one tax against another.


----------



## roadrunner (18 Jul 2007)

would the fact they called off Sheriff/baliff not mean they accepted my argument? The sheriff was looking for €1700 but dropped it to €800 - is this another indication that these bills needn`t necessarily be paid - what are my options? what can they do?


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jul 2007)

Don't you have an accountant/tax advisor who can assist with this?


----------



## lightup (18 Jul 2007)

I would think that by calling off the sheriff they have accepted that you have now paid your outstanding liabilty (by offsetting a tax refund) but that does not mean you never had an oustanding liabilty.

They engaged the services of the sheriff to extract payment of this liabilty and now the sheriff needs to be paid - presumably by you.

As for what you can now do, as Clubman says, I think you need to go to the professionals before it escalates further.


----------



## roadrunner (18 Jul 2007)

Good to get other points of view Clubman. - our auditors suggested that technically we didn`t owe a debt because Vat refund amt exceeds PAYE due. Looking for as much views as possible before I proceed.
What can the sheriff do if I refuse to pay the debt?


----------



## ClubMan (18 Jul 2007)

?


----------



## roadrunner (18 Jul 2007)

thanks - had googled that a bit earlier as well - anyone ever have the pleasnat experience of dealing with these sheriffs?


----------



## my2leftfeet (18 Jul 2007)

You may not "technically" have owed it but the course of events would suggest that you did not submit a return stating this ... which you are obliged to do.
I would be surprised if there were not a number of pieces of correspondence relating to this before it was passed to sheriff.


----------



## roadrunner (18 Jul 2007)

Well revenue have now washed their hands of this - so going back to my question what can baliff do if we refuse to pay?


----------



## z103 (18 Jul 2007)

> so going back to my question what can baliff do if we refuse to pay?



Well they are baliffs, so what do you think they're going to do?

It's an unfortunate situation. We were in a similar predicament. It seems they can ask for any abitrary amount of money (with menaces), and business owners have to cough up. We regarded it as yet another extra tax.


----------



## command (18 Jul 2007)

The difficulty is that the various forms of tax are seperate and are dealth with by different departments. Therefore the PAYE debt and Vat are legally different. I have had several client's who have to endure these difficulties in offsetting overpayments on one tax with liabilities on another.  

The collector general has responsibility for collecting all the cash be it PAYE, vat or income tax. Normally the debt recovery section will contact you with a final demand before sending in the sherrif. At this stage a call to the individual dealing with the case in debt recovery would sort it. 

I had a case this year where a cheque was paid to the sherrif and it arrived on the same day as he was dispatched to the client's premises to seize property. The client still had to pay the sherrif's call out fee even though he never reached his premisies or seized property. 

You will find that at some stage you will have received the final demand from the collector general at which time you should have requested the offset.

Having said that if there is a precident for the offset and you are always in a vat refund situation and you always use the vat refund that is due to discharge your PAYE liability you should contact your local tax office and request that the note be put on your file that you are in a vat refund situation and you use it to discharge your PAYE liabilites. 

This will not mean that the offset will occur automatically but it will alert someone in the collector general's office to the fact.


----------



## roadrunner (18 Jul 2007)

leghorn said:


> Well they are baliffs, so what do you think they're going to do?
> 
> It's an unfortunate situation. We were in a similar predicament. It seems they can ask for any abitrary amount of money (with menaces), and business owners have to cough up. We regarded it as yet another extra tax.


 
The PAYE amount has been paid - so there is no outstanding debt owed to revenue.
Our argument is that techically there was no debt owed as vat refunds exceeded PAYE amounts due.
This baliff guy is ringing me back firday to see if he can collect his fee - so I`m trying to get my arguments in place for refusal to pay.
I`m also trying to find out what powers he has to chase this fee, in the event that we refuse payment
Our auditors suggested we would be within our rights to call the guards if they attempted to remove any property - looking for €800 when tehy only had to make a few phone calls seems extortionate. I am willing to go to any ends in order to counter this persons - there was an air of menace in all his calls that went beyond normal business activity.


----------



## Guest112 (18 Jul 2007)

Maybe harsh words but it seems to me that someone within your company has already been messing around with this.

In my experience Revenue is quite patient with errant taxpayers up to a point.

Once the baliff is on your tail, Id be inclined to pay up and close the matter. Above all learn the  lesson from it.


----------



## command (18 Jul 2007)

The individual in the collector general's office woudl have had access to your "net" tax position. As far as I am aware they arwe entitled to send the sherrif in to collect the PAYE debt even if you were in a refund situation. 

However, the individual in the collector general's office should have had the ability to realise the the most effective means of collecting their debt was to offset your vat suplus. Your argument should be that a "reasonable" individual would not have referred the debt to the sheriff for recovery when no such action was required.

You need to make the argument that the collector general was in a position to seize your assets (the vat refund) without recourse to the sherrif.

Surely it is not in the interest of the state to impoverish a normally compliant tax payer given that said taxpayer had complied with his legal obligation to file the appropriate returns and had, as a business, arrived at a position where his net tax liabilties were less than zero.      



As an argument


----------



## ubiquitous (18 Jul 2007)

roadrunner said:


> Our auditors suggested we would be within our rights to call the guards if they attempted to remove any property .


I think they were telling you what you wanted to hear.


roadrunner said:


> - looking for €800 when tehy only had to make a few phone calls seems extortionate.


Indeed but that's how sheriffs make their money.


roadrunner said:


> I am willing to go to any ends in order to counter this persons


Unfortunately the law is on their side. You won't win.


----------



## roadrunner (18 Jul 2007)

Command - thank you - reason I posted was to get arguments to use in this scenario. you hit nail on the head there - any more arguments would be appreciated.


----------



## ang1170 (18 Jul 2007)

A few points:

- Revenue are correct: baliff's charges are nothing to do with them so you're almost certainly going to have to pay

- They wouldn't have been called in unless (a) the debt existed and (b) revenue hadn't made repeated attempts to recover it

- Having said that, mistakes are made so check with Revenue again. If they called in the sherrif prematurely (i.e. without warning you) you might have some hope of getting them to cover the costs.

- Just because you've offset before (or even all the time), you still have to inform Revenue you're doing this. If you don't inform them, and you ignore the requests for the unpaid tax, you really have very little to stand on.

- I'd question the advice you're getting from your auditors about calling in the guards in this situation, especially if there were requests for the unpaid tax leading up to the sherrif's apointment.

I speak as someone who's had to deal with a similar situation: not a pleasant situation to be in: you have my sympathies.


----------



## ubiquitous (18 Jul 2007)

This discussion brings into focus the whole issue of Revenue powers and how the Revenue and their agents, bailiffs, sheriffs etc operate in a legal framework where they can pretty much do what they want (including powers of arrest, seizure of possessions etc) and without the normal controls to which Gardai and other state officials are subject. 

Interestingly, our supposedly pro-business FF/PD government voted to extend these powers yet again in the recent Finance Act. The fact that they did so a few weeks BEFORE a general election shows how many people really care about this issue.

Like the previous poster, the OP has my sympathies but having dealt with many such cases over the years, I've learned at it is impossible to win when dealing with these guys.


----------



## ang1170 (18 Jul 2007)

command said:


> However, the individual in the collector general's office should have had the ability to realise the the most effective means of collecting their debt was to offset your vat suplus. Your argument should be that a "reasonable" individual would not have referred the debt to the sheriff for recovery when no such action was required.


 
That's a nonsense. If I don't pay my mortage and the bank make repeated requests for it (which I ignore), does the bank have rights to help themselves to any savings I might have in a different account with them? Don't think so: unless they have my explicit approval for taking it, which is exactly what the Revenue need.


----------



## z103 (18 Jul 2007)

> They wouldn't have been called in unless (a) the debt existed and (b) revenue hadn't made repeated attempts to recover it



We didn't get any warnings, just a letter from the county sheriff. The default setting for the revenue is that company owners are criminals.

I don't know what size company the OP has, but look at how other countries treat small companys
http://tinyurl.com/22hafc



> the *removal of automatic penalties* for all those firms with turnovers of up to £150,000, who will instead first be offered help and advice when they are late with their VAT payments;



The Irish revenue, and their ruthless, heavy handed approach certainly is the average small business owner's biggest enemy.


----------



## roadrunner (19 Jul 2007)

I am not at all familiar with the baliffs powers - what can he do now? could he still seize goods   - PAYE has been paid up to date. Is there room for bargaining from the €800 downwards -seeing as he did not call to the premises.


----------



## Bronte (19 Jul 2007)

Roadrunner, did you get letters saying that you owed money?  Command's advice seems to be the best as he has experience of this.  

My advice is to try again to talk to the revenue, maybe somebody higher up who can stop the bailiff, but if you get no joy why not negotiate say 400 with the bailiff.  Those guys prefer a bird in the hand etc... and it's better to get them off your back now or costs could escalate hugely.  Then later pursue it in writing (by registered post) with the Revenue, better in writing than by phone call using some of the arguments listed in previous posts - then they have to tell you officially why you are liable for the bailiff.  Would be interesting to know the Revenue's powers here.  

Ang - I'd be surprised if the banks don't have to right to take all your money, bet it's in the small print of the mortgage.  Those guys cover all bases.


----------



## roadrunner (19 Jul 2007)

What is the chain of command here - Revenue forwards debt to Sheriff and Sheriff on to baliff? Revenue & guy who was going to call were in direct communication - does that mean he was the Sheriff or are they the same.


----------



## ang1170 (19 Jul 2007)

Aileen2 said:


> Ang - I'd be surprised if the banks don't have to right to take all your money, bet it's in the small print of the mortgage. Those guys cover all bases.


 
Too true! On reflection you're probably right. It was more the point of engaging collection agents without informing you, which definitely seems wrong.

They do have a Customer Service Charter and various appeals procedures, so it might be worth trying those.

My inclination would be to pay the baliff (no harm in negotiating the amount) and then trying to recover the cost from Revenue on the basis that procedural mistakes were made (i.e. you weren't informed beforehand). I really don't think you'll get anywhere though with claiming the amount simply wasn't owed.

Believe me, I'm not that keen on being in a position of defending Revenue, but my own experience of dealing with them has been reasonably good, provided you keep them informed of what's going on.


----------



## simplyjoe (19 Jul 2007)

ang1170 said:


> Too true! On reflection you're probably right. It was more the point of engaging collection agents without informing you, which definitely seems wrong.
> 
> They do have a Customer Service Charter and various appeals procedures, so it might be worth trying those.
> 
> ...


 
I can understand your frustrations but Ubiq. is right. Unless you can prove that you gave a direct instruction to the revenue to offset the taxes you do not have a case. Even then they will break your heart trying to prove it. The bailif/sheriff's expenses are predetermined and relates to what actions they take and what level of tax is outstanding. In my office we try to convince client's that where possible you are as well off paying a debt rather than having it offset. One mistake will cost you big if you have to pay interest and/or sheriff's fees. Despite being given specific instructions the revenue will often allocate whatever way they like and will issue demands and sheriff for small debts even when large refunds remain outstanding for longer periods. Any system that has the rate of interest paid on an outstanding debt way higher than the rate you get on an outstanding refund is severely flawed. Same system states that you cannot get refunds more than 4 years back is flawed and totally unjust. But as previously stated 'who cares'. The electorate dont. Some of these bailifs are frightening guys. One guy that turned up at a client's premises was 6'8', 20 stone plus, skinhead, sleeveless leather jacket, tattoo, earing and doc martens and a thick attitude to boot.


----------



## roadrunner (19 Jul 2007)

How can they justify €800 for a couple of phone calls - they didn`t actually call to premises - have I an angle to work with here? this guy is ringing back first thing tomorrow to seek payment so need something to argue.


----------



## Kramer (19 Jul 2007)

Can you clarify 1 item, had the revenue actually requested the funds to be paid prior to the involvement of the bailiff?


----------



## ubiquitous (23 Jul 2007)

roadrunner said:


> How can they justify €800 for a couple of phone calls .



The law gives them the power to charge these fees without having to justify them.



roadrunner said:


> they didn`t actually call to premises - have I an angle to work with here? .


No


----------

