# Confirmed: Banks to repay TRS To Revenue



## SaySomething (9 Nov 2017)

As reported in the Irish Times today, from Minister's questions in the Dail yesterday.:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pol...-revenue-in-wake-of-tracker-scandal-1.3284637

I know this was discussed at length before. Once the mortgage accounts are reinstated to the point at which they should be (at the end of redress), the banks will have refund the Revenue Commissioners directly for over claimed TRS on mortgages.

There will be repayment due from affected customers because of the over claim because it happened at bank level.


----------



## peteb (9 Nov 2017)

Seems a bit unfair for those of us who fought like dogs through the FSO with the banks to get our trackers back and then had to pay our own refunds to Revenue.


----------



## SaySomething (9 Nov 2017)

peteb said:


> Seems a bit unfair for those of us who fought like dogs through the FSO with the banks to get our trackers back and then had to pay our own refunds to Revenue.


I would agree. But if your account was impacted at the time, you should now contact the bank requesting a review (I'm sure you've already done this) as you should be able to request this charge back from the bank. You're probably 'deemed impacted' as part of the review anyway and may receive it in due course....she says optimistically.


----------



## Mackem (9 Nov 2017)

Am I to assume the reference to taxation in the principles for redress as issued by the Central Bank in 2015 also applies equally to those of us with BTL mortgages who in good faith claimed the higher interest paid as a legitimate expense ?.


----------



## Sarenco (9 Nov 2017)

Mackem said:


> Am I to assume the reference to taxation in the principles for redress as issued by the Central Bank in 2015 also applies equally to those of us with BTL mortgages who in good faith claimed the higher interest paid as a legitimate expense ?.


As far as I know, there is still no guidance from Revenue on that issue.

Mind you, I don't think there is any guidance as to whether or not any compensation payments (over and above the redress payments) will be taxable.

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/will-tracker-refund-and-compensation-be-taxable.201278/


----------



## Mackem (10 Nov 2017)

Many thanks Sarenco


----------



## Emma3003 (13 Nov 2017)

I am one of the BOI customers that was charged the wrong rate on my tracker mortgage. 

I received my redress letter today and BOI have deducted the TRS overpayment from my refund (€2,200 less €600). This doesn’t seem to be in line with anybody else’s redress package or Pascal Donohoe’s statement.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Nov 2017)

Hi Emma

Was the €2,200 figure the gross amount of the interest overpayment?  In other words, did that €2,200 figure ignore (what turned out to be) the TRS overpayment that you received?

You would hardly expect to receive double the TRS amount plus interest on that amount, plus compensation of double that amount.  Would you?


----------



## Emma3003 (14 Nov 2017)

Sarenco,

The €2,200 figure was calculated by subtracting (B) What I should have paid, if I was on the correct rate, from (A) What I actually paid.

I would expect that interest and compensation be calculated on this amount - as this is the money that the bank took from me. Then the TRS should be deducted. 

It looks to me like the bank are benefitting from dealing direct with Revenue, as they are deducting the TRS overpayment before calculating interest and compensation, saving themselves a hefty amount. In my opinion, they should pay interest and compensation on the FULL amount that they took from customers, then deduct the TRS.

At least this way, the outcome favours  the customer, who was the victim in all this.


----------



## Sarenco (14 Nov 2017)

Fair enough.

I would have thought it was more logical to run the interest calculations off the net figure (overpayment, less TRS) because that's what you would have actually received if you had been on the correct rate throughout the relevant period.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Nov 2017)

Can I just clarify my understanding of this?

To establish the principle, let's keep it simple. Ignore interest on the overcharge and compensation.

Say, Bank of Ireland overcharged me €1,000 interest.
I got €200 TRS on this.

So in effect, Bank of Ireland overcharged me €800
and overcharged the Revenue by €200.

I was out of pocket by €800

Bank of Ireland should give me back €800.
And they should give the Revenue back €200.

Is this what is proposed? If so, it seems to me to be the correct way to do it?

Brendan


----------



## Sarenco (15 Nov 2017)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Bank of Ireland should give me back €800.
> And they should give the Revenue back €200.


I think we're agreed on that Brendan but I think Emma's point is that interest (and compensation) should be applied to the €1,000 and the excess TRS should be deducted from that figure (as opposed to calculating interest on the net figure of €800).  

So, say, 101% of €1,000 less €200 is €810, versus 101% of €800 which is €808.

I think it's more logical to use the net figure (€800) for the interest calculation because that's the amount by which the borrower would actually have have been out of pocket as a result of the overcharging.


----------



## Emma3003 (15 Nov 2017)

Yes, that’s right Sarenco.

In my opinion, of the two options for calculating interest and compensation, I think the bank should be paying compensation and interest on the full amount they overcharged and took from customers.

I fully understand your thinking Sarenco, that the bank is only responsible for putting things back to the way they should have been for the customer had the overcharge not happened. However, they were not out of pocket in relation to the TRS overpayments. That was between the customer and Revenue, yet it feels like the bank are using this situation to their advantage by effectively offsetting the TRS against their overcharge and reducing their interest and compensation by almost 25% in my case.

I know it is neither here nor there in my case, but I imagine it will make quite a significant difference for others impacted on a much larger scale.

Edit:
Sorry, I should add that I am not actually sure that BOI have actually done this yet, as it is not clear from their breakdown supplied to me.
But if they haven’t, then their calculation for interest and compensation is even lower, and way below what other banks are offering.


----------



## Sarenco (15 Nov 2017)

Thanks Emma.

I absolutely agree that it's worth teasing out the basic principle regardless of any individual case (and I do appreciate that we haven't yet seen BOI's workings).

To your point, when the calculation is run across the full cohort of impacted borrowers a seemingly trivial difference at an individual level can become quite a material sum at an aggregate level.

A few other nuances:-

Working off a gross (as opposed to a net) figure has a compounding effect over time (although this effect is somewhat muted in a low interest rate environment);
If the compensation payment tees off the interest calculation (which seems to be the case) then this has a multiplicative effect;
We are assuming that Revenue will not apply a similar interest payment in respect of the excess TRS payments; and
We don't know what interest rate was used in the calculation or whether a single weighted average rate was applied across the relevant period.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (15 Nov 2017)

There really is not basis for BoI to pay the borrower compensation based on more than they were overcharged. None at all. Maybe they should pay compensation to the Revenue?  

Brendan


----------



## Emma3003 (16 Nov 2017)

Supposing BOI have calculated as I have suggested:

BOI overcharged the customer by €2,200.
Consequently, Revenue overpaid the customer by €600.

What gives BOI the right to claim credit for Revenue’s overpayment? 
Ah yeah, we took €2,200 of your money, but sure lookit, didn’t Revenue give you too much anyway? So really you were only out of pocket by €1,600. Let’s just use that figure when we work out your interest and compensation, as it works out better for us.

BOI took €2,200 and that is the figure they should be using to calculate interest and compensation. 

If Revenue decide to claim interest from the customer on the amount they overpaid, then the banks should be liable to cover that cost, due to it arising as a result of their error/failure/mistake (all their own words used in their redress letter). Isn’t that common practice? I’ve heard of cases where a bank error causes a missed payment, and the bank has covered the arising costs for their customer.

If Revenue aren’t claiming interest, which appears to be the case, then why should the bank be the one to benefit, and not the customer?


----------



## Sophrosyne (16 Nov 2017)

Emma3003 said:


> I received my redress letter today and BOI have deducted the TRS overpayment from my refund (€2,200 less €600). This doesn’t seem to be in line with anybody else’s redress package or Pascal Donohoe’s statement.



Emma,

Are you saying that this is the _only _information that you received from BOI, i.e., that you were overcharged interest in the sum of €2,200 but not how this was calculated?


----------



## Emma3003 (16 Nov 2017)

Sophrosyne said:


> Emma,
> 
> Are you saying that this is the _only _information that you received from BOI, i.e., that you were overcharged interest in the sum of €2,200 but not how this was calculated?



Not at all Sophrosyne. This thread was about the treatment of TRS. Therefore, I was just giving an outline of how BOI had dealt with mine.

BOI gave a full breakdown of what I was overcharged, alongside their calculations of what I would have paid had I been on the correct rate - approx 6 or 7 pages of detail, dating from Dec 2009 to Jan 2017. 

Where the transparency tails off, is in their calculation of the time value interest and compensation. There is no explanation of how they arrived at either figure, and it isn’t clear if they were calculated before or after deducting the TRS from the overcharge.


----------



## Sophrosyne (16 Nov 2017)

Emma3003 said:


> it isn’t clear if they were calculated before or after deducting the TRS from the overcharge.



As you correctly said, mortgage interest relief is a tax credit, which just happens to be applied at source rather than included in your tax credit certificate or claimed by end-of-year review.

Therefore, the interest overcharge and resulting compensation should be based on the gross amount before deduction of TRS.

When that has been calculated, the over-allowance of TRS should then be subtracted.

Perhaps that is what BOI has done, but as you say, it may not be clear from its calculations.


----------



## noc231073 (16 Nov 2017)

This was announced by the minister and the central banks gave direction to the bank that they will be the one to pay the TRS . 
I just received my letter of what is owned to me yesterday from BOI and they have deducted 4800 euros for TRS out of the money they owe me ... so were do I stand . if they were directed by the central bank that they were going to take the hit for the TRS payment  why the are they hitting me again!!!!!


----------



## Sarenco (16 Nov 2017)

You have already received an excessive amount of TRS as a result of the over-charged interest.  

BOI will now settle your liability to repay this excess of relief directly with Revenue - you don't have to do anything else in this regard.

You could hardly expect to receive twice that TRS amount.


----------



## Mackem (16 Nov 2017)

This smacks of typical sleight of hand by the banks and only adds insult to injury IMO. Did Minister Donohoe not confirm in responding to a question from Solidarity TD Paul Murphy that “banks which overcharged customers would bear the costs of the additional interest relief those customers received from Revenue” ?. Did we really believe that the banks were going to roll over that easily ?.


----------



## Sophrosyne (16 Nov 2017)

According to the article referenced in #1:

“However, Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe confirmed this week that banks which overcharged customers would bear the costs of the additional interest relief those customers received from Revenue.

With an estimated 20,000 customers affected, the monies owed to Revenue will run into millions of euro, given that the interest relief was paid out over a number of years in many cases.

The Minister was responding to a question from the Solidarity TD Paul Murphy, during a finance committee hearing on the Finance Bill.”

Perhaps people should email Paschal Donohoe and/or Paul Murphy for clarification.


----------



## Sarenco (16 Nov 2017)

Mackem said:


> Did Minister Donohoe not confirm in responding to a question from Solidarity TD Paul Murphy that “banks which overcharged customers would bear the costs of the additional interest relief those customers received from Revenue” ?. Did we really believe that the banks were going to roll over that easily ?.


But the banks are bearing the cost of refunding the additional interest relief impacted customers have already received!

Did you really think you would receive double the amount of that excess relief, plus interest on the overcharged amount, plus compensation on top of that again?

Are you sure you are being realistic?


----------



## Emma3003 (16 Nov 2017)

There seems to be a lot of confusion around the interpretation of what it means by ‘the banks are responsible for paying the TRS back to Revenue’.

In the literal sense, some banks are paying the TRS overpayments - by deducting them from the customer’s redress amount and settling the bill with Revenue on their behalf.

Other banks have left customers to deal directly with Revenue, to settle the TRS overpayment themselves.

Some people assert that the bank should repay Revenue out of their own pocket for any money owed back as a result of their mistakes, which effectively would mean that the customer would get to keep the overpayment. 

I’m yet to hear of anyone that has had their TRS overpayment repaid by the bank, and been allowed to keep the overpayment themselves.


----------



## Sarenco (16 Nov 2017)

Emma3003 said:


> I’m yet to hear of anyone that has had their TRS overpayment repaid by the bank, and been allowed to keep the overpayment themselves.


Is that not what Roc and Mackem are suggesting should be the case?

Perhaps I misinterpreted their posts.


----------



## Emma3003 (16 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> But the banks are bearing the cost of refunding the additional interest relief impacted customers have already received!
> 
> Did you really think you would receive double the amount of that excess relief, plus interest on the overcharged amount, plus compensation on top of that again?
> 
> Are you sure you are being realistic?



Sarenco, forgive me for my ignorance here, but I’m not sure I understand how the banks are bearing the costs.  

Are they not deducting the TRS from the amount they overcharged the customer? So in effect, isn’t it the customer’s money that they are using to settle the bill?


----------



## Sarenco (16 Nov 2017)

Emma3003 said:


> Are they not deducting the TRS from the amount they overcharged the customer?


Yes but the repayment is still being funded by the bank. 

The alternative would be pay to the customer the gross amount and leave it up to the customer to settle the position with Revenue.

If it was otherwise a customer that already benefitted from TRS would receive a disproportionately greater level of compensation than a customer that never benefitted from TRS. 

How could that possibly be fair?


----------



## Emma3003 (16 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Is that not what Roc and Mackem are suggesting should be the case?
> 
> Perhaps I misinterpreted their posts.



I don’t think you misinterpreted.

I am very interested to see how this plays out. I haven’t read the transcripts from the finance committee hearing myself, but the consensus seems to be that Pascal Donohoe stated that any TRS overpayment would be settled at a cost to the bank. That is clearly not happening, so who knows what’s going to happen next. If enough customers complain to the relevant people, the issue may be revisited and a decision made one way or another.


----------



## Emma3003 (16 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Yes but the repayment is still being funded by the bank.
> 
> The alternative would be pay to the customer the gross amount and leave it up to the customer to settle the position with Revenue.
> 
> ...



Ah ok, that is where we disagree... In my eyes, it’s being funded by the customer’s money which the bank has in its possession.

Everything else you say, I agree with. I personally have no problem repaying any TRS I shouldn’t have received. And it wouldn’t be fair for some customers to benefit, and not others. 
And now we go full circle and back to my issue, which we have already discussed... I’d be quite happy to settle the overpayment directly with Revenue, as then at least I’d know the banks weren’t using the TRS to their own benefit. If Revenue were to impose penalties/interest, I would of course pursue the banks to cover that element, so that I wasn’t out of pocket as a result of their mistake.


----------



## Sarenco (16 Nov 2017)

Emma3003 said:


> If Revenue were to impose penalties/interest, I would of course pursue the banks to cover that element, so that I wasn’t out of pocket as a result of their mistake.


And you would, of course, be absolutely right to do so.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate for the Minister to have said that it had been agreed that the banks would bear the direct cost of refunding the TRS overpayments so that customers would have no further liability in this regard.

I disagree with you regarding the correct methodology for making the interest calculation but I do take the point that the banks would be indirectly benefitting from the (assumed) fact that Revenue are not imposing any interest/penalties on overpaid TRS.

I assume the Central Bank signed off on whatever methodology was employed so perhaps you could raise a query with them if you get nowhere with BOI.


----------



## Sophrosyne (16 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> But the banks are bearing the cost of refunding the additional interest relief impacted customers have already received!



No they are not.

They are deducting the overpayment of TRS from the borrower refund and remitting that amount to Revenue on the customer's behalf.


----------



## Sarenco (16 Nov 2017)

Sophrosyne said:


> No they are not.


Yes, they are remitting the payment to Revenue out of a sum that would otherwise be paid to the customer.  That sum comes from their own funds.

To my mind, discharging a liability and bearing the cost of that liability are one and the same thing.

I've really no interest in disappearing down a semantic rabbit hole on this point but perhaps you could ask our Minister for Finance what he intended to convey with his choice of words.


----------



## Sophrosyne (17 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Yes, they are remitting the payment to Revenue out of a sum that would otherwise be paid to the customer. That sum comes from their own funds.



How do you reckon that it is coming from their own funds in say, Emma3003's case?


----------



## Threadser (17 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Yes, they are remitting the payment to Revenue out of a sum that would otherwise be paid to the customer.  That sum comes from their own funds..


 The sum comes from their over-charged customers money does it not?


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Threadser said:


> The sum comes from their over-charged customers money does it not?


Again, the redress and compensation, including the amount to be withheld and remitted to Revenue, are being funded by the bank.


----------



## Bronte (17 Nov 2017)

In England in similiar cases how is compensation worked out?


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Bronte said:


> In England in similiar cases how is compensation worked out?


Mortgage interest relief was abolished years ago in the UK so the issue wouldn't arise.

I do know that compensation paid in the context of the PPI scandal was taxable in the hands of the policyholders.


----------



## Emma3003 (17 Nov 2017)

It’s not the compensation that is taxable for the PPI refund, but the compensation interest, as that is classed as income.

The resulting amount would be minimal, compared to taxing the actual compensation.


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Emma3003 said:


> It’s not the compensation that is taxable for the PPI refund, but the compensation interest, as that is classed as income.



The (time value of money) interest payment on the redress amount just put the policyholder back into the same position that they would have been in if the overcharging had not taken place.

The compensation amount over and above that was taxable.


----------



## Bronte (17 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Mortgage interest relief was abolished years ago in the UK so the issue wouldn't arise.
> 
> I do know that compensation paid in the context of the PPI scandal was taxable in the hands of the policyholders.



Sarenco I was more interested in how compensation is applied for overcharging than the issue about TRS.  Would you happen to know.  Also I wonder how the ombudsman rules over there in such cases where there is long term overcharging. 

The taxation aspect is a matter for revenue, if it were me I'd have sent an email to revenue for a decision on it.  But I personally think given the stress people have been under that it should not be taxable, like compensation for personal injuries.  Of course revenue have to look to the law so I suspect it is taxable.


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Bronte said:


> But I personally think given the stress people have been under that it should not be taxable, like compensation for personal injuries.  Of course revenue have to look to the law so I suspect it is taxable.



I don't disagree but no legislation was adopted to make it so (unlike the various other non-statutory redress schemes; HepC, residential institutions redress, etc.).

Revenue and BOI have already agreed how excess TRS payments will be dealt with.


----------



## Bronte (17 Nov 2017)

So if revenue have an agreement with BOI then it should be the same for all other banks.


----------



## noc231073 (17 Nov 2017)

So now you have me totally confused ..
The article state that the banks should bear the COST ! of TRS repayments .. 
not just pay it out of the money they owe the customer..
If that's the case give me my money and I'll pay the revenue.. with what I have left when I pay my bills and borrowing I had to make to keep a roof over my family's head while they robbed me blind for the last 6 years  to the value of 350-500 a month ... in over payments!!!!!


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Bronte said:


> So if revenue have an agreement with BOI then it should be the same for all other banks.



Yes, I would have thought so.


----------



## Sophrosyne (17 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Yes, they are remitting the payment to Revenue out of a sum that would otherwise be paid to the customer. That sum comes from their own funds.
> 
> To my mind, discharging a liability and bearing the cost of that liability are one and the same thing.



The sums certainly do not come from their own funds. They are deducting the TRS overpayment from refunds due to customers as a result of overcharging interest.

The method is just an expedient, probably agreed with Revenue, to reduce Revenue contacts.

If the full amount was paid by the banks then each customer would have to deal with Revenue separately to pay the over-allowance of TRS.


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Sophrosyne said:


> They are deducting the TRS overpayment from refunds due to customers as a result of overcharging interest.


And where does that gross amount come from?  The bank's own funds.


Sophrosyne said:


> If the full amount was paid by the banks then each customer would have to deal with Revenue separately to pay the over-allowance of TRS.


Of course.


----------



## Sophrosyne (17 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> And where does that gross amount come from? The bank's own funds.



The gross amount is what the banks owe the customer.

This then becomes the customer's money.

The customer, and not the bank, is liable to pay, out of that amount, any over-allowance of TRS.

What confused the issue for impacted customers was the Finance Minister's assertion that "that banks which overcharged customers would bear the costs of the additional interest relief those customers received from Revenue.

Either he or the bank(s) is misinformed.


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Sophrosyne said:


> The customer, and not the bank, is liable to pay, out of that amount, any over-allowance of TRS.


Yes, the customer and not the bank is liable for the excess relief.  The bank is now discharging that liability on behalf of the customer.


Sophrosyne said:


> What confused the issue for impacted customers was the Finance Minister's assertion that "that banks which overcharged customers would bear the costs of the additional interest relief those customers received from Revenue.


I don't find that statement at all confusing and it reflects my understanding of what is happening in practice.


----------



## Sophrosyne (17 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> Yes, the customer and not the bank is liable for the excess relief. The bank is now discharging that liability on behalf of the customer.



As mentioned the refund belongs to the customer and not the bank. The bank subtracts the TRS over-allowance from the_ customer's money_ and pays it to Revenue.  

It is the same as when an employer deducts tax from employee salaries and remits it to Revenue on behalf of an employee. The employer is not discharging the employee's the tax liability; the employee is.

The Finance Minister in his reply to Paul Murphy said that the banks would bear the liability for the TRS over-allowance themselves, i.e. that individual customers would have no liability in the matter.

Were that the case then the banks would pay the excess TRS out of their own funds and not deduct it from customer refunds.


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Frankly, I'm amazed that you want to continue this discussion.  Don't you find it boring?

Yes, the bank is withholding and remitting excess TRS to Revenue.  That is crystal clear.

The Minister said the banks would bear the cost of the TRS repayments.  I don't see anything ambiguous about that statement and it reflects what I understand is happening in practice.

The bank will transfer the relevant sum to Revenue from an account maintained and controlled by the bank.  In other words, it will bear the direct cost of discharging the liability.

If you still feel the Minister's statement was confusing then I suggest you bring it up with the Minister.


----------



## Sophrosyne (17 Nov 2017)

And I am amazed that with evidence to the contrary on this site,you still maintain that the banks bears the cost of excess TRS when it is quite clear that they do not.

Doesn't it mean anything to you that the customer refunds were reduced by excess TRS?


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Look, if I owe you money and pay your bar tab wouldn't it be fair to say that I have borne the cost of your bar tab?

I may still owe you money - clearing your tab may only partially discharge my liability to you - but that doesn't change the fact that I have borne the cost of your bar tab.

The Minister said the banks would bear the cost of the TRS repayments and that is what is happening.

Again, it is crystal clear that the bank is withholding a sum from the redress payment, reflecting the excess TRS received by its customer, and remitting same to Revenue.  Nobody is suggesting otherwise.


----------



## Thomas (17 Nov 2017)

In the bar tab analogy you have not borne the cost of the tab you have administered the collection and that is very different to  bearing the cost.


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Thomas said:


> In the bar tab analogy you have not borne the cost of the tab you have administered the collection and that is very different to  bearing the cost.



No, I took out my wallet and handed over the cash.  I definitely bore the cost of the tab.


----------



## Thomas (17 Nov 2017)

As a result of doing that you simultaneously discharged your obligation to your friend - need to factor that in so that on a net basis you did not bear the cost.


----------



## Onceagain (17 Nov 2017)

That's it I am off to the bar.


----------



## Sarenco (17 Nov 2017)

Thomas said:


> As a result of doing that you simultaneously discharged your obligation to your friend - need to factor that in so that on a net basis you did not bear the cost.


Yes, by clearing the bar tab I simultaneously partially discharged my liability to my friend.

Same way that the banks are partially discharging their obligation to their customers by bearing the cost of refunding any excess TRS payments.


----------



## Thomas (17 Nov 2017)

I think I will head to the bar also as I don't be think we will ever agree on this!


----------



## Emma3003 (17 Nov 2017)

Sarenco said:


> The (time value of money) interest payment on the redress amount just put the policyholder back into the same position that they would have been in if the overcharging had not taken place.
> 
> The compensation amount over and above that was taxable.



Maybe we are saying the same thing, but it’s getting lost in translation as I’m not as experienced in this area. 
It is my understanding that compensation in the context of PPI reclaims consists of two parts:
1) Refund of PPI payments
2) Refund of any Interest paid by the customer on the premium

Interest was then paid on this compensation at a rate of 8% per annum. It is only this amount that is subject to tax, not the actual compensation itself. 

Is that right Sarenco?


----------



## Thomas (4 Dec 2017)

Sarenco said:


> No, I took out my wallet and handed over the cash.  I definitely bore the cost of the tab.


It looks like the central bank don't agree - just saw article in the Independent that BOI are backtracking and will now actually bear the cost (as I understand it) of the TRS!


----------



## Sarenco (4 Dec 2017)

Thomas said:


> It looks like the central bank don't agree - just saw article in the Independent that BOI are backtracking and will now actually bear the cost (as I understand it) of the TRS!


Any chance of a link to that article?


----------



## SaySomething (4 Dec 2017)

It's not in the online edition @Sarenco but if you go to Charlie Weston's twitter account you can see he has tweeted an image of it earlier today. From briefly scanning it, it appears that those who have already received refunds with the TRS docked are to have it returned to them. The bank is to refund the Revenue Commissioners directly at their own cost, and not to the cost of the customer.


----------



## Thomas (4 Dec 2017)

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2017/1204/924782-today-in-the-press/

halfway down the page


----------



## Sarenco (4 Dec 2017)

Thanks for that @SaySomething.

So a borrower that received (what turned out to be) excessive TRS will now, in effect, receive a higher compensation payment than a borrower that did not receive excessive TRS.  I really can't see how that's fair.

Mind you, at this stage, I've given up trying to divine any principles from the Central Bank's approach - it all seems totally random.


----------



## Threadser (4 Dec 2017)

Great news although I am a bit surprised by it to be honest. I can now look forward to a TRS refund cheque of €1,700 from BOI.  Fair compensation for their lack of urgency in providing over charged customers with refunds.


----------



## Threadser (20 Dec 2017)

Just to update I got my TRS refunded into my account by BOI today. It's almost €2000 so I am delighted to have it refunded.


----------



## Threadser (20 Dec 2017)

Anyone know why the other BOI update threads are locked?


----------



## todo (21 Dec 2017)

Threadser said:


> Anyone know why the other BOI update threads are locked?




Seems strange that they are both locked,  interested to know why also.


----------



## Bronte (21 Dec 2017)

Sarenco said:


> No, I took out my wallet and handed over the cash.  I definitely bore the cost of the tab.



Who are you kidding, the banks overcharged and are not paying anything out of their own pockets.  And any fines or penalties they pay are not from themselves but from the customers they charge higher interest rates on than would be the case as they are using people like me on higher rates to pay everything - so I'm paying for some of this.


----------



## Bronte (21 Dec 2017)

SaySomething said:


> It's not in the online edition @Sarenco but if you go to Charlie Weston's twitter account you can see he has tweeted an image of it earlier today. From briefly scanning it, it appears that those who have already received refunds with the TRS docked are to have it returned to them. The bank is to refund the Revenue Commissioners directly at their own cost, and not to the cost of the customer.



I certainly hope Revenue are going to charge penalties and interest.  That's the law isn't it.  Any statement or guidence from Revenue on this. 

Or do Revenue not apply some laws? Can they ignore certain taxation rules. 

This should be fun.  As interest and penalties are linked to each individuals tax returns.

(Hello Revenue boys).


----------



## SaySomething (21 Dec 2017)

The Central Bank's revised (December 2017) Q&A section states this about TRS and how it should be treated by lenders:

_Mortgage Interest Relief – or Tax Relief at Source (TRS) – is a form of tax relief based on the amount of interest paid on a mortgage loan. If you were overcharged by your lender due to a tracker mortgage related issue you may have received additional TRS credited to you. The Central Bank’s Tracker Examination Framework requires lenders to pay any tax charges that may be due as a result of redress, compensation or other payments made to affected customers. This includes TRS. No adjustment/deduction should be made to your redress and compensation payment in respect of tax charges. Your lender will liaise directly with Revenue in relation to the payment and you do not need to take any action._​


----------



## moneymakeover (21 Dec 2017)

Does it also apply to buy to let?


----------



## Sarenco (21 Dec 2017)

Bronte said:


> Who are you kidding, the banks overcharged and are not paying anything out of their own pockets.  And any fines or penalties they pay are not from themselves but from the customers they charge higher interest rates on than would be the case as they are using people like me on higher rates to pay everything - so I'm paying for some of this.


Not sure why you have dragged up an old quote and then taken it completely out of context. 

You're right of course that all redress payments, compensation, fines, etc., will ultimately be indirectly borne by customers.

No guidance from Revenue that I'm aware of.


----------



## Sarenco (21 Dec 2017)

moneymakeover said:


> Does it also apply to buy to let?


TRS doesn't apply to BTLs.


----------



## moneymakeover (21 Dec 2017)

Both refer to tax relief on interest

Perhaps another contributor would be able to answer


----------



## Sarenco (21 Dec 2017)

If you are asking what the position is in relation to (what turned out to be) over-claimed deductions for interest payments (as opposed to TRS), that is being discussed on this thread:-

https://www.askaboutmoney.com/threads/impacted-buy-to-let-redress-received-tax-implications.206497/


----------

