# 2003 refunds statute barred



## simplyjoe (4 Jul 2008)

I have a client who due to a mistake by the HSE was overtaxed/taxed on maternity benefit. This was discovered in 2008 and a refund was applied for. Revenue refuse to process the refund. 
Another client was on PAYE in 2003 and due to medical costs and due to leaving work during the year is due a refund of €8,000. He did get an incomplete return submitted in December 07 but there was a lot of missing info. Is there any way to get this money back. It seems ridiculous. Has anyone or any group tried to tackle this scandal. They have stolen our money. Large donation for AAM or other charity if solution found.


----------



## ClubMan (4 Jul 2008)

You can only backdate claims by 4 years. End of story. I'm not aware of anybody challenging this but good luck if you do.

The second client really should have submitted the claim earlier or made sure that it was correct when they eventually did.


----------



## Slater (6 Jul 2008)

I believe that revenue  go back 25 years - they claim that their is no limit to their search. It looks a bit unfair to me.


----------



## Joe1234 (6 Jul 2008)

Slater said:


> I believe that revenue  go back 25 years - they claim that their is no limit to their search. It looks a bit unfair to me.



Does anybody know if there has ever been a legal challenge to the fact that the taxpayer can only go back 4 years to look for their money back from revenue, yet revenue can go back much further?


----------



## simplyjoe (7 Jul 2008)

ClubMan said:


> The second client really should have submitted the claim earlier or made sure that it was correct when they eventually did.


 
Comments like this just does not help at all. I did not ask anyone to comment on how smart the guy was. I am sure you live in a perfect world where you get everything correct all of the time! Also the client had personal circumstances that precluded him being able to think rationally.


----------



## ClubMan (7 Jul 2008)

If you don't want comments then don't post on a public discussion forum such as this.


----------



## asdfg (7 Jul 2008)

I think your only option is to talk to your local politician and hope for the best.


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Jul 2008)

There has been no legal challenge, as yet, to the 4 year rule. Its simply not worth anyone's time or effort to mount a High Court or Supreme Court challenge for the sake of a tax refund. Even if someone loses out on a €10,000 refund, they would be mad to risk losing a multiple of this sum in legal fees. 

People negatively affected by the 4 year rule should collectively bombard the Ombudsman with complaints. Maybe he might fight to change it.

Its all very well and good to justify the 4 years rule by saying that "The second client really should have submitted the claim earlier or made sure that it was correct when they eventually did" but the point is that large numbers of people are genuinely ignorant of their tax entitlements and many lose out on entitlements because of this.


----------



## ClubMan (7 Jul 2008)

ubiquitous said:


> Its all very well and good to justify the 4 years rule by saying that "The second client really should have submitted the claim earlier or made sure that it was correct when they eventually did" but the point is that large numbers of people are genuinely ignorant of their tax entitlements and many lose out on entitlements because of this.


My comment was not by way of justification of the 4 year rule but pointing out what is prudent action given the de facto situation.


----------



## simplyjoe (8 Jul 2008)

ClubMan said:


> If you don't want comments then don't post on a public discussion forum such as this.


All I want is comments that help. Its obvious that he should have sent the return in before the 4 year deadline. He now has to put up with losing the €8k and also being told he was stupid.


----------



## ubiquitous (8 Jul 2008)

Hi Joe,

Given the fact that there is now a new Minister for Finance (who seems to be a reasonable person), and a very capable and eager FG Finance spokesman, perhaps you and/or your client might wish to make direct representations to either in order to get this problem rectified?


----------



## ClubMan (8 Jul 2008)

simplyjoe said:


> All I want is comments that help. Its obvious that he should have sent the return in before the 4 year deadline. He now has to put up with losing the €8k and also being told he was stupid.


I never said that he was stupid. And I posted the comment as much for the benefit of others who might be reading this thread *before *submitting claims. Please read my posts more carefully and desist from insinuating that I have said offensive things that I never actually did.


----------



## simplyjoe (8 Jul 2008)

I contacted the tax office and explained the extenuating personal circumstances. The officer assured me that the refund would be made.


----------



## webtax (8 Jul 2008)

simplyjoe said:


> I contacted the tax office and explained the extenuating personal circumstances. The officer assured me that the refund would be made.


 
A refund in respect of both cases? I have not seen a case yet where they have been prepared to set aside the limitation, so let us know how you get on.

To play devils advocate, the reason the four year rule was brought in was, I would imagine, was to reduce the amount of time the tax office had to spend digging through old files and processing old claims. Given the recessionary conditions and public service cutbacks now being called for, is it in the Governments interest to remove the four year limitation and incur additional costs? Is there any other organisation that allows you to wait over four years to make a claim?


----------



## ubiquitous (8 Jul 2008)

webtax said:


> A refund in respect of both cases? I have not seen a case yet where they have been prepared to set aside the limitation, so let us know how you get on.



This news isn't THAT surprising given that the client claimed the relief within the 4 year period by filing the relevant Form 11. I thought it harsh that the claim was rejected as it was incomplete. Good to see that this particular case was resolved even if the substantive problem remains.



webtax said:


> To play devils advocate, the reason the four year rule was brought in was, I would imagine, was to reduce the amount of time the tax office had to spend digging through old files and processing old claims. Given the recessionary conditions and public service cutbacks now being called for, is it in the Governments interest to remove the four year limitation and incur additional costs? Is there any other organisation that allows you to wait over four years to make a claim?



Nice theory but you forget that the Revenue still retain pretty much unlimited power to reopen files and process assessments for any number of past years when they suspect a taxpayer of owing arrears. Natural justice would suggest that  it is unfair and unjust of them to deny taxpayers the same rights as they themselves enjoy.


----------



## simplyjoe (8 Jul 2008)

The case where the maternity benefit was taxed has not been resolved despite the fact that one government body (health board) erroneously taxed what should not have been taxed and the other government body refuses to fix the problem when it has been discovered.


----------



## ClubMan (8 Jul 2008)

simplyjoe said:


> The case where the maternity benefit was taxed has not been resolved despite the fact that one government body erroneously taxed what should not have been taxed and the other government body refuses to fix the problem when it has been discovered.


What are you referring to? *What *case of _MB _being taxed?   Surely the *only *body that can tax _MB _and rectify matters if this happens (which sounds very odd) is _Revenue_?


----------



## simplyjoe (8 Jul 2008)

ClubMan said:


> What are you referring to? *What *case of _MB _being taxed?  Surely the *only *body that can tax _MB _and rectify matters if this happens (which sounds very odd) is _Revenue_?


 
Basically what has happened is that the health board paid the employee the maternity benefit and subsequently got refunded the money back from the Social Welfare. When they administered the payment to the employee they included it as taxable income. So, in effect, the maternity benefit was taxed. Widespread problem affecting a lot of people.


----------



## ClubMan (8 Jul 2008)

I thought that _SW _paid _MB_. How come the _HB _were paying it here? Or do you mean salary payment with the _SW MB _payable by the employee to the employer in which case there is a danger of the employee losing out on the tax free nature of _MB _without going digging?


----------



## Joe1234 (8 Jul 2008)

ClubMan said:


> Or do you mean salary payment with the _SW MB _payable by the employee to the employer in which case there is a danger of the employee losing out on the tax free nature of _MB _without going digging?



That is my understanding of simplyjoe's previous post.


----------



## ClubMan (8 Jul 2008)

He said that the _HB _were paying _MB _which makes no sense to me since it's a _SW _payment.


----------



## Joe1234 (9 Jul 2008)

ClubMan said:


> He said that the _HB _were paying _MB _which makes no sense to me since it's a _SW _payment.



If the person was employed by the health board/HSE, and the employer was topping up the state maternity benefit.  I believe there is a section on the MB application form, if the woman wants the MB paid directly to her employer.


----------



## csirl (9 Jul 2008)

> He said that the _HB _were paying _MB _which makes no sense to me since it's a _SW _payment.


 
This is quite normal in many PAYE jobs - the employer pays the salary as normal and it is taxed in the normal way (as if the employee was still in work). Employee fills in a form which entitles the employer to receive the maternity payment directly from SW (to reimburse employer for paying it as part of "salary"). Employee then seeks a tax assessment at the end of the tax year for reimbursement of overpaid tax as the MB portion of salary that was paid is exempt from tax.

In reply to other posters, Revenue can only go back e.g. 25 years, in cases where they suspect tax fraud i.e. a criminal offence, has been committed. I think they can only go back 6 years for normal audits.


----------



## ClubMan (9 Jul 2008)

Fair enough - but to say that the _HB _was paying _SW _is simply incorrect and misleading/confusing.


----------

