# Deposit account trawl announced today (Fri May 23rd) by revenue



## Flush (23 May 2008)

Anybody know any detail on the deposit account trawl announced by the Rev Comms today.(Fri May 23rd)

I heard that you must declare all deposit accounts to the Rev Comms if the total exceeds €100K before September of this year.

If a PAYE taxpayer has been paying DIRT all along on these accounts what extra liability would be involved if the accounts had not been declared directly to the Rev Comms by now.

Are we just talking about a PRSI liability or is there some other "appalling vista" out there lurking in the wings.


----------



## bigjoe_dub (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

was wondering this myself to.  have a few bob on depostit.  dirt was always applied. did not think I had anymore exposure.


----------



## Graham_07 (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

While DIRT would have been applied to interest earned, and while in recent years DIRT satsfied all Tax due on interest regardless of the marginal rate of tax of the taxpayer, PRSI/Levies may also have been payable. For self-assessed taxpayers this would have been captured on the annual Notice of Assessment. For PAYE taxpayers, Balancing Statements have never been set up to collect PRSI/Levies, only Tax. There may be issues there for some people. There may be issues also regarding the original capital if that was not from declared / taxed / non-taxable sources.


----------



## MugsGame (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

The presumption may be that you owe tax on the original lodgements, unless you can demonstrate otherwise.


----------



## Mpsox (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

DIRT is deducted by the banks on the govts behalf and is payable only on the interest paid, not on the balance in the account

I can only asume they are looking at high balances to see if the reason for the balance in the first place has and should have been declared to the taxman


----------



## ubiquitous (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

ICAI Press Release

http://www.icai.ie/media/mr-mediareldetails.cfm?mediaid=510



> ICAI reacts to new Revenue probe
> 
> [23 May 08]
> (Friday, 23rd May 2008) The Revenue Commissioners has announced a new disclosure scheme relating to moneys held in Irish deposit accounts. Deposit holders are being given until 15 September next to declare any untaxed amounts which they had lodged in their deposit accounts. By so doing, Revenue will mitigate the tax penalties which can apply, and undertake not to publish the tax defaulters name. A disclosure will also mean that Revenue will not pursue the case for prosecution for tax evasion.
> ...


----------



## eileen alana (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



Graham_07 said:


> For PAYE taxpayers, Balancing Statements have never been set up to collect PRSI/Levies, only Tax. There may be issues there for some people.


 
But surely this is not the fault of the PAYE taxpayer, how were we supposed to know we had to pay a PRSI levy on our savings?? I mean the tax is automatically taken off interest paid, you would imagine the PRSI should have been as well.


----------



## John Rambo (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

The issue is whether the deposits are hot or funny money...the interest earned is not the what Revenue are concerned with.


----------



## eileen alana (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



John Rambo said:


> The issue is whether the deposits are hot or funny money...the interest earned is not the what Revenue are concerned with.


 
I understand that but I don't get the issue re PRSI payment on the interest earned.


----------



## stevec (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

Is this do do with the new IT system I heard someone from revenue boasting about recently.
It supposedly analyses declared income vs property / vehicle / company ownership and flags cases where the capacity for the latter exceeds the former. 
Is this the next step?


----------



## ClubMan (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



eileen alana said:


> I understand that but I don't get the issue re PRSI payment on the interest earned.


As far as I know once you earn more than a certain amount in annual interest (c. €3,175?) then you may be liable for _PRSI_. _DIRT_ (20% usually deducted as source) remains your total tax liability. At least that's my rough understanding so I am open to correction on the specific details.


----------



## ClubMan (23 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



stevec said:


> Is this do do with the new IT system I heard someone from revenue boasting about recently.
> It supposedly analyses declared income vs property / vehicle / company ownership and flags cases where the capacity for the latter exceeds the former.
> Is this the next step?


There has been widespread coverage in the media and elsewhere of the new _Revenue _profiling system in recent months. Is the acronym _"RACE" _or something like that? I was thinking _Revenue Account Profile Engine _but that might be a bit offside...


----------



## ClubMan (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

_Revenue _press release is [broken link removed].


> Taxpayers who had €100,000 or more in aggregate in these accounts (which included funds not previously declared for tax) at any time between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2007 have until 15 September next to make a voluntary disclosure under an initiative announced by the Revenue Commissioners today (23/05/08).


So you only need to make a disclosure if you had more than €100K on deposit (in one or more accounts?) *AND *some of the funds on deposit were not previously declared for tax (i.e. hot money or cash in hand income)? Is that more or less it or is it more subtle than that...?


----------



## ubiquitous (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

From the third paragraph



> Revenue emphasise that the focus is on money which was undeclared for tax purposes and this current initiative will affect a relatively small number of taxpayers.


----------



## oldtimer (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

I notice it states ''banks, building societies and post-offices.'' I presume credit unions will also come under the umbrella. A recent thread here stated there are millions in credit union accounts exempt from DIRT.


----------



## eileen alana (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



oldtimer said:


> A recent thread here stated there are millions in credit union accounts exempt from DIRT.


 
I don't think that savers in credit unions are exempt from DIRT, if they haven't arranged to get it deductd at source well then they should be declaring it at the end of tax year.


----------



## oldtimer (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

Yes, of course each individual exempt should be declaring it at the end of tax year, but do they? And if not are they now to come under the same scrutiny as banks, building societies and post-offices? My question is, do they come under this directive or are they exempt? They are not specifically mentioned. Could I refer to the recent ' Credit Union'  thread and a comment by Kaplan '' to-day it is reckoned that billions sit un-taxed in accounts. Most of the money is not held by the over 65's and certainly not by the under 18's.'' If this is so, I would like to see these accounts investigated.


----------



## RedDevil (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

"and while in recent years DIRT satsfied all Tax due on interest regardless of the marginal rate of tax of the taxpayer,"

Is this correct even if you are on 41%


----------



## RedDevil (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

The Regulation can be found here

[broken link removed]

After you have read it you will be fit to read the Lisbon Treaty


----------



## eileen alana (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



RedDevil said:


> The Regulation can be found here
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> After you have read it you will be fit to read the Lisbon Treaty


 

Thank you Reddevil - Now if you wouldn't mind synopsizing it please.


----------



## z103 (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



> Now if you wouldn't mind synopsizing it please


The revenue want your money.
With any luck, people won't understand this document, and in a few years time, the revenue will be able to whack on a load more 'charges' and 'interest'.
The end.


----------



## ClubMan (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



RedDevil said:


> "and while in recent years DIRT satsfied all Tax due on interest regardless of the marginal rate of tax of the taxpayer,"
> 
> Is this correct even if you are on 41%


Yes. But as I mentioned above as far as I know if you earn more than a certain amount in deposit interest in any tax year then _PRSI _may also be an issue. Can somebody clarify if/when this is the case and if this is also a focus of the latest _Revenue _push?


----------



## irishlinks (24 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

I don't think PRSI is a factor - the amounts would not be worth it.
They are just looking for large deposits where the original source of the money was not taxed. 
So Paddy the Plasterer  or Brian the Blocklayer  or Arthur the Accountant - doing jobs for cash who declares 30k income but has savings of 50k in a year might have to explain where this came from.
The revenue has the power to get details of all accounts where the interest is over 635 a year. At 5% interest - that is most accounts with more than 13k! 
Credit Unions are not exempt - but they don't have to start providing info till 2009. The rest of the institutions have to go back to 2005. Seems a but unfair to me?


----------



## Marginal (27 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

Hi all! I sold my PPR in 2006. Although the net gain (c€150k) was not liable for CGT - should I have declared this in 2007 tax return?

I am PAYE and have never completed a tax return. This money is still on deposit - do I need to declare this now?

Thanks


----------



## ubiquitous (27 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

I think its worth repeating the extract from the Revenue statement, that I quoted earlier.



> Revenue emphasise that the focus is on money which was *undeclared for tax purposes* and *this current initiative will affect a relatively small number of taxpayers*.


----------



## Bronte (28 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

Just to be clear if you have over 100K in savings having saved it from your Paye salary over the years, you don't have to do anything. Or if you sold your house and deposited the gain of more than 100K, having paid any taxes due on it you don't have to do anything.  But there maybe an issue in relation to PRSI if the interest if over 3K annually (according to Clubman).  This 'amnesty' only applied to people who have over 100K in deposit accounts but that money is hot money, it came from untaxed income (cash jobs or whatever) and if you declare it now they will tax you but treat you kindly, no publicity, nor penalties and interest - have I got it correct?


----------



## ubiquitous (28 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



Bronte said:


> But there maybe an issue in relation to PRSI if the interest if over 3K annually



I honestly think that the PRSI issue is a red herring in relation to the recent Revenue announcement. Revenue have made clear that their focus is solely on untaxed income. Hence their assurance that "this current initiative will affect a relatively small number of taxpayers".


----------



## ClubMan (28 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



ubiquitous said:


> I honestly think that the PRSI issue is a red herring in relation to the recent Revenue announcement.


Fair enough if it is. I only raised it because (a) it may be a liability that some people have and (b) it was not clear from the original _Revenue _press release/statement what the specific focus of this trawl was.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

Do bear in mind that the above is merely my own personal opinion. Others are free to disagree as they see fit. As always, discussions on sites such as this are no substitute for informed professional advice, when dealing with real-life tax issues.


----------



## Black Sheep (28 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

People have asked many times how long they should keep their tax records. It appears it would be a good idea to keep them forever. 

 If one has managed through prudent use of income over say 20 or 30 years to build up savings of €100k and the revenue are asking questions one would like to have the proof of where it came from.

Do revenue records go back that far


----------



## Bronte (28 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

That's a good point Black Sheep, if you do have 100K saved over 20 years and you're asked how did you accumulate it is it good enough to say I've been saving all my working life, which is a normal enough response.  Would that satisfy Revenue.  Not many people keep all their records.  

Re the PRSI it surely is important because if you owe tax they will probably also ask you for the PRSI as well.  Not sure if there are penalties and interest on unpaid PRSI.


----------



## ubiquitous (28 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

Again just my own personal opinion - I think its important for people to keep this sort of thing in perspective. It is not a crime to save money. If you have been saving money over long periods and having been paying tax on your earnings as you go along (as have 99% of people) then you have nothing to fear. On the other hand if you have earned significant sums from undeclared work or business income or capital gains, and haven't paid the appropriate taxes, then its important to address this.


----------



## Black Sheep (31 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

All earnings have been declared and taxed and I haven't reached the €100k mark yet but was just making the point if revenue are targeting the people with savings of €100k have they got the records of 20 or 30 years to seperate those who have paid their taxes from those who havn't


----------



## ClubMan (31 May 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

What do you mean? They probably don't need them. If they suspect tax evasion or unacceptable (as opposed to acceptable) tax avoidance then I believe that they can put the onus on the individual to prove/evidence to them that there is nothing untoward going on.


----------



## CharlieR (1 Jun 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*

Why would anyone in this current climate of bank problems have any more that the equivilant of £35k stirling in a single banks account any way.

You are not insured for any more money than that in the UK and I would think it may be similar in Eire. so if the bank goes bust you lose £65k. Spread it around in different banks and that would also avoid the tak problems legally i would think.


----------



## Complainer (1 Jun 2008)

*Re: Deposit account trawl announced today by revenue*



CharlieR said:


> Spread it around in different banks and that would also avoid the tak problems legally i would think.


Spreading it around different banks has absolutely NO impact on your tax liability. While it might manage to avoid Revenue's attention in this current trawl, it is just a matter of time before they lower the thresholds and accumulate balances across different banks. Allowing even more interest to build up on any liability to Revenue is not a particularly smart strategy.


----------



## thewatcher (1 Jun 2008)

this is obviously a strategy by revenue to catch out all the "amateur investors" who made a killing during the boom years,who a now liable for 1. the original stamp duty that should have been paid 2. the capital gains on disposal. There's plenty of them out there !.


----------



## CharlieR (1 Jun 2008)

Do you have a bank insurance system in Eire? If so what is the limit?

I was thinking more along the lines that if a bank goes bump you will lose an awful lot of cash.

Charlie


----------



## ClubMan (1 Jun 2008)

CharlieR said:


> Do you have a bank insurance system in Eire? If so what is the limit?
> 
> I was thinking more along the lines that if a bank goes bump you will lose an awful lot of cash.
> 
> Charlie


What has this got to do with the original subject matter!!? 

There are numerous existing threads discussing the deposit protection schemes covering banks authorised by the _Irish (IFSRA/CB) _and other _EU _authorities.


----------



## Complainer (2 Jun 2008)

thewatcher said:


> this is obviously a strategy by revenue to catch out all the "amateur investors" who made a killing during the boom years,who a now liable for 1. the original stamp duty that should have been paid 2. the capital gains on disposal. There's plenty of them out there !.



Am I naive in thinking that there wouldn't be huge amounts of CGT evasion? I thought that solicitors had a legal responsibility to ensure that this was paid when they handled a sale?

I guess there may be people who took advantage of the stamp duty exemption and then rented out the house. But surely the stamp duty is only the tip of the iceberg in this case, and the tax due on the rental income is likely to be far more substantial?


----------



## ClubMan (2 Jun 2008)

I would imagine that the evaded _CGT _in the case of somebody who bought a property and then sold it in the last few decades without declaring it as a rental/investment property could well be significant. Whether or not this is part of the focus of this Revenue trawl is not clear but I guess that they are looking for *ANY *evasion so they would be interested in this sort as much as any other. I'm not sure about solicitors being responsible for policing the investment property _CGT _issue and even if they are if the client lies to them and says or implies that the property is their _PPR _then what can the solicitor do other than take them at their word?


----------



## starlite68 (3 Jun 2008)

i think with the economic slow down the revenu are going to be put under ever more pressure to get money from wherever they can....if this trawl dosent net enough,there is noting stopping them from dropping the treshold to 50 thousand.


----------



## ubiquitous (3 Jun 2008)

thewatcher said:


> this is obviously a strategy by revenue to catch out all the "amateur investors" who made a killing during the boom years,who a now liable for 1. the original stamp duty that should have been paid 2. the capital gains on disposal. There's plenty of them out there !.



If the Revenue want to chase amateur property investors, why not announce an "incentive" aimed directly at them? Issuing warnings to people with bank account balances of more than €100,000 would seem to be a bizarre way of attracting the attention of amateur property investors.


----------



## Hans (4 Jun 2008)

I have a question for a friend who has got one of these forms that were sent out at random (dont know what it's called haven't seen it) she has a big savings account all saved legit dirt has been taken at source as is normal but she is paying the higher tax rate does this mean she should be paying tax on her interest at the higher rate as she has never filled in returns at the end of any year she has never declared these savings as she thought she had paid all her taxes - she is so worried over this as thinking she was a law abiding person and now doesn't know where she stands.


----------



## Graham_07 (4 Jun 2008)

Hans said:


> I have a question for a friend who has got one of these forms that were sent out at random (dont know what it's called haven't seen it) she has a big savings account all saved legit dirt has been taken at source as is normal but she is paying the higher tax rate does this mean she should be paying tax on her interest at the higher rate as she has never filled in returns at the end of any year she has never declared these savings as she thought she had paid all her taxes - she is so worried over this as thinking she was a law abiding person and now doesn't know where she stands.


 
Insofar only as concerns Income Tax, from (I believe but open to correcton) 1994/95 the DIRT deducted is deemed to satisfy all Income Tax due, regardless of the rate of tax of the taxpayer. Prior to that a higher rate taxpayer would have had exposure to some additional tax. Prior to introduction of DIRT ( ? 1986? ) all interest would be exposed to the taxpayers marginal rate. 

Separate to Income Tax, some persons may have exposure to PRSI & Levies as outlined earlier in this thread.


----------



## ClubMan (4 Jun 2008)

Hans said:


> I have a question for a friend who has got one of these forms that were sent out at random (dont know what it's called haven't seen it)


[broken link removed]?


> she has a big savings account all saved legit dirt has been taken at source as is normal but she is paying the higher tax rate does this mean she


 If 20% _DIRT _is deducted at source then she has no further tax liability. She *MAY *have a _PRSI _liability depending on the total annual interest earned as I mentioned above. I'm still not 100% clear on this...


> as she has never filled in returns at the end of any year she has never declared these savings as she thought she had paid all her taxes - she is so worried over this as thinking she was a law abiding person and now doesn't know where she stands.


Sounds to me like she's worrying for nothing.


----------



## ubiquitous (4 Jun 2008)

Breaking News on the icai.ie website..

http://www.icai.ie/media/mr-details.cfm?id=3062



> Revenue Investigation on Deposits - Update 4th June 2008
> 
> 04 Jun 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Bronte (6 Jun 2008)

What do they mean by PRSI due 'not to be pursued' is that not to be pursued now, but may be pursued at a later date?  I imagine quite a few ordinary people (PAYE) earning a couple of hundred euros in interest and not declaring it, as they never fill out tax returns, don't know anything about a possible PRSI implication. Good to see revenue are on the ball though. 

Not going off topic as I'm deadly serious, if you have hot money, can you now say, well your honour, sure I won it on the gee gees at Cheltenham in 1994/5/6......  Dirt is paid, no further tax due, thank you very much.  Might be the last defence of a scoundral, but I bet there are many out there listening and learning from the master accountant himself.


----------



## ClubMan (6 Jun 2008)

Bronte said:


> What do they mean by PRSI due 'not to be pursued' is that not to be pursued now, but may be pursued at a later date?


Well realistically _Revenue _are never going to say that they will ignore any tax/_PRSI _issues that might be outstanding even if they are not going to focus on them as part of this trawl. Oh - except if/when they have another amnesty! 


> Not going off topic as I'm deadly serious, if you have hot money, can you now say, well your honour, sure I won it on the gee gees at Cheltenham in 1994/5/6......  Dirt is paid, no further tax due, thank you very much.


You can. But you need to be able to back up such claims with evidence in the event of a tax audit.


----------



## paddywhacker (6 Jun 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Well realistically _Revenue _are never going to say that they will ignore any tax/_PRSI _issues that might be outstanding even if they are not going to focus on them as part of this trawl. Oh - except if/when they have another amnesty!
> 
> You can. But you need to be able to back up such claims with evidence in the event of a tax audit.


 
But how do you back it up with evidence? Did Bertie?


----------



## ClubMan (6 Jun 2008)

paddywhacker said:


> But how do you back it up with evidence? Did Bertie?


A tribunal appearance is not the same as a tax audit.


----------



## Graham_07 (6 Jun 2008)

paddywhacker said:


> But how do you back it up with evidence? Did Bertie?


 
I guess you have to get that straight form the horses mouth


----------



## paddywhacker (6 Jun 2008)

I wasn't being smart, can you back it up with documentary evidence? I've never bet on horses so I don't know how it works, is there paperwork?


----------



## ClubMan (6 Jun 2008)

paddywhacker said:


> I wasn't being smart, can you back it up with documentary evidence? I've never bet on horses so I don't know how it works, is there paperwork?


Presumably *any *sort of paper trail would be taken into consideration - e.g. betting slip, bookies receipt or cheque payment (don't some big winners get paid this way or ask to be paid in this way?), winnings bank lodgement slips etc.


----------



## Slater (6 Jun 2008)

I do not think winning at race meetings would satisfy your accountant, not to mind the revenue. It looks like the other trawls, probably back fifteen years from the finance act of 2006 - 15 years. 1990/91.92, in that area. I doubt that it will be confined to 2005, might be back 6 years but doubtful.


----------



## Shepherd (8 Jun 2008)

I have a question which I think is relevant to this discussion. I have funds on deposit which I earned while I lived and worked abroad for a number of years.On returning to Ireland I left the money I had earned on deposit in the country which I had lived, for a couple of years as I didn't need it straight away. About two years later I transferred it over to Ireland and put it on deposit here. Am I liable for dirt on the interest I earned on these funds for that two year period while being resident in Ireland? The country I lived in was tax free.


----------



## extopia (8 Jun 2008)

[broken link removed] document from Revenue might be of interest.


----------



## extopia (9 Jun 2008)

ClubMan said:


> If 20% _DIRT _is deducted at source then she has no further tax liability. She *MAY *have a _PRSI _liability depending on the total annual interest earned as I mentioned above. I'm still not 100% clear on this...
> Sounds to me like she's worrying for nothing.



I'm not sure how it works on the paper returns, but if you fill out an electronic Form 11 (on ROS or ROS Offline Application) you will see that bank interest income indeed triggers an additional 2% (of the pre-DIRT interest amount) in Health Levies. PRSI will also be due, unless you've already hit the PRSI ceiling with your other income sources.

(Note - for individuals earning >€100,100, The health levy is 2.5% on income above that figure)


----------



## Graham_07 (10 Jun 2008)

extopia said:


> I'm not sure how it works on the paper returns, but if you fill out an electronic Form 11 (on ROS or ROS Offline Application) you will see that bank interest income indeed triggers an additional 2% (of the pre-DIRT interest amount) in Health Levies. PRSI will also be due, unless you've already hit the PRSI ceiling with your other income sources.
> 
> (Note - for individuals earning >€100,100, The health levy is 2.5% on income above that figure)


 
If you fill out either a paper or ROS Form 11 then any additional PRSI/Levies due will be automatically calculated by Revenue when the Notice of Assessment issues. 

If you fill out a paper Form 12 ( not certain on ROS based F12 but think the same ) then no PRSI/Levies is calculated.


----------



## Bronte (10 Jun 2008)

I've been to some race meetings and I don't remember any receipts, maybe it's different nowadays but you just get a numbered cardboard piece of paper, it's written down in the bookies book what your bet is and the odd's, but if you win you just get the cash.  It's seems to be a perfectly legitimate defence to the question of where did the money come from or Bertie wouldn't have brought it up.
It would be far simplier if the govenment/Revenue decided that the DIRT tax covered everything including PRSI.  I'm sure when I earned 20 pounds in interest in say 1995 that I probably owe PRSI on it, I know for sure I never declared it, not to avoid tax but I didn't even realise it might have a further PRSI liability.


----------



## extopia (10 Jun 2008)

Graham_07 said:


> If you fill out either a paper or ROS Form 11 then any additional PRSI/Levies due will be automatically calculated by Revenue when the Notice of Assessment issues.



My point is that ROS Form 11 calculates this for you automatically, no need to wait for Notice of Assessment.


----------



## ClubMan (10 Jun 2008)

Bronte said:


> I've been to some race meetings and I don't remember any receipts


I'm sure that if you asked for one - or for a cheque payment of winnings - you might get one. Especially if the win was large enough. Isn't that how some crooks launder their money?


----------



## CharlieR (16 Jun 2008)

ClubMan said:


> What has this got to do with the original subject matter!!?
> 
> There are numerous existing threads discussing the deposit protection schemes covering banks authorised by the _Irish (IFSRA/CB) _and other _EU _authorities.


 
It has to do with you having money in more than 1 account when they look. 100k in 4 accounts rather than 1.


----------



## starlite68 (16 Jun 2008)

whats the difference between having 100k in one bank...to having four bank accounts with 25k in each?


----------



## Slater (21 Jan 2009)

From the ICAI website.

*Deposit Accounts Investigation
*Monday, January 19, 2009 

Following the 15 January deadline, Revenue advise us that as of 5.00pm on Thursday, €53.7m in tax, interest and penalties had been received from 932 cases under the disclosure scheme.
The last such special investigation was the Single Premium Insurance Policies investigation in 2005. By the July 2005 deadline for the voluntary phase of that investigation, 4,600 taxpayers had paid €312m. Those figures subsequently increased to some €450m from 5,300 taxpayers over the subsequent phases of that investigation. Average yields per capita from both investigations are quite comparable.


----------

