# Employer interpretation of Revenue guidelines



## Thirsty (1 May 2018)

I'm struggling to frame this question without being too specific; but here goes.  Names are made up to protect the innocent!

My employer, Acme Ltd is responding to a query with the view that their actions are required by Revenue.

However the actions do not square with other several other employer's actions.  So either all the others are breaking the law or Acme Ltd are mis-reading it (it wouldn't be the first time).  

There is no staff association or union in Acme Ltd.  

The issue has been raised with the relevant folks in Acme Ltd & they are certain they are in line with Revenue requirements.  

They accept that the (no doubt, unintended) consequence is that one group of employees is put at a significant disadvantage, but say it's out of their hands.

How do I go about getting a review done? Can I bring it to the FSO?


----------



## Sue Ellen (1 May 2018)

Perhaps too basic a question but what do Revenue say when contacted with the query?


----------



## Thirsty (1 May 2018)

I haven't written to Revenue myself.

So far I just have Acme Ltd telling me this is what Revenue are saying.

Should I write to Revenue?


----------



## torblednam (1 May 2018)

You'd need to give us a bit more than that.

Just say what the issue is, you can surely do that in a way that doesn't identify the employer...


----------



## Sue Ellen (2 May 2018)

Thirsty said:


> I haven't written to Revenue myself.
> 
> So far I just have Acme Ltd telling me this is what Revenue are saying.
> 
> Should I write to Revenue?



As the saying goes 'you're hearing one side of the story' so you need to get confirmation yourself what Revenue have to say on the matter.  It would speed matters up if you were to ring them, but as it concerns a group of people, and the fact that you will possibly need to revert to the Company, then writing may be best.  I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting on the reply though as it may take some time.


----------



## T McGibney (2 May 2018)

Sue Ellen said:


> As the saying goes 'you're hearing one side of the story' so you need to get confirmation yourself what Revenue have to say on the matter.  It would speed matters up if you were to ring them, but as it concerns a group of people, and the fact that you will possibly need to revert to the Company, then writing may be best.  I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting on the reply though as it may take some time.



Revenue are highly unlikely to comment on the internal affairs of any taxpayer, unless they've already concluded an audit or enquiry into the matter. They most certainly won't comment to third parties in that regard.

Most situations like this are prompted by professional advice received on foot of general Revenue guidance on new, or clarification of existing, legislation.

It would be insane of any employee to unilaterally ring Revenue in relation to a query relating to their employer's tax compliance, without at the very least getting appropriate legal advice beforehand. I'm frankly amazed that this is suggested here.


----------



## Sue Ellen (2 May 2018)

T McGibney said:


> Revenue are highly unlikely to comment on the internal affairs of any taxpayer, unless they've already concluded an audit or enquiry into the matter. They most certainly won't comment to third parties in that regard.
> 
> Most situations like this are prompted by professional advice received on foot of general Revenue guidance on new, or clarification of existing, legislation.
> 
> It would be insane of any employee to unilaterally ring Revenue in relation to a query relating to their employer's tax compliance, without at the very least getting appropriate legal advice beforehand. I'm frankly amazed that this is suggested here.



Rather an over the top reaction.  If it is something that is affecting Thirsty's tax payments they are hardly going to lock him up for making a simple phone call or writing a letter to know where he stands.  Heading for possible expensive legal advice before checking with Revenue seems strange to me.  If he is not entitled to know then he can be told that.


----------



## Thirsty (2 May 2018)

"Most situations like this are prompted by professional advice received on foot of general Revenue guidance on new, or clarification of existing, legislation."

You would certainly hope so!

Having said that I showed the relevant people in Acme Ltd a published document from Deloittes on the same issue, which was significantly different from Acme's stated view.

So I'm confident that there is at least more than one interpretation.

I guess I need to write to revenue in the first instance.


----------



## T McGibney (2 May 2018)

Sue Ellen said:


> As the saying goes 'you're hearing one side of the story' so you need to get confirmation yourself what Revenue have to say on the matter.  It would speed matters up if you were to ring them, but as it concerns a group of people, and the fact that you will possibly need to revert to the Company, then writing may be best.  I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting on the reply though as it may take some time.





Sue Ellen said:


> Rather an over the top reaction.


Hmmm...   Do read on.



Sue Ellen said:


> If it is something that is affecting Thirsty's tax payments they are hardly going to lock him up for making a simple phone call or writing a letter to know where he stands.



Who mentioned locking anyone up? I didn't. I'd frankly be more concerned that they'd lose their job for making an unauthorised and likely ill-conceived communication to Revenue about their employer's tax compliance position.

That's why I suggested legal advice if such a course of action is to be taken.


----------



## T McGibney (2 May 2018)

Thirsty said:


> So I'm confident that there is at least more than one interpretation.


That wouldn't exactly be a first. Do bear in mind though that any general guidance offered by the likes of Deloitte will invariably be couched in disclaimers as to its applicability to individual situations.



> I guess I need to write to revenue in the first instance.



See above. If you insist on so doing, make sure you have written advance authorisation from your employer.


----------



## Purple (2 May 2018)

Sue Ellen said:


> Rather an over the top reaction.  If it is something that is affecting Thirsty's tax payments they are hardly going to lock him up for making a simple phone call or writing a letter to know where he stands.  Heading for possible expensive legal advice before checking with Revenue seems strange to me.  If he is not entitled to know then he can be told that.


As the company's interpretation of the Revenue guidelines are impacting on the tax paid by employees it is perfectly reasonable for the employee to contact Revenue in a personal capacity to seek clarification that they are paying the correct rate of tax. It is between the tax payer and the tax collector.


----------



## Purple (2 May 2018)

T McGibney said:


> I'd frankly be more concerned that they'd lose their job for making an unauthorised and likely ill-conceived communication to Revenue about their employer's tax compliance position.


But they are contacting revenue about their own tax compliance.


----------



## T McGibney (2 May 2018)

Purple said:


> But they are contacting revenue about their own tax compliance.


Not if this is true.


> My employer, Acme Ltd is responding to a query with the view that their actions are required by Revenue.


----------



## T McGibney (2 May 2018)

Purple said:


> As the company's interpretation of the Revenue guidelines are impacting on the tax paid by employees it is perfectly reasonable for the employee to contact Revenue in a personal capacity to seek clarification that they are paying the correct rate of tax. It is between the tax payer and the tax collector.


The tax payer in this case appears to be the employer. It is the employer who has made a decision on how they are to comply. (We haven't been told what is exactly the issue so must guess.)


----------



## Purple (2 May 2018)

T McGibney said:


> The tax payer in this case appears to be the employer. It is the employer who has made a decision on how they are to comply. (We haven't been told what is exactly the issue so must guess.)


Yea, that's key.


----------



## Thirsty (2 May 2018)

> If you insist on so doing, make sure you have written advance authorisation from your employer


I don't believe for one minute that this is required.

I can only give a hypothetical example (and it's not an AVC or pension issue, just using that as an example).

But let's say that Acme Ltd, on reading Revenue guidelines etc., came to this conclusion

Employees with blue eyes have their pension contribution deducted at each weekly payroll, but it's not paid into the fund until 4 weeks later. 
Employees with brown eyes have their pension contribution deducted at the end of the month and it's in their fund 2 days later.

Acme Ltd believes that they are in compliance because they are treating the employees equally in that the pension contributions are paid into the fund on the same date.  Notwithstanding the fact that blue eyed employees are losing out on their fund earnings.

Bear in mind this is a hypothetical example, so please don't start telling me the interest earnings lost are very minor - that's not the issue! 

I've since found at least two other issues where Acme Ltd claim that their XYZ policy is due to Revenue requirements, but have found clear evidence that this is not the case.  It suits Acme Ltd to have that policy, but the reason doesn't hold water.


----------



## T McGibney (2 May 2018)

Thirsty said:


> I can only give a hypothetical example .


Your hypothetical example makes no sense.

My comments above stand.

And as I've said earlier, you haven't told us what the issue is so mine and other comments here are made only generally. As such, at least as far as I'm concerned, you're free to take them or leave them.


----------



## Thirsty (2 May 2018)

Lets see if I can make it simpler so...

1. Two groups of employees are being treated differently.

2. Acme Ltd says this is in compliance with Revenue Guidelines.

Other items where Acme Ltd has said it's policy is due to Revenue requirements have been demonstrated to be incorrect; I believe there is a case to be made that this action is also an incorrect interpretation of Revenue guidelines.

So it would appear that an independent review, or similar, would be appropriate.

That's where I came in with my question.


----------



## T McGibney (2 May 2018)

The problem with Revenue "guidelines" generally is that they are actually _de facto _rules that carry significant actual and contingent tax liability implications unless they are followed slavishly. Just as nobody is ever sacked for buying IBM, it is usually safer for an employer to implement Revenue "guidelines" to the letter than to ignore them in the hope that nothing bad will ever happen.

Similarly, it will be a brave (or reckless) independent consultant or reviewer who will recommend to a client that they deviate from a Revenue "guideline" without compelling reason.


----------



## Thirsty (2 May 2018)

All of which is fair enough, but I believe I have sufficient grounds to seek a review.

The question is - how do I go about that?


----------



## Sunny (2 May 2018)

Thirsty said:


> All of which is fair enough, but I believe I have sufficient grounds to seek a review.
> 
> The question is - how do I go about that?



A review for what? Are you basically saying the company deducted too much tax from you? If so, you can claim it back from revenue. It sounds like you have an industrial relations issue rather a tax issue if you are claiming that some employees are being treated differently to others.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (2 May 2018)

What is the actual issue?

You have the opportunity here to use accountants and tax advisors as sounding boards when their advice would normally cost you hundreds of euro.

Set out the issue but don’t mention the company (obviously).


----------



## Thirsty (2 May 2018)

> It sounds like you have an industrial relations issue


That may indeed be true, but without a Staff association or trades union, I don't see how that can be followed up.

I've asked the question as clearly as I can.

If I believe Acme Ltd are incorrect in their actions, in spite of their claim to be following Revenue guidelines, how do I go about getting a review?


----------



## llgon (2 May 2018)

Follow Sunny's advice.



Sunny said:


> A review for what? Are you basically saying the company deducted too much tax from you? If so, you can claim it back from revenue.



If the issue is not related to your tax let others affected deal with Revenue themselves, you'd be better to keep out of it.


----------



## Thirsty (2 May 2018)

> you'd be better to keep out of it.


It impacts on me - why would I 'keep out of it'?


----------



## RedOnion (2 May 2018)

Does this relate specially to the tax treatment of an item?
Or are they handling something in a manner that it is not just a tax impact? For example a timing of you receiving value for some payment?


----------



## llgon (2 May 2018)

Thirsty said:


> It impacts on me - why would I 'keep out of it'?



The difficulty with this thread is the lack of information you have given. This is the first time you have made it clear that it impacts on you. 

So has your company deducted too much tax from you?

If not I don't see why you would think Revenue should give you a 'review'


----------



## Thirsty (2 May 2018)

It's not a review of 'me'.

It's a review of the interpretation being made and subsequent action taken by Acme Ltd.

In any event, I believe my first port of call is to Revenue.

"...first time you have made it clear that it impacts.."

A. Why would I be bothered if it didn't?
B. How does it make any difference to the question asked?

As far as questioning the guideline goes - has everyone forgotten that for years Revenue insisted NPPR was not a deductible expense?

Edit: corrected lpt to nppr


----------



## llgon (2 May 2018)

Thirsty said:


> It's not a review of 'me'.



I didn't say it was a review of 'you', you have asked 'how do I go about getting a review'




Thirsty said:


> A. Why would I be bothered if it didn't?
> B. How does it make any difference to the question asked?



A. I don't know because you have given so little information
B. Because Revenue aren't going to give you a review of someone else's tax affairs.


My feeling on this is that the company are using revenue guidelines as an excuse for something.  However Revenue are not going to investigate this unless it directly impacts on someone's tax affairs and will not provide you with a 'review' except to resolve any tax issues you might have. They are not in the business of industrial relations.


----------



## Thirsty (3 May 2018)

"...that the company are using revenue guidelines as an excuse for something"

You may be right.

However, I will write to Revenue and ask them to answer my direct questions on their guidelines.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (3 May 2018)

Thirsty said:


> "...that the company are using revenue guidelines as an excuse for something"
> 
> You may be right.
> 
> However, I will write to Revenue and ask them to answer my direct questions on their guidelines.



Thirsty,

I really enjoy helping people with financial/tax issues, but I have zero interest in helping you. You’ve spent two pages speaking in code, refusing to clarify the nature of the issue, and just being difficult generally. Now you’re turning belligerent and heading off to speak with Revenue despite others advising you not to. Reading between the lines, I suspect that your employer wants rid of you because of your attitude; it can be tricky to “manage someone out”, but perhaps the Revenue Guidelines are proving a useful tool in this instance. You should reflect on these broader issues.

Gordon


----------



## Thirsty (3 May 2018)

Well that's given me a good early morning giggle anyway!

You may like to consider a new career as a fiction writer, Gordon!


----------



## RETIRED2017 (3 May 2018)

Thirsty said:


> Well that's given me a good early morning giggle anyway!
> 
> You may like to consider a new career as a fiction writer, Gordon!


He will not have to  pay tax on his earnings,


----------



## jpd (3 May 2018)

Have to say, I'm with Gordon on this one.

You came here looking for advice but refused to give any meaningful information on what it was you wanted advice about other than generalities about Revenue Guidelines and alleged mistreatment of a group of workers by ACME Ltd.


----------



## Thirsty (3 May 2018)

> refused to give any meaningful information


I believe I stated in my first post that it was not easy to frame the question without giving too much identifiable information. 



> alleged mistreatment of a group of workers by ACME Ltd


Mistreatment?  Gordon Bennett!

Again, I'd refer to my first post where I said



> They [Acme Ltd] accept that the (no doubt, unintended) consequence is that one group of employees is put at a significant disadvantage, but say it's out of their hands


.

Let's not get too fanciful here.

I find it hard to believe that as a citizen of this country, I am not allowed to ask questions of Revenue for fear of losing my job!


----------



## T McGibney (3 May 2018)

Thirsty said:


> I find it hard to believe that as a citizen of this country, I am not allowed to ask questions of Revenue for fear of losing my job!


You are, but not in respect of the specifics of how another taxpayer's tax affairs are handled by them.


----------



## jpd (3 May 2018)

Cambridge English dictionary: Mistreatment -  to treat a person or animal badly, cruelly, *or unfairly*:


----------



## Thirsty (3 May 2018)

> You are, but not in respect of the specifics of how another taxpayer's tax affairs are handled by them.



Hold on a minute....I'm not asking about anyone else's affairs?

Thirsty says: Dear Acme Ltd, by doing XYZ you have a) have caused significant financial disadvantage and b) treated me differently from another group of employees

Acme Ltd say: We acknowledge the financial disadvantage. We have to do XYZ because Revenue say so in their Guideline 9999.

Thirsty says: Other employers do it differently, Deloitte say different, there's a case for this to be reviewed. 

Acme Ltd say: We have to do XYZ because Revenue say so in their Guideline 9999.

Thirsty writes a letter to Revenue as it seems that's the best place to get clarification in the first place. (and no one here has suggested any other official channel).

_Dear Revenue

Please confirm the implementation of Guideline 9999.  

XYZ Method has the following consequential impact on me.
ABC Method does not.

Should this be implemented by XYZ Method or should it be done by ABC method.

Kind regards
Thirsty_


----------



## T McGibney (3 May 2018)

Thirsty said:


> _Dear Revenue
> 
> Please confirm the implementation of Guideline 9999.
> 
> ...



Well if you phrase it like that, you're obviously not asking about anyone else's affairs.  But their answer won't be worth a damn to you. All they will do is refer you back to the appropriate legislation.

If this matter is important to you, you should consider engaging a tax consultant to advise and prepare an opinion which you can then give to your employer. This will cost money.


----------



## Thirsty (3 May 2018)

It's already costing me (and others) money, and likely to do so in the future, so it may be worth while to pool our resources and do as you say.


----------



## torblednam (3 May 2018)

This thread is kinda surreal.

How about this Thirsty, since you are adamant that somehow the details of what you're talking about render your employer identifiable (which seems daft tbh)...:

Just tell us what Revenue legislation / guidelines / publications you're talking about, so people who are equipped and experienced might be able to give you some actual useful information.

Surely even the most paranoid of minds couldn't think that pointing to a piece of tax legislation or a revenue manual somehow makes their employer identifiable...


----------



## Thirsty (3 May 2018)

Thanks everyone for your posts.

I'll let you know how I get on.


----------

