# How many Revenue officials are zealots



## Gordon Gekko (8 Apr 2020)

It’s a long-time since I did a corporation tax return, but my sense is that Revenue are talking rubbish here. The procedure was always to check the recipients; if they had a CHY Number, you’d give a tax deduction, and if they didn’t, you wouldn’t. There was never any question of deeming a bona fide donation to be BIK. I’d stick to your guns, which to be fair is what your accountant is suggesting. There are some good people in Revenue but unfortunately they don’t tend to interact with most taxpayers. Instead what you get are fundamentalist zealots who mistake their job for collecting as much tax as possible rather than the correct amount of tax.


----------



## torblednam (8 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> There are some good people in Revenue but unfortunately they don’t tend to interact with most taxpayers. Instead what you get are fundamentalist zealots who mistake their job for collecting as much tax as possible rather than the correct amount of tax.



Interesting. What proportion of Revenue’s compliance staff do you reckon are fundamentalist zealots? Is this a new / recent / trending phenomenon, or was it ever thus? Heartening to know that there are some good ones, out of 7,000 odd staff.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (8 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> Interesting. What proportion of Revenue’s compliance staff do you reckon are fundamentalist zealots? Is this a new / recent / trending phenomenon, or was it ever thus? Heartening to know that there are some good ones, out of 7,000 odd staff.



Ask yourself, what kind of person chooses to work there? For the ones answering the phones, why are they still doing that if they’re any good? I’ve met many over the years and maybe 1 in 10 has been in any way impressive; they recruited some good people who were at Director level in the Big 4 post the Global Financial Crisis after they were let go and that helped somewhat but even those people were beaten up to a degree by the bureaucracy and inefficiency of the place. 

e.g. “torblednam, why are you processing so many files per day? You’re making your colleagues look bad.”

But the biggest issue that I’ve seen over the years is that fundamentalist tendency; they mistake their job for collecting as much tax as possible when it’s is actually to collect precisely the correct amount of tax.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> they mistake their job for collecting as much tax as possible when it’s is actually to collect precisely the correct amount of tax.



But Gordon

In the example from which I moved your comment, the guys are collecting the right amount of tax.

You think that the tax law should be changed. I disagree with you. 

Your zealotry is my diligence. 

Brendan


----------



## fistophobia (8 Apr 2020)

I have a certain pleasure in knowing, they will not be collecting much in the way of CGT, or exit tax from Ucits funds.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (8 Apr 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> But Gordon
> 
> In the example from which I moved your comment, the guys are collecting the right amount of tax.
> 
> ...



But they’re not Brendan. They’re recharacterising a donation by a corporate to a charity as a taxable benefit in kind and looking for circa 50% income tax from a director/owner. There’s no statutory basis for them to do that. The fact that the charity isn’t CHY Revenue approved just means that the company is denied its corporation tax deduction, i.e. no tax break.


----------



## Sarenco (8 Apr 2020)

fistophobia said:


> I have a certain pleasure in knowing, they will not be collecting much in the way of CGT, or exit tax from Ucits funds.


Why so? 

I'm sure there are plenty of investors that are cashing out their positions at the moment.  Bear in mind that equities are still well ahead of where they were five years ago.

My personal experience with any Revenue employee that I have ever come into contact with has always been very positive.  Maybe I've been lucky but I've always been met with courtesy and professionalism.


----------



## Purple (8 Apr 2020)

I have only ever had positive experiences with Revenue. They, along with the passport Office, stand out from the crowd.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (8 Apr 2020)

Sarenco said:


> Why so?
> 
> I'm sure there are plenty of investors that are cashing out their positions at the moment.  Bear in mind that equities are still well ahead of where they were five years ago.
> 
> My personal experience with any Revenue employee that I have ever come into contact with has always been very positive.  Maybe I've been lucky but I've always been met with courtesy and professionalism.



The people in Large Cases Division tend to be a cut above the rest


----------



## Brendan Burgess (8 Apr 2020)

I have had mixed experience. 

The higher up you go, the better they are - the opposite to how our banks operate. 

Brendan


----------



## torblednam (8 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Ask yourself, what kind of person chooses to work there?


I frequently do Gordon, pretty much daily 



Gordon Gekko said:


> For the ones answering the phones, why are they still doing that if they’re any good?


 I'd take the view that Revenue, no different to any other large bureaucratic / hierarchical employer in the private or public sector is a microcosm of the workforce as a whole; in a lot of cases people find their level, some bide their time and avail of family friendly working arrangements, some hugely capable people lack ambition to progress. So, all sorts of reasons - I think it's preposterous to suggest / assume that anyone answering the phones, in Revenue or anywhere else, aren't "any good". It kinda smacks of snobbery to be honest.

Due to the demographics of Revenue, they are recruiting substantial numbers of new staff on an ongoing basis - over 150 new clerical officers (phone answerers in your parlance) in the first quarter of this year alone - this was why I was interested to see if the "zealots" assertion was a longstanding view or something emergent since, to use an Only Fools & Horses analogy, Trigger's sweeping brush has had much of both the handle and the head replaced in the last 5 - 10 years...

They must do a great job of indoctrinating / brainwashing all of the newbies, don't you think, credit where credit's due etc...?!



Gordon Gekko said:


> I’ve met many over the years and maybe 1 in 10 has been in any way impressive; they recruited some good people who were at Director level in the Big 4 post the Global Financial Crisis after they were let go and that helped somewhat but even those people were beaten up to a degree by the bureaucracy and inefficiency of the place.


Anyone coming from Director level in Big 4 would be joining Revenue at Assistant Principal or more likely Principal Officer level, so you are talking about a very small number of people there.

At that level there is absolutely no question of this happening:


Gordon Gekko said:


> e.g. “torblednam, why are you processing so many files per day? You’re making your colleagues look bad.”


No different than any other large organisation, people are generally quite ambitious and competitive at that level. This comment actually demonstrates your lack of understanding of the realities for people operating in the most senior grades.

Interestingly, Revenue has hired a good number of staff, at the junior / mid management levels with Big 4, Top 20 and small / mid-tier practice experience and accounting and/or tax qualifications that they garnered there. These must make up at least some of the 90% of spacewasters that you have encountered... so it makes for an interesting corollary of your assertion - since these make up the cohort of Revenue's compliance staff - what proportion of the people gaining accounting / tax exams in the private sector aren't any good...? 



Gordon Gekko said:


> But the biggest issue that I’ve seen over the years is that fundamentalist tendency; they mistake their job for collecting as much tax as possible when it’s is actually to collect precisely the correct amount of tax.


 This is very interesting, since there are very accessible complaint and review procedures for people aggrieved by their dealings with Revenue. Have you availed of these in relation to any / many of the zealots down through the years?


----------



## rob oyle (8 Apr 2020)

Purple said:


> They, along with the passport Office, stand out from the crowd.


The ONLINE passport office? As in, applications in recent years?
Before that I found the passport service to be pretty poor in the greater scheme of things.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (8 Apr 2020)

torblednam, thank you for your response. My comments are not directed at you. However, I stand by my comments regarding the organisation. Its role is to collect the correct amount of tax, yet in reality it is closer to Alex Ferguson referring his opponents’ games.


----------



## torblednam (8 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> torblednam, thank you for your response. My comments are not directed at you. However, I stand by my comments regarding the organisation. Its role is to collect the correct amount of tax, yet in reality it is closer to Alex Ferguson referring his opponents’ games.



The Mission Statement of Revenue is:
'To serve the community by fairly and efficiently collecting taxes and duties and implementing Customs controls.'

Any zealot or fundamentalist, starting with that as their Book of Genesis, would struggle to translate that into screw everyone for as much as you can, or whatever it is exactly that you perceive the attitude to be.

I'd be quite confident that nobody at a senior level of Revenue has any desire to collect tax that isn't due. Particularly since there is both an internal audit function (and I'm sure you don't need telling, if you're looking for zealots in any large organisation you'll know that's a good place to start) and the spectre of the C&AG audit looming large every year, and Revenue top brass are quite unlikely to harbour a desire to find themselves under the gaze of the PAC to explain unjustifiable policies. I expect any senior Revenue official speaking freely would in all likelihood say they have enough on their plate trying to collect and / or find the tax that is due, without looking for tax that isn't due.

The foregoing is just basic common sense, although I suppose you might say that common sense considerations won't be high on the agenda of a zealot..!

Anyway, I digress; I thought your problem was with zealotry you encounter at the individual level - are you saying that you believe it is a cultural thing, at organisational level, then? Not written down obviously (unless it's somewhere in the FOI exempted bits of the Revenue manuals), but somehow transmitted by osmosis, or some kind of groupthink, amongst individuals in the organisation?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (8 Apr 2020)

Paper does not refuse ink. Missions statements are hardly reality.


----------



## torblednam (8 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Paper does not refuse ink. Missions statements are hardly reality.


Can you address the thing in any substantive way?

It is an organisational level thing, or it's not? It is a policy level thing, or it's not?

You're the one who asserted "Instead what you get are fundamentalist zealots who mistake their job for collecting as much tax as possible rather than the correct amount of tax" and then doubled down that this is 90% of Revenue staff, in your experience. _Qui dicit_, _non qui negat. _


----------



## Gordon Gekko (8 Apr 2020)

I believe it’s a cultural thing right from the top of the organisation.

Look, I’m entitled to my view, as are you.


----------



## torblednam (8 Apr 2020)

Sure thing, we'll agree to differ.


----------



## Purple (9 Apr 2020)

rob oyle said:


> The ONLINE passport office? As in, applications in recent years?
> Before that I found the passport service to be pretty poor in the greater scheme of things.


I always found them good. The queues were due to people (like me on occasion) not getting their act together. In recent years if you need to go into the passport office you book a 10 or 15 minute slot online. You turn up, do what you need to do, and leave. No queues at all.


----------



## Leper (9 Apr 2020)

Every organisation has zealots, dossers and normal hard working people and Revenue is no exception. If Revenue didn't do its job and chase the odd person or two, it wouldn't be doing its job. The fear I have is that Revenue can "chase" easy targets instead of real targets.

I bet some people working in Revenue can see zealots in action every week. From what happened in other government agencies potential whistleblowers probably would remain quiet and so the zealots can drive on unhindered until some innocent victim takes his/her case to the Revenue Appeals Process. This can take up to two years to resolve. But, I reckon most such cases are resolved before the appeal is heard.

If we can source figures of the appeal process (i.e. those which run full course and those settled within the procedure) perhaps then the zealots can be weeded out?


----------



## torblednam (9 Apr 2020)

Leper said:


> Every organisation has zealots, dossers and normal hard working people and Revenue is no exception. If Revenue didn't do its job and chase the odd person or two, it wouldn't be doing its job. The fear I have is that Revenue can "chase" easy targets instead of real targets.
> 
> I bet some people working in Revenue can see zealots in action every week. From what happened in other government agencies potential whistleblowers probably would remain quiet and so the zealots can drive on unhindered until some innocent victim takes his/her case to the Revenue Appeals Process. This can take up to two years to resolve. But, I reckon most such cases are resolved before the appeal is heard.
> 
> If we can source figures of the appeal process (i.e. those which run full course and those settled within the procedure) perhaps then the zealots can be weeded out?



I’m not sure what kind of innocent victim you’re envisaging, can you clarify what exactly you have in mind? How do you distinguish an easy target from a real target?

But certainly, you’d expect a tax official who wastes not just their own time, but their superiors’ too - by raising unwarranted assessments and causing a resource intensive appeal process (which is in effect civil litigation) to commence - would get their wings clipped very quickly. Unless you subscribe to Gordon’s school of thought where it’s a hive mind and they’re all out to get everyone.

In relation to appeals; a very high proportion of appeals are settled before hearing, for a variety of reasons, no different than with any form of litigation.

As an example, back in the early / mid 2000’s at least one lecturer for a body providing a recognised professional tax qualification, when lecturing a class would check whether there were any Revenue staff in it. If not, they would impart certain tricks of the trade - like not settling a Revenue audit even though you can see the writing on the wall, and then appealing any/every tax assessment as a negotiating tactic, as you’ll get a better deal because Revenue “don’t like” going in front of the appeal commissioners. That kind of carry on will definitely skew the figures.

There will also be some proportion of cases where Revenue withdraw because of some perceived weakness in their case. One typical example being where a person chose not to engage properly with an enquiry, resulting in an estimated assessment having to be made, or a tax relief denied, and only in the course of appealing do they produce information/evidence that clarifies things and allows the matter to be resolved.
There’s also lots of cases where both parties reach a compromise settlement to avoid the uncertainty of litigating the issues.

If you’ve an interest in it, the Tax Appeals Commission publishes an Annual Report with facts & figures in it. Curiously, they don’t (in the 2018 report anyway) indicate how many appeals were upheld and how many were determined in Revenue’s favour. Historically I’ve a figure in my head that 70%-80% of cases determined by the Appeal Commissioners are/were in Revenue’s favour, but I don’t know where I got it from.


----------



## Leper (9 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> I’m not sure what kind of innocent victim you’re envisaging, can you clarify what exactly you have in mind? How do you distinguish an easy target from a real target?
> 
> But certainly, you’d expect a tax official who wastes not just their own time, but their superiors’ too - by raising unwarranted assessments and causing a resource intensive appeal process (which is in effect civil litigation) to commence - would get their wings clipped very quickly. Unless you subscribe to Gordon’s school of thought where it’s a hive mind and they’re all out to get everyone.
> 
> ...



1. I am not questioning your bona fide performance in Revenue. From what I read on the forum I believe you are a good state employee and conduct your work in a professional manner. 

2. Then there's the zealot, a rat in a self imposed rat race. He believes he is the conscience of Ireland Ltd and makes it a must to collect as much revenue as possible whether it is warranted or not. His performance is self promoting and I don't believe his superiors would always stand in his way. It is better to be in a better performing section than an under-performing section so zealots escape the net. Take internal promotion as an example - what chance would anybody have against a zealot. Zealots by their nature tend to dismiss everybody else. We'll never know, but how many zealots drove their victims over the cliff?

3. The fact a very high proportion of appeals are settled before hearing indicates there is something dreadfully wrong at the first point of contact with the taxpayer.

4. In the appeals process Revenue withdraws because of perceived weaknesses. This alone indicates that some in Revenue are more aggressive than needs be.

5. I must applaud your honesty and transparency. But, I believe you are a lighthouse in a dark place where much of your light is ignored.


----------



## torblednam (9 Apr 2020)

Leper said:


> 1. I am not questioning your bona fide performance in Revenue. From what I read on the forum I believe you are a good state employee and conduct your work in a professional manner.



Whoa and stall the wagon. I’m not saying where I work, I’m an individual with opinions, the same as any other.

In the anonymous world of the internet I could be one of Putin’s sophisticated bots, a teenager with time on my hands, or a crazy cat lady in a bedsit in Bolton.

Whoever I am, I profess to know stuff about tax here. Other people are free to theorise, but I’m not presenting or representing anyone’s views other than my own personal and anonymous ones.


----------



## RedOnion (9 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> In the anonymous world of the internet I could be one of Putin’s sophisticated bots, a teenager with time on my hands, or a crazy cat lady in a bedsit in Bolton.


My money is on the crazy cat lady! Adding location is too specific.


----------



## torblednam (9 Apr 2020)

RedOnion said:


> My money is on the crazy cat lady! Adding location is too specific.



I absolutely adore alliteration though...


----------



## elacsaplau (9 Apr 2020)

If that was true, and frankly, I have my serious and sincere suspicions, you could simply have said some brutal, brittle and bulimic lady from a bedsit in the back of beyonds or something.


----------



## Bronte (9 Apr 2020)

I know of revenue being bullies, of them giving incorrect information, of them overstepping during audits.  Most of them aren't like that.  Most of them are pretty decent. 

BTW the phone contact, that's not actually revenue. That's a crowd down in Cork the same people do I think Irish water phone queries etc. A call center.  Starts with A but I forget the name.


----------



## Bronte (9 Apr 2020)

Leper said:


> 5. I must applaud your honesty and transparency. But, I believe you are a lighthouse in a dark place where much of your light is ignored.



Mandelbrot is that, but he has been pretty much a zealot on here on certain issues. eg NPPR, and he will never ever acknowledge any shortcomings in Revenue staff.

No insult intended just so there is no misunderstanding as I think he's a great poster.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Apr 2020)

Bronte said:


> Mandelbrot is that, but he has been pretty much a zealot on here on certain issues. eg NPPR



Were the fines for non payment of NPPR set by the Government of the time? 

Or was it the Revenue who decided what the fines should be? 

Brendan


----------



## torblednam (9 Apr 2020)

Bronte said:


> BTW the phone contact, that's not actually revenue. That's a crowd down in Cork the same people do I think Irish water phone queries etc. A call center.  Starts with A but I forget the name.



Abtran. And that’s specifically for the LPT helpline.








						Outsourcing firm Abtran receives nearly €2m in fees from Revenue
					

Firm operates helpline for State’s local property tax




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## torblednam (9 Apr 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Were the fines for non payment of NPPR set by the Government of the time?
> 
> Or was it the Revenue who decided what the fines should be?
> 
> Brendan



The issue that Bronte is admonishing me for my zealotry on, was not the fines Brendan, but the tax treatment of the €200, as to whether it was deductible from rental income.

That was a fun debate!

Edited to add:
The zealots did actually win the argument, by the way: https://www.irishtimes.com/business...e-wins-appeal-on-second-home-charge-1.3261923
Are you still a zealot, when you're just correct?


----------



## torblednam (9 Apr 2020)

Bronte said:


> Mandelbrot is that, but he has been pretty much a zealot on here on certain issues. eg NPPR, and he will never ever acknowledge any shortcomings in Revenue staff.



It’s not as simple as that. I’m pretty sure my previous posts would be along the lines that if viewed objectively Revenue is no worse than, and probably better than, most other similar sized organisations in its Governance and the general conduct of its personnel.

There’s always room for improvement, but I’m always likely to pop up if someone’s making a sweeping generalisation about 9 out of 10 this that or t’other, without something evidential to support it. Just for balance like!


----------



## elacsaplau (9 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> Are you still a zealot, when you're just correct?



Of bloody course, dems the worst kind!


----------



## Bronte (9 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> Abtran. And that’s specifically for the LPT helpline.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's them. They can't actually properly deal with you and hand you over to revenue.  Revenue are still sending me letters about LPT on my late mother's estate, I rang them up to sort it out and got someone thick so I told them they can keep sending me the letters forever.  I just bin the reminders.  I do the same too with Ulsterbank's letters about my address.  Something about being abroad and proving it.  I find as I'm getting older I'm getting thicker myself about dealing with stuff I'm not of a mind to.  

The worst I ever dealt with was Irish water. They told me to go read the legislation.  So I paid nothing.  And for my late mother they sent me a refund which I thought was hilarious.  Might as well go the whole hog now. Leo hates the fact I've never paid the BER.  Waste of good money to tell me the hotwater tank needs a lagging jacket.


----------



## Bronte (9 Apr 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Were the fines for non payment of NPPR set by the Government of the time?
> 
> Or was it the Revenue who decided what the fines should be?
> 
> Brendan


Government. It gave Moan to Joe and others oddles of air time. I felt sorry for people who genuinely didn't know about it.  Particularly people abroad like me.  It was an outragous fine.  It's now linked to LPT. Actually LPT is a very efficient part of Revenue.ie.


----------



## Bronte (9 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> It’s not as simple as that. I’m pretty sure my previous posts would be along the lines that if viewed objectively Revenue is no worse than, and probably better than, most other similar sized organisations in its Governance and the general conduct of its personnel.
> 
> There’s always room for improvement, but I’m always likely to pop up if someone’s making a sweeping generalisation about 9 out of 10 this that or t’other, without something evidential to support it. Just for balance like!


There is nothing worse than banks.  I put revenue streets ahead of them.  My last visit to a bank in Ireland about a year ago was to a young one who was as rude as could possible be. I asked her to print out something for me with my address on it to pop over to the credit union to prove my address to and she said they don't print anything.  And you're supposed to conduct you business standing up with other people listening.  They also dress like they were going to the pub.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (9 Apr 2020)

I've never paid tax anywhere else so lack a benchmark, but.............my occasional dealings with DEASP have been much more pleasing.

Forms are much more intuitive and obvious, things are explained clearly on their website, it's pretty obvious if you're entitled or not. There is no odd reference to paper concepts like Form 11 and Form 12 when you are filing online, etc.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Apr 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Forms are much more intuitive and obvious, things are explained clearly on their website, it's pretty obvious if you're entitled or not.



But is that not because the underlying issues are much simpler? 

Tax is complicated.  The forms are going to be difficult. 

Revenue staff, especially at a junior level, are going to make mistakes. 

Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (9 Apr 2020)

@Brendan Burgess 

Income tax for most people is not that complicated. When there is complexity Revenue are deliberately vague, for example on what landlords can and cannot claim as expenses.

Eligibility for welfare schemes like carers is complicated but DEASP make a good fist of explaining it clearly.


----------



## Mrs Vimes (9 Apr 2020)

At the risk of sounding like a complete snob I would presume that DEASP are more used than Revenue to dealing with people who are likely to be in lower skilled and more precarious employment and therefore have mastered the art of plain forms.


----------



## torblednam (9 Apr 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> @Brendan Burgess
> 
> Income tax for most people is not that complicated. When there is complexity Revenue are deliberately vague, for example on what landlords can and cannot claim as expenses.
> 
> Eligibility for welfare schemes like carers is complicated but DEASP make a good fist of explaining it clearly.



When there is complexity in relation to an income tax issue it's because the legislation needs interpretation. Tax law is full of things that are based on legal principles - a prime example in the context of rental income, is the issue of capital versus revenue expense. There is no simple, quick and easy way to explain that topic fully. There is a still-evolving body of case law, and the circumstances of a case will be relevant. We've had a couple of great threads here, about when certain works are a repair versus enhancement of a property and no consensus could be reached!

The Welfare system and the schemes within it are to my understanding much more codified, rules based rather than principles based, and therefore a direct comparison to the tax system is a bit apples & oranges.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (10 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> When there is complexity in relation to an income tax issue it's because the legislation needs interpretation. Tax law is full of things that are based on legal principles - a prime example in the context of rental income, is the issue of capital versus revenue expense. There is no simple, quick and easy way to explain that topic fully.



And yet I can go online to find the rate of VAT chargeble on someting as obscure as an ostomy belt. 

Revenue are deliberately vague because in a self-assessed system they want taxpayers to err on the side of caution and pay more.

Why shouldn't guidance on income tax be as clear as VAT? I'm not expecting a good answer.......


----------



## torblednam (10 Apr 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> And yet I can go online to find the rate of VAT chargeble on someting as obscure as an ostomy belt.
> 
> Revenue are deliberately vague because in a self-assessed system they want taxpayers to err on the side of caution and pay more.
> 
> Why shouldn't guidance on income tax be as clear as VAT? I'm not expecting a good answer.......



You’re trying to pick the exception to prove your point but it actually doesn’t!

VAT is a European tax, a construct of the EC / EEC / EU which only exists since the 1950’s, I think. Individual member states are required to transpose / reflect the EU VAT directive into their own national VAT legislation, so it only exists as a tax in Ireland since 1972. Therefore it comes with much less historical context / baggage, case law hanging out of it for starters. 

It is also an indirect tax, versus income tax being a direct tax and therefore not really comparable, apples and oranges again.

You’re using rates of tax to make your point - are you asserting that there is ambiguity / lack of clarity as to the rates of income tax? If not, that’s clearly a flawed argument, and if your argument is predicated on lack of clarity around deductions / deductibility, you’ve definitely backed the wrong horse picking VAT!

Why? Because of the fact that there is a constant stream of emergent case law in VAT, as to what is or isn’t deductible. Much more so than in relation to income tax (although that’s more likely a feature of the relative novelty of VAT). It is notoriously complicated as a tax head / area of practice, despite your perception of “clarity”. Even what you used as your case in point, the relatively straightforward area of rates sees regular confusion - esoteric issues, like whether a Jaffa cake is a cake or a biscuit (for VAT purposes) regularly have to be considered by the European courts, and sometimes result in changes to national legislation and/or the VAT Directive as they’re found not to operate as intended.


----------



## Sophrosyne (10 Apr 2020)

I’m surprized that people manning customer service telephone lines are coming in for a hammering. They perform a necessary function for people who do not have a tax agent.

They deal with volume rather than complexity.

Surely a competent tax practitioner would not be dependent on a customer service telephone service for assistance in a complex area of taxation.

There is the legislation, Notes for Guidance on legislation, Tax Briefings, EBriefs, case law, a technical services section, the Tax Administration Liaison Committee (TALC) the Appeals processes, etc, all available to practitioners in addition to the expertise within their own firms.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (10 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> You’re using rates of tax to make your point - are you asserting that there is ambiguity / lack of clarity as to the rates of income tax?



No.

Otherwise I am glad you went off on the educational tangent about VAT being an EU tax. As you know, Revenue are obliged to be so specific about VAT because otherwise they would be in breach of EU directives - and in court in Luxembourg!

Anyway here is an 83-post thread where intelligent people are disagreeing whether bathroom repairs can be claimed as an expense when declaring rental income. This is because the Revenue guidance is so vague!

I have no doubt that this is 100% deliberate in Revenue's part, so that staff making an interpretation will never be wrong. I've spent enough time in large organisations to know that stuff like this is not an accident.


----------



## torblednam (10 Apr 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> No.
> 
> Otherwise I am glad you went off on the educational tangent about VAT being an EU tax. As you know, Revenue are obliged to be so specific about VAT because otherwise they would be in breach of EU directives - and in court in Luxembourg!



I think you’ve missed the point here. You’ve acknowledged that Revenue provide equally clear guidance on rates of income tax, as they do VAT rates. And as you point out, it’s done without the spectre of Europe hanging over them.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Anyway here is an 83-post thread where intelligent people are disagreeing whether bathroom repairs can be claimed as an expense when declaring rental income. This is because the Revenue guidance is so vague!



That thread was great craic, and thank you for acknowledging my intelligence!  Seriously though, the existence of that thread actually proves my point, not yours, indeed I had a reference to it in my previous post, which I ultimately dropped in the interest of brevity. There is relevant equivalent UK legislation, case law, and guidance aplenty from HMRC, and still the debates continue. As long as you don’t have a piece of legislation which covers chapter and verse in a rules based way, then the principle has to be applied to the circumstances / facts of each case. That’s the reality, and no amount of guidance from Revenue can fix it.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I have no doubt that this is 100% deliberate in Revenue's part, so that staff making an interpretation will never be wrong. I've spent enough time in large organisations to know that stuff like this is not an accident.



Revenue staff would surely love more guidance too, don’t you think, as it’s a rare bird that relishes going to primary legislation, reading it and trying to apply it to the facts of a case(s).

Can you specifically lay out an example of where guidance is inadequate and state what specifically the deficiency in the existing guidance is? I’m sure valid examples do exist, nobody’s perfect, but the point is that Revenues tax & duty manuals - which are the sum total of what is provided to their own staff as the means of applying the legislation - are available for everyone to see and use. A small amount of the content is FOI exempted, but as I understand it that’s operational considerations etc., not stuff that the punter needs to see to apply the legislation. So it’s a level playing field, the taxpayer knows what the taxman does.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (10 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> You’ve acknowledged that Revenue *provide equally clear guidance* on rates of income tax, as they do VAT rates.



I said the complete opposite. Good night!


----------



## Sophrosyne (10 Apr 2020)

But is this an area in which precision is possible or even desirable?

It is rather like the contract of or for services debate.

In the Supreme Court case of _Henry Denny & Sons v Minister for Social Welfare_ in relation to contract and relationship of employment, Keane J referred to the English decision of Market Investigations v Minister of Social Security, where Cooke J noted that it was likely that no exhaustive list could be compiled of considerations which are relevant in determining the question of whether a person is, or is not, on business on his or her own account and nor could strict rules be laid down as to the relative weight which the various considerations should carry in particular cases.


----------



## torblednam (10 Apr 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I said the complete opposite. Good night!



You need to edit your post then.

You quoted me asking this question:
_“You’re using rates of tax to make your point - are you asserting that there is ambiguity / lack of clarity as to the rates of income tax?”_

And your response was NO. Which can only mean you’re NOT asserting..... (what I asked you)...??


Edit:
Ah ok I have spotted the poor use of language in my question. Apologies! I meant lack of clarity in Revenue guidance but that’s not what I asked!!


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (10 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> Edit:
> Ah ok I have spotted the poor use of language in my question. Apologies! I meant lack of clarity in Revenue guidance but that’s not what I asked!!



Apology accepted. I hope you read my tax return as carefully

I have the height of respect for Revenue officials doing their job. As a cadre they are generally a more professional bunch than other parts of the civil service, in my experience.

But lack of clear guidance on this topic is a real pity. It's a deliberate choice by management and really should be fixed.



Sophrosyne said:


> But is this an area in which precision is possible or even desirable?



As I asked, if precision is impossible then why is there so much provided for VAT?


----------



## Sophrosyne (10 Apr 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> As I asked, if precision is impossible then why is there so much provided for VAT?



@torblednam has already explained that.

Perhaps you have not yet encountered interpretive difficulties with this tax.


----------



## torblednam (10 Apr 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> But lack of clear guidance on this topic is a real pity. It's a deliberate choice by management and really should be fixed.



What topic?!


----------



## Bronte (11 Apr 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> No.
> 
> Otherwise I am glad you went off on the educational tangent about VAT being an EU tax. As you know, Revenue are obliged to be so specific about VAT because otherwise they would be in breach of EU directives - and in court in Luxembourg!
> 
> ...


That’s not the only thread on the subject. Over the years on here we constantly have landlords trying to figure it out. The reason. It’s not at all clear. Why. Because Revenue deliberately do not put up a list of what or is not deductible.

My own accountant, who is excellent, I seek guidance from. If it were clear , as an experienced landlord, who has done my own tax returns, and in a previous life negotiated with revenue for clients, I can tell you it is not easy, wouldn’t have to ask my accountant about certain purchases or works,


----------



## Bronte (11 Apr 2020)

Sophrosyne said:


> @torblednam has already explained that.
> 
> Perhaps you have not yet encountered interpretive difficulties with this tax.


What is difficult about revenue making it clear. What Mandelbrot has done is given us an essay on interpretation of laws in order to avoid acknowledging that revenue  have deliberately left their list on deductions short and vague so that we landlords and our accountants are not 100% certain.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (11 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> What topic?!



The topic of what and what is not deductible as an expense for landlords. 



Sophrosyne said:


> @torblednam has already explained that.
> 
> Perhaps you have not yet encountered interpretive difficulties with this tax.



There are interpretive difficulties with every tax and I don't expect Revenue guidance to be *utterly exhaustive*. My point is that Revenue *provide much more specific guidance* on VAT rates than on what can and cannot be claimed by landlords as a deduction for income tax. There are many AAM threads on this topic btw, very few on VAT.

It doesn't help that the Tax Appeals Commission makes its rulings so difficult to search as well. Not Revenue's fault of course.

I am not being disingenuous here, and apologies if I am not 100% clear. I've said enough and will bow out.


----------



## torblednam (11 Apr 2020)

Bronte said:


> What is difficult about revenue making it clear. What Mandelbrot has done is given us an essay on interpretation of laws in order to avoid acknowledging that revenue  have deliberately left their list on deductions short and vague so that we landlords and our accountants are not 100% certain.



Revenue are in the EXACT same position as the landlord and agent Bronte, that’s my point!

There’s legislation, and it has to be applied to the facts of every case. Repairs are deductible, that’s what the legislation says. Capital expenditure is not, that’s what the legislation says. Things are deductible, or not, by operation of law, not because Revenue say so, or say not.

If there’s an asymmetry, it probably tilts in the taxpayer’s favour, since they are the one that is in possession of all the facts of their own circumstances in the first instance. e.g. if asked about a repair cost, they probably have fairly broad scope to describe the work that was done without fear of being challenged, as invoices are often quite vague.

If someone (or their accountant), is filing their return, and they’re having to interpret the legislation because the published guidance is unclear, then they can note the fact on their return under “Expression of Doubt” which protects them from penalties in the event that their interpretation is found not to be correct.


----------



## Bronte (12 Apr 2020)

Revenue are NOT in the exact same position as a landlord or agent. They have endless finance, extraordinary powers and access to the best experts.

They also can ‘change their minds’ on ‘interpretation’ of tax laws.


----------



## Leper (12 Apr 2020)

Bronte said:


> Revenue are NOT in the exact same position as a landlord or agent. They have endless finance, extraordinary powers and access to the best experts.
> 
> They also can ‘change their minds’ on ‘interpretation’ of tax laws.



. . . . . .  and mismanage all taxpayers money in the process.


----------



## torblednam (12 Apr 2020)

Bronte said:


> Revenue are NOT in the exact same position as a landlord or agent. They have endless finance, extraordinary powers and access to the best experts.
> 
> They also can ‘change their minds’ on ‘interpretation’ of tax laws.



Revenue don’t really have endless finance or resources; regular staff - the ones who actually interact with taxpayers & agents -would have to make a business case for access to solicitor / counsel. Remember, the context of this thread, is about whether individuals in Revenue are zealots or not. Well the individual zealot needs to have a couple of layers of similar zeal above them, to actually get support for whatever agenda / interpretation they’re pushing.

It’s interesting to see you say they have access to the best experts - if Gordon is to be believed the best are out in the private sector.

I’m not sure why “change their minds” and “interpretation” are referred to like that - do you actually mean something else there?

Taking the words at face value, of course there are times where an interpretation changes, due to issues that are highlighted, either through determinations by the appeal commissioners or the courts here, or developments in case law elsewhere. Or perhaps sometimes because somebody draws attention to a problem with a current interpretation. Surely that’s common sense?


----------



## torblednam (12 Apr 2020)

Leper said:


> . . . . . .  and mismanage all taxpayers money in the process.



Not sure what you’re getting at there Leper, have you something in particular in mind?


----------



## Leper (12 Apr 2020)

torblednam said:


> Not sure what you’re getting at there Leper, have you something in particular in mind?


Yes and I don't wish to go there publicly.


----------



## Deiseblue (12 Apr 2020)

Is the correct snswer to the query raised in the thread title - not enough ?
Given the level of tax non compliance as evidenced by the Revenue quarterly defaulters list and the continuing scandal surrounding non resident accounts perhaps a cadre of zealots is required.
The Order of righteous tax gatherers perhaps ?


----------



## Purple (16 Apr 2020)

Deiseblue said:


> Is the correct snswer to the query raised in the thread title - not enough ?
> Given the level of tax non compliance as evidenced by the Revenue quarterly defaulters list and the continuing scandal surrounding non resident accounts perhaps a cadre of zealots is required.
> The Order of righteous tax gatherers perhaps ?


I think the accusation is that they go after the easy targets rather than the major tax cheats.


----------



## cremeegg (16 Apr 2020)

Sophrosyne said:


> I’m surprized that people manning customer service telephone lines are coming in for a hammering.



Just to add my tuppence to the well justified hammering.

People staffing customer care lines are often unable to deal with my queries. "If it was simple I wouldn't have needed to call you" " thanks for spending 15 minutes investigating the problem and finding out that it is as I explained at the start" "So you have no suggestion as to how we move forward" These are the things that go through my head, I usually stay polite.

Its not my fault that they are unable to do their job, I don't care if the reason is because they are undertrained or under resourced, they are the public face of their organisation and take a wage for that.

And then there is Eircom


----------



## cremeegg (16 Apr 2020)

I think the original question is misplaced. 

The two types of Revenue official are not the zealous and non-zealous. I think its a good point that Revenue officials dont try to collect tax that isn't due.

The two types are those that seek proof of any taxpayers assertions and those that believe nothing a taxpayer says.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (16 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> But they’re not Brendan. They’re recharacterising a donation by a corporate to a charity as a taxable benefit in kind and looking for circa 50% income tax from a director/owner. There’s no statutory basis for them to do that. The fact that the charity isn’t CHY Revenue approved just means that the company is denied its corporation tax deduction, i.e. no tax break.


That's the law, any charity must have a charity number to accept any donations or to operate as a charity without one it is illegal under the 2009 Charity Act.
Additionally it's the Charity that applies for its tax exemption it's not automatically granted.
From what you said above the Revenue are 100% correct in their treatment as the charity doesn't have its tax admin in order. 

Your ire should be pointed at the "Charity " not Revenue.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (16 Apr 2020)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> That's the law, any charity must have a charity number to accept any donations or to operate as a charity without one it is illegal under the 2009 Charity Act.
> Additionally it's the Charity that applies for its tax exemption it's not automatically granted.
> From what you said above the Revenue are 100% correct in their treatment as the charity doesn't have its tax admin in order.
> 
> Your ire should be pointed at the "Charity " not Revenue.



Sorry, but you’re completely wrong.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (16 Apr 2020)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Sorry, but you’re completely wrong.


Explain where I'm wrong then, I feel you can't


----------



## Sunny (16 Apr 2020)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> That's the law, any charity must have a charity number to accept any donations or to operate as a charity without one it is illegal under the 2009 Charity Act.
> Additionally it's the Charity that applies for its tax exemption it's not automatically granted.
> From what you said above the Revenue are 100% correct in their treatment as the charity doesn't have its tax admin in order.
> 
> Your ire should be pointed at the "Charity " not Revenue.



Companies are allowed to make donations to charities and get a certain tax treatment to allow the donation as a trading expense and get relief. Its not just a case of being on the approved charity list either. There are other entities as well that will allow the relief like educational bodies or anything decided by the Minister. Even international charities that promote human rights that will allow the company get tax relief. As Gordon says, revenue can deny the tax relief but I can't see any reason why they would tell a company owner that the donation is taxable BIK.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (16 Apr 2020)

Sunny said:


> Companies are allowed to make donations to charities and get a certain tax treatment to allow the donation as a trading expense and get relief. Its not just a case of being on the approved charity list either. There are other entities as well that will allow the relief like educational bodies or anything decided by the Minister. Even international charities that promote human rights that will allow the company get tax relief. As Gordon says, revenue can deny the tax relief but I can't see any reason why they would tell a company owner that the donation is taxable BIK.


Well the advice we've received from the Regulator and others appears to be wrong.
We will however continue to abide by their rules as laid out .


----------



## Sunny (16 Apr 2020)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Well the advice we've received from the Regulator and others appears to be wrong.
> We will however continue to abide by their rules as laid out .



What advice?


----------



## RedOnion (16 Apr 2020)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Explain where I'm wrong then, I feel you can't


Re-read the entire context of what happened and you should pick up where you're wrong.


----------



## Baby boomer (16 Apr 2020)

cremeegg said:


> I think the original question is misplaced.
> 
> The two types of Revenue official are not the zealous and non-zealous.
> 
> ...



Ha!  That reminds me.  I attended a change management conference in 2018 where Josephine Fehilly (former chair of Revenue Commissioners) was speaking.  She spoke about the difficulty of changing the culture in Revenue.  In particular, she said that Revenue officials were strongly resistant to the concept of the "presumption of honesty" when dealing with taxpayers!

So, I guess that would mean that zealotry is alive and well.


----------



## Setanta12 (16 Apr 2020)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Well the advice we've received from the Regulator and others appears to be wrong.
> We will however continue to abide by their rules as laid out .


I would abide by Revenue rules if you want tax relief.  The Charity ReGulator is less expert of interpreting tax legislation that the Revenue themselves, who are very clear that you cannot even rely on their own guidance!


----------



## RichInSpirit (16 Apr 2020)

Baby boomer said:


> In particular, she said that Revenue officials were strongly resistant to the concept of the *"presumption of honesty"* when dealing with taxpayers!



That's interesting, the same thought was running through my head in regards to this thread. 
The Revenue have the opposite presumption to the legal system.
With the legal system they have to prove you are guilty whereas with Revenue you have to prove that you are innocent.

Saying that I have the utmost respect for the Revenue Commissioners and enjoy my interactions with them to a certain extent.


----------



## fidelcastro (16 Apr 2020)

Deiseblue said:


> Is the correct snswer to the query raised in the thread title - not enough ?
> Given the level of tax non compliance as evidenced by the Revenue quarterly defaulters list and the continuing scandal surrounding non resident accounts perhaps a cadre of zealots is required.
> The Order of righteous tax gatherers perhaps ?


Given the forthcoming debt burden, we could do with a few more zealots. Let's face it, despite perceptions, the effective tax burden is modest in this country.


----------



## torblednam (16 Apr 2020)

Purple said:


> I think the accusation is that they go after the easy targets rather than the major tax cheats.


Huh?! Surely a zealot would love nothing more than pursuing a major tax cheat?


----------

