# Does Statute of limitations apply to revenue?



## agoose (6 Oct 2008)

If a debtor owes a creditor money, the creditor can within six years from the date of accrual of the debt claim his money through the court should the debtor not pay. After this it is not possible to claim against said debtor through the court sstem.

This six year limit is known as the statute of limitations.

Does this six year limit also apply to revenue in the case were a private person or a business owes revenue taxes etc. for a period occcuring six or more years ago?


----------



## DeeKie (6 Oct 2008)

The statute of limitations is 12 years for revenue, as far as I know.


----------



## agoose (6 Oct 2008)

12 years? Interesting.

Anyone else have an idea?


----------



## ClubMan (6 Oct 2008)

[broken link removed] is a few years old so maybe not up to date?


> *Bogus Foreign Deposit Accounts
> Time Limits on Revenue Claims against
> the Estates of Deceased Persons*





> The commentators have sought to back up their argument by pointing
> out that the Statute of Limitations does not apply to Revenue cases.
> This is correct.





> The normal
> limitation period is defined as the period prescribed by the Statute of
> Limitations or any other limitation enactment. Since the Taxes Acts are
> specifically excluded from the Statute of Limitations, the "limitation
> ...



[broken link removed]


> *STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS:-*
> 
> Under Section 498 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, a 10 year limit on claims applies.  The
> 10 years are counted back from the year prior to the year of receipt of claim or of the
> ...


----------



## mercman (6 Oct 2008)

On the other hand, I had a Revenue Audit recently and they requested papers going back to 1993/94/95. And I was told by the experts that the Revenue inquiries are not restricted by Statute of Limitations.


----------



## Slash (7 Oct 2008)

i have always believed that a business is required to maintain books and records for 6 years only. I think that's in the Companies Acts somewhere. That being the case, Revenue can only go back six years.


----------



## mercman (7 Oct 2008)

The Revenue have different rules way beyond the Companies Act. How do you think they have managed to receive so much money.


----------



## Bronte (7 Oct 2008)

I always thought Revenue could go back as far as they wanted but that an individual could only make a claim going back 4 years. You have to keep your records for 6 years and therefore for people who are asking to prove things beyond 6 years it could be next to impossible, so it's perhaps better to keep everything or destroy everything depending on your point of view.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Oct 2008)

Bronte said:


> I always thought Revenue could go back as far as they wanted but that an individual could only make a claim going back 4 years. You have to keep your records for 6 years and therefore for people who are asking to prove things beyond 6 years it could be next to impossible, so it's perhaps better to keep everything or destroy everything depending on your point of view.



Many people who were implicated in recent years in the various Revenue arrears investigations found to their cost that they no longer had their business records dating back to the 1970s & 1980s. 

Some among the minority who did retain their records were able to successfully fight the Revenue's "guilt by association" hypotheses, unfortunately at least some others ended up having to pay large settlements in relation to monies that they had already paid tax on 20 or 30 years ago.

The lessons for today's taxpayers are obvious...


----------



## agoose (8 Oct 2008)

_
_



> "Four-year rule
> As you are aware, a taxpayer is only entitled to make a claim for a refund of tax within four years of the end of the chargeable period to which the claim relates. Revenue Inspectors are subject to a four-year time limit for investigating claims made however there is no time limit in cases of suspected fraud or neglect. This effectively gives Revenue an open-ended period in which to make enquiries as to a taxpayer’s return."


Seems very unfair and dare I say, typically Irish-One law for one and a different one for the other. By the way the time limit on refunds was ten years until a few years ago.

Try and get your money from a debtor should it go over 6 years - the law will support them fully.

Why doesn't anyone challenge these acts/laws (if they are indeed law?), which seem to be passed at the Governments whim and with a 'put up and shut up' attitude?
Did you know that Germany has its own taxation court, which allows citizens to challenge tax laws etc?

By the way more revenue advantageous 'law'/whatever:



> Where a taxpayer fails to pay the correct amount of tax to Revenue the rate of interest levied on overdue tax is 0.0273% per day or approximately 10% per annum. Where a taxpayer overpays tax to Revenue interest of 0.011% per day is paid to the taxpayer, which approximates to 4% per annum. In addition, where the overpayment cannot be said to be as a result of the misapplication of the law by Revenue, the interest only runs from the day 6 months after a valid claim for the refund has been filed with Revenue.


----------



## ubiquitous (8 Oct 2008)

agoose said:


> Why doesn't anyone challenge these acts/laws (if they are indeed law?), which seem to be passed at the Governments whim and with a 'put up and shut up' attitude?



Because its not worth anyone's time mounting a constitutional challenge to the legislation and risking hundreds of thousands of euro in legal fees in so doing.

Btw, I'm amazed that no political party seems to have made an issue of the "4 year rule" and promised to get rid of it if or when they are elected to government.


----------



## Slash (8 Oct 2008)

agoose said:


> Did you know that Germany has its own taxation court, which allows citizens to challenge tax laws etc?



And here in Ireland we have the Appeal Commissioners, where it is possible to get a positive result:

Sunday Business Post, September 2000: 
"Almost 16 months ago Appeal Commissioner Ronan Kelly sensationally dismissed a tax assessment of more than £1 million against former Taoiseach Charles Haughey. 
The ruling, which reduced the tax bill to nil, was hugely controversial, leading to attacks on the Taoiseach in the Dail by opposition deputies. Kelly is a brother in law of Bertie Ahern, but the Taoiseach denied any involvement in the case."

Also, if you are not satisifed with the service provided by Revenue you can make a complaint to the Ombudsman, or you can contest laws in the courts.


----------



## ubiquitous (8 Oct 2008)

Ominously, the vast majority of Appeal Commissioners' cases are never published.


----------



## Towger (8 Oct 2008)

Umm the Appeal Commissioner...

Here is a interesting link on the case : [broken link removed]

There is a marvellous televisual record of the reaction of his cabinet colleagues on the morning the news broke that his old mentor, Charles Haughey, had won his tax *appeal* to the Appeals *Commissioners*. John Bruton was first up and the Taoiseach stalled. The same for Ruairi Quinn.

I was next and I asked him if it was the case that the Appeals Commissioner was his *brother*-in-*law* and did he think it appropriate that the tax affairs of a former Fianna Fáil leader should be the subject of adjudication by the *brother*-in-*law* of the current Fianna Fáil Leader. The television record shows his entire front bench swivelling open mouthed towards him for his reply. He hadn’t told them.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Oct 2008)

Only _Pat Rabbitte _could use a term like "televisual record".


----------

