# How can/could Revenue "find out"?



## Wład_Szćżepąnjk (19 Apr 2022)

I met up with some family members over the Easter break, and congratulated my sister (44) on finally buying a house... and what a house.

She rarely drinks, but had one glass of prosecco too many.  It turns out our uncle gifted her €500,000, and she put that with her savings and bought the house.  No mortgage.  Alas, it's completely unfurnished.
Anyway, I'm not surprised (or jealous).  She's always been his favourite, he's wealthy and has no family of his own.  Like my other sister said, she was going to inherit everything from him anyway; now she's just getting half of it early.

I discovered later that she had also let slip she paid no gift tax on the €500k.  My other sis pointed out to her that she's liable for about €150,000 tax.  Her response was "shure what about it, how'd the tax man ever find out?"

It's a fair point she makes.  We all love her to bits, we're not jealous types... we're not going to report her.  Had she not had just one (and we're talking just one) too many, none of would be none the wiser.  I've never seen her tipsy like this before, I can't imagine it happening again, and I can't imagine her letting it slip to someone that would squeal on her.

However, I'm concerned that if the taxman did find out, she's get a whopping bill, but hasn't a penny to her name apart from a house worth a shade over half a mil.
Should I be concerned for her?  Or is it right when she says, "how'd the tax man ever find out?"


----------



## Thirsty (19 Apr 2022)

On my first reading, I wondered about the AML declaration that the Solicitor doing the conveyancing would have looked for; but I guess a letter from Uncle would have covered that. In which case there is a legally relied upon document confirming that this is a gift.  

There's a part of me that feels this comes under the heading of an SEP - Someone Else's Problem.

From your sister's point of view however, the question isn't so much - _how _would Revenue find out, but _when _will Revenue find out?  and it won't just be €150k but interest on top of that for however long she has evaded the tax.

She has a significant asset that she can sell to pay it when that day comes; but it would be cheaper to re-mortgage now for 150k and pay the tax.


----------



## Peanuts20 (19 Apr 2022)

It's possible the bank in question (to where funds were lodged) may report it under AML requirements


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (19 Apr 2022)

Peanuts20 said:


> It's possible the bank in question (to where funds were lodged) may report it under AML requirements


Yes but suspicious transactions from an AML perspective go to AGS, not Revenue.

I am speculating here, but a transfer of said amount from one Irish bank account to another might not even raise flags, especially if donor and recipient have the same surname. The main line of defence from an AML perspective would be your sister's solicitor who is obliged to seek assurances that the source of funds is legal, as @Thirsty has outlined.

Sister's solicitor would have (presumably) advised her that there would be CAT implications but to my knowledge that would be the end of it from the solicitor's perspective.


----------



## Dunelm (19 Apr 2022)

If the sister is  queried about this could not simply say that the money is a loan from the uncle?

There is meant to be interest charged but it’s linked to rates banks are offering for deposits - so around 0% would be correct.


----------



## Thirsty (19 Apr 2022)

Dunelm said:


> If the sister is queried about this could not simply say that the money is a loan from the uncle?


The question is what AML documentation was already lodged with Solicitor and if a loan agreement is in place.

In any event from the OPs side, I'm slowing reverting back to an SEP point of view.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (19 Apr 2022)

Dunelm said:


> There is meant to be interest charged but it’s linked to rates banks are offering for deposits - so around 0% would be correct.


A loan with no repayment schedule is not a loan!


----------



## 24601 (19 Apr 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Yes but suspicious transactions from an AML perspective go to AGS, not Revenue.



That's incorrect, suspicious transaction reports *must *go to both.


----------



## Dunelm (19 Apr 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> A loan with no repayment schedule is not a loan!



I’ve see one where the repayment date is listed as 30 days after requested in writing by the lender.
No idea if it should have been allowed but drawn up by a legal firm  so presumably they thought it was acceptable.


----------



## relax carry on (19 Apr 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Yes but suspicious transactions from an AML perspective go to AGS, not Revenue.
> 
> I am speculating here, but a transfer of said amount from one Irish bank account to another might not even raise flags, especially if donor and recipient have the same surname. The main line of defence from an AML perspective would be your sister's solicitor who is obliged to seek assurances that the source of funds is legal, as @Thirsty has outlined.
> 
> Sister's solicitor would have (presumably) advised her that there would be CAT implications but to my knowledge that would be the end of it from the solicitor's perspective.



It goes to both.



			https://www.amlcompliance.ie/suspicious-transaction-reporting/


----------



## Johnno75 (19 Apr 2022)

On a house transfer, the transaction is recorded on a Revenue PD (Particulars Delivered) form. Whilst the source of funds to acquire the house is not notified to Revenue, the purchase transaction is, as is the fact that she owns the property.

So, with that and the Local Property Tax return which she may have lodged, the fact that she purchased a house is on the Revenue systems. Any AML reporting done will also have her on their systems.

If she was ever audited, Revenue could query the source of the funds to purchase the house. They have wide powers to look into bank accounts etc.

If Revenue enforcement ever had cause to pursue her for any reason (eg by failing to file any tax return), Revenue have search capabilities to establish the ownership of properties and any charges on the properties eg a land registry search. A mortgage free house of such value for a person of (presumably) modest means might raise curious eyebrows in officialdom.

If she is not careful, and does not keep her affairs in order, a small trip-up on her part could cause the Revenue authorities to start digging. And they wouldn’t have to dig too far.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (19 Apr 2022)

the long and short of it is that revenue will absolutely discover this either in the near future or when your uncle passes away and his assets subsequently distributed. A transfer of €500,000 from one person to another will attract the attention of Revenue and come up on their radar. This would go into a file to be investigated and I believe the person needs to declare this by a date later in the year. So Revenue won't come looking today or tomorrow, but once the date passes then they can and will come and as previous poster said, they will apply penalties and interest etc which are very severe. Pay the tax man and don't be looking over your shoulder and fearing the knock at the door.


----------



## noproblem (19 Apr 2022)

I'd imagine a good revenue officer would have a gander through pages like this every now and again. They'd be awful fools not to. One good thing she has going for her, is the other half a million she's "maybe" going to collect when the uncle passes away. That might just about pay the taxes she'll be hit with, she might need a few bob more along with it though. What a mess it would be, if God forbid, she passed away first.


----------



## Baby boomer (20 Apr 2022)

This thread serves to underline just why CAT is a horribly unfair tax.  The uncle, we must presume, has acquired his fortune lawfully and has paid - if he's living in Ireland - stunningly high taxes on it already.  He is now in the unfortunate position that, having already suffered marginal tax rates in excess of 50%, Revenue will get a further 33% bite out of almost everything he leaves behind him.  Why shouldn't he be allowed to bequeath his own after-tax property to a favourite niece? 

And CAT of course, is a tax for the little people.  The truly rich will employ effective tax avoidance strategies to - quite lawfully - reduce or eliminate their beneficiaries' liability.  It is regular folk who are fortunate enough to inherit modest sums or properties who get clobbered.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 Apr 2022)

Baby boomer said:


> And CAT of course, is a tax for the *little people*. The *truly rich *will employ effective tax avoidance strategies


Sorry, if you have half a million euros in spare cash to gift to a relative well you are indeed "rich".


----------



## T McGibney (20 Apr 2022)

Baby boomer said:


> This thread serves to underline just why CAT is a horribly unfair tax.  The uncle, we must presume, has acquired his fortune lawfully and has paid - if he's living in Ireland - stunningly high taxes on it already.  He is now in the unfortunate position that, having already suffered marginal tax rates in excess of 50%, Revenue will get a further 33% bite out of almost everything he leaves behind him.  Why shouldn't he be allowed to bequeath his own after-tax property to a favourite niece?


If you inherit €335,000 from a parent, you pay nothing in CAT. If you inherit from an aunt or uncle, you pay €100,000. If you inherit from your aunt or uncle's surviving spouse, you pay €105,000. This is perhaps the greatest and most shameful inequality in the Irish tax code.

And a special CAT exemption for a favourite niece or nephew would worsen this inequality, ultimately creating a "winner takes all" mess and untold strife and jealousy in families.


NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Sorry, if you have half a million euros in spare cash to gift to a relative well you are indeed "rich".


No, having on retirement the price of a middling family home in a reasonably popular urban area is counted as "rich" only  in a country that despises and begrudges the accumulation of even modest wealth.


----------



## Baby boomer (20 Apr 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Sorry, if you have half a million euros in spare cash to gift to a relative well you are indeed "rich".


No, you are comfortable.  But you're not rich.  Not even close.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 Apr 2022)

Baby boomer said:


> No, you are comfortable.


70% of households don't even have €500k in net wealth, never mind having as much to give away. The median household has €50k in liquid financial assets (see table 3.4). Someone able to give away half a million euros in cash is rich, or else you have a useless definition of the word.

You compare yourself to your peers in life, but your peers are not randomly selected. People completely forget that the population of AAM is self selected and (on average) we have much higher income and wealth than most.


----------



## T McGibney (20 Apr 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> 70% of households don't even have €500k in net wealth, never mind having as much to give away. The median household has €50k in liquid financial assets (see table 3.4). Someone able to give away half a million euros in cash is rich, or else you have a useless definition of the word.
> 
> You compare yourself to your peers in life, but your peers are not randomly selected. People completely forget that the population of AAM is self selected and (on average) we have much higher income and wealth than most.


This has nothing to do with self-selection, the fact remains that Ireland has relatively few rich people. And that's a major long-term problem for our country and economy. 

To repeat, having the price of a middling Dublin house in net wealth isn't rich.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 Apr 2022)

T McGibney said:


> To repeat, having the price of a middling Dublin house in net wealth isn't rich.


I agree, and that's about the extent of my own net wealth. But that's not the case here.

We are talking about a situation where someone is *giving away* the value of a middling Dublin house in cash.

The uncle presumably has a place to live and an income for himself still.


----------



## T McGibney (20 Apr 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I agree, and that's about the extent of my own net wealth. But that's not the case here.
> 
> We are talking about a situation where someone is *giving away* the value of a middling Dublin house in cash.
> 
> The uncle presumably has a place to live and an income for himself still.


We don't know what his situation is but the mere fact that he has 500k in spare funds doesn't mean that he's rich by any meaningful standard. And however much wealth he has , he can hardly bring it with him when he passes away, so it's quite reasonable to prudent to gift or bequeath it to a relative. Had he gotten seriously sick or incapacitated in his retirement, that money could well have been needed to finance nursing care. The happy accident that he didn't means now that he's comfortable, but he's not rich.


----------



## fidelcastro (20 Apr 2022)

Baby boomer said:


> This thread serves to underline just why CAT is a horribly unfair tax.  The uncle, we must presume, has acquired his fortune lawfully and has paid - if he's living in Ireland - stunningly high taxes on it already.  He is now in the unfortunate position that, having already suffered marginal tax rates in excess of 50%, Revenue will get a further 33% bite out of almost everything he leaves behind him.  Why shouldn't he be allowed to bequeath his own after-tax property to a favourite niece?
> 
> And CAT of course, is a tax for the little people.  The truly rich will employ effective tax avoidance strategies to - quite lawfully - reduce or eliminate their beneficiaries' liability.  It is regular folk who are fortunate enough to inherit modest sums or properties who get clobbered.


I doubt the so called rich uncle gained his fortune via PAYE, so your assertion re:50% tax is just that, - an assertion. However that is his business and more luck to him.

She should do what you are meant to do, pay the tax due and move on. It was a windfall , she is very lucky,  and hence do the right thing.


----------



## Thirsty (20 Apr 2022)

fidelcastro said:


> I doubt the so called rich uncle gained his fortune via PAYE


There is absolutely *nothing *in the OP to suggest such a thing!


----------



## Baby boomer (20 Apr 2022)

fidelcastro said:


> I doubt the so called rich uncle gained his fortune via PAYE, so your assertion re:50% tax is just that, - an assertion.


It's not an assertion, it's a presumption.  According to the now seemingly forgotten, but never retracted, Taxpayers Charter, all taxpayers are entitled to a presumption of honesty from Revenue.  Surely they are entitled to no less from us here on askaboutmoney?  



fidelcastro said:


> However that is his business and more luck to him.


Indeed. 



fidelcastro said:


> She should do what you are meant to do, pay the tax due and move on. It was a windfall , she is very lucky,  and hence do the right thing.


The "right thing" eh?  There's all sorts of "right", there's legally right, morally right, efficiently right and expediently right.  When it comes to taxes, these versions of "right" can be quite different from each other.


----------



## DirectDevil (20 Apr 2022)

OP's sister needs to get herself along to a tax consultant as a matter of *urgency *for professional advice on how to put her tax affairs in order.
There is much that we do not know about in relation to the particulars of the specific case.
It occurs to me that it may yet be possible to rescue the situation legally, especially if the benefit has only accrued recently.
Whatever OP's sister does she must not ignore the situation as this will definitely not go away of it's own accord.


----------



## PGF2016 (20 Apr 2022)

T McGibney said:


> We don't know what his situation is but the mere fact that he has 500k in spare funds doesn't mean that he's rich by any meaningful standard.


I would think >95% of the world's population would consider a person having half a million euros to spare to be rich. And I think a majority of Irish people would think the same.


----------



## Peanuts20 (20 Apr 2022)

It doesn't matter whether we think the Uncle, the niece or anyone else in this chain is rich or not. It's irrelevant.

The issue here is that

does the recepient have a potential tax liability? (and the answer to that is probably yes),
will Revenue find out? (again, potentially and probably yes)
and will she make the situation worse by ignoring the issue? (again, probably yes)


----------



## PGF2016 (20 Apr 2022)

DirectDevil said:


> Whatever OP's sister does she must not ignore the situation as this will definitely not go away of it's own accord.


Agreed. Consider the stress that people with mica or pyrite issues hanging over them have to deal with. It could become very stressful worrying about revenue coming knocking on the door. This gift horse should not become a curse for the OP's sister. She should get things in order.


----------



## relax carry on (20 Apr 2022)

Baby boomer said:


> It's not an assertion, it's a presumption.  According to the now seemingly forgotten, but never retracted, Taxpayers Charter, all taxpayers are entitled to a presumption of honesty from Revenue.  Surely they are entitled to no less from us here on askaboutmoney?
> 
> 
> Indeed.
> ...


In order to avoid costing herself more than the tax she is due to pay in additional interest and penalties; the right thing to do is to pay whatever tax she is legally required to pay. Discussions around the morality of a tax and how do tax authorities know what they know is all well and good, until a Revenue intervention.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 Apr 2022)

Wład_Szćżepąnjk said:


> I discovered later that she had also let slip she paid no gift tax on the €500k. My other sis pointed out to her that she's liable for about €150,000 tax. Her response was "shure what about it, how'd the tax man ever find out?"


To get back on topic. The gift is subject to the Group C threshold of €16,250 with the balance taxable at 33%. That's a very big liability.

There may be a way to structure a part of this as a loan. Say €90,000 over 30 years with interest at prevailing deposit rates (0%) which is a repayment of €3,000 annually. The uncle can write off this €3,000 repayment annually as a gift and this has no implications for use of lifelong CAT thresholds.

If the "gift" was relatively recent she should take immediate steps to regularise its status and to (legally) reduce her tax liability. She should seek professional tax and legal advice. Speculating about if/when she is going to get caught is beside the point. It's something that no should want hanging over their heads.


----------



## T McGibney (20 Apr 2022)

PGF2016 said:


> I would think >95% of the world's population would consider a person having half a million euros to spare to be rich. And I think a majority of Irish people would think the same.


A good percentage of the world's population would consider a person as rich if they had two cattle.

And then there's _argumentum ad populum_.


----------



## PGF2016 (20 Apr 2022)

T McGibney said:


> A good percentage of the world's population would consider a person as rich if they had two cattle.
> 
> And then there's _argumentum ad populum_.


I would love to know what a 'meaningful standard' is .... but as this is off topic let's leave it there.


----------



## Allpartied (20 Apr 2022)

Interesting discussion about criminal fraud.  There seems to be a lot of sympathy for the fraudster. 
I doubt there would be similar sympathy for a social welfare con artist, who defrauded the state of 150k. 
In fact, I could post dozens of court reports of such individuals being jailed for 2 or 3 years and shamed in the national press. 

People may think the tax is unfair, but its the law.  This is clearly criminal behaviour and should be called out as such.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (20 Apr 2022)

Allpartied said:


> This is clearly criminal behaviour and should be called out as such.


+ 1


----------



## Itchy (20 Apr 2022)

Wład_Szćżepąnjk said:


> I discovered later that she had also let slip she paid no gift tax on the €500k.  My other sis pointed out to her that she's liable for about €150,000 tax.



€159,637 but sure it's only the state, LoL.



Wład_Szćżepąnjk said:


> Her response was "shure what about it, how'd the tax man ever find out?"


A line once uttered by everyone on this list, I'm sure





__





						List of defaulters
					

Index of defaulter listings for a given year




					www.revenue.ie


----------



## T McGibney (20 Apr 2022)

Wład_Szćżepąnjk said:


> I discovered later that she had also let slip she paid no gift tax on the €500k.  My other sis pointed out to her that she's liable for about €150,000 tax.  Her response was "shure what about it, how'd the tax man ever find out?"


Hmmm.


----------



## Pinoy adventure (20 Apr 2022)

Would selling the house wipe her slate clean in regards revenue??


----------



## Johnno75 (20 Apr 2022)

Pinoy adventure said:


> Would selling the house wipe her slate clean in regards revenue??


If she used part of the sale proceeds to discharge the outstanding tax liability (together with any interest and penalties), yes.


----------



## dubdub123 (20 Apr 2022)

Wład_Szćżepąnjk said:


> I met up with some family members over the Easter break, and congratulated my sister (44) on finally buying a house... and what a house.
> 
> She rarely drinks, but had one glass of prosecco too many.  It turns out our uncle gifted her €500,000, and she put that with her savings and bought the house.  No mortgage.  Alas, it's completely unfurnished.
> Anyway, I'm not surprised (or jealous).  She's always been his favourite, he's wealthy and has no family of his own.  Like my other sister said, she was going to inherit everything from him anyway; now she's just getting half of it early.
> ...



At the end of the day your sister is an adult. You could certainly mention to her that if situation is not sorted, she could end up with a hefty tax bill accruing interest and penalties. 
At the end of the day, even after sorting tax she walks away with over 300k. Not to be sniffed at. 
its really not your  business and as you dont have details, its possible the situation is not as bad as first appeared.. your uncle may have gifted her 3k each year over a number of years, that you are not aware of. 
Your sister has landed on her feet and the only one thats pulling the rug from under her feet is herself.


----------



## stovesoot (20 Apr 2022)

Here's a how did they found out that happened to me. 
Sold shares sitting in US money landed in my IE account. Not huge amount maybe circa 10k.
End of year got a letter from revenue asking to fill out the form re additional earnings.
Based on cross checking with colleagues we believe what happened was they cross checked the incoming bank account  against accounts also recv mortgage interest relief to identify us.

At least that was the only logical explanation we had based on those who were contacted.
Irish account recipients without mortgage relief, and those the transferred to offshore escaped the net.


----------



## MugsGame (20 Apr 2022)

DirectDevil said:


> OP's sister needs to get herself along to a tax consultant as a matter of *urgency *for professional advice on how to put her tax affairs in order.
> There is much that we do not know about in relation to the particulars of the specific case.
> It occurs to me that it may yet be possible to rescue the situation legally, especially if the benefit has only accrued recently.


I completely agree with this take. There may be legal ways to achieve the desired long-term outcome while minimizing the tax due.

For example: does the uncle have any business interests, where is his primary residence, etc. 

It's possible OP is mistaken and that only the first €32,500 of the €500k was intended as a gift, with the next €120k intended as a loan at 2.5% (with an annual gift of the €3k interest due), etc.


----------



## stovesoot (20 Apr 2022)

Even without too much automation it wouldn't be hard to identify
- take all new property tax payees
- cross check against landdirect to see of mortgage is registered 
- if no mortgage look at declared income for previous years
Something like that creates a narrow funnel relatively quickly. I'm sure a well versed accountant could think of other paths.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 Apr 2022)

stovesoot said:


> - take all new property tax payees
> - cross check against landdirect to see of mortgage is registered


Irish address data is all over the place and matching is not at all straightforward. AFAIK it's very hard to reliably match Revenue property IDs with folio data. So lots of false negatives.



stovesoot said:


> - if no mortgage look at declared income for previous years
> Something like that creates a narrow funnel relatively quickly.


It would create a vast number of false positives. Lots of people have legitimate financial wealth and pay cash for a property.


----------



## Monbretia (20 Apr 2022)

I dunno how much looking Revenue do these days but I bought my house with a mortgage in 1990, following year got a letter from Revenue asking me how I financed the purchase of my former address, however I never owned that house I was simply renting a flat in it!  But then I am one of these people that would get caught out no matter what!


----------



## SPC100 (20 Apr 2022)

Maybe the sis can get another early 150k to help pay the tax bill!


----------



## fistophobia (21 Apr 2022)

RE: the assertion that money was not earned from PAYE sources.

We are not all sucked into consumerism and keeping up with the McJones.

A lot of people give the impression they are doing well, driving new cars, shows off their status in society.
I bet 90% of the new cars are on finance.
As they say in Texas..... big hat, no cattle.

The uncle could have been frugal and invested his money well.


----------



## T McGibney (21 Apr 2022)

stovesoot said:


> Here's a how did they found out that happened to me.
> Sold shares sitting in US money landed in my IE account. Not huge amount maybe circa 10k.
> End of year got a letter from revenue asking to fill out the form re additional earnings.
> Based on cross checking with colleagues *we believe what happened was they cross checked the incoming bank account  against accounts also recv mortgage interest relief to identify us.*


Bit of a reach, that.  They don't routinely monitor private bank accounts in real time.

I'd imagine they received IRS data and matched it with their own records.


stovesoot said:


> Irish account recipients without mortgage relief, and those the transferred to offshore escaped the net.


I wouldn't be so sure of that.


----------



## T McGibney (21 Apr 2022)

fistophobia said:


> RE: the assertion that money was not earned from PAYE sources.


And also the implicit suggestion that savings accumulated from business, self-employment or profitable investment are somehow illegitimate or involve crookery.


----------



## Ciru75 (21 Apr 2022)

SPC100 said:


> Maybe the sis can get another early 150k to help pay the tax bill!


Then she'll need another 50k to pay the tax on that...


----------



## Baby boomer (21 Apr 2022)

Ciru75 said:


> Then she'll need another 50k to pay the tax on that...


Seems like an ideal scenario where the uncle should take out a Section 72 whole-of-life insurance policy which will pay out a tax-free sum on his death provided it's used to pay a CAT liability.


----------



## Des Pondent (21 Apr 2022)

Wład_Szćżepąnjk said:


> "how'd the tax man ever find out?"


2 days, 49 replies and over 4,000 views.

I think there are a few out there with similar concerns.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (21 Apr 2022)

Des Pondent said:


> I think there are a few out there with similar concerns.



That's a big leap into the level of presumption.


----------



## Des Pondent (21 Apr 2022)

PaddyBloggit said:


> That's a big leap into the level of presumption.


Yeah, maybe.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (22 Apr 2022)

fistophobia said:


> RE: the assertion that money was not earned from PAYE sources.
> 
> We are not all sucked into consumerism and keeping up with the McJones.
> 
> ...


What's your point? There are people in this world who are successful and pay paye and accumulate significant amounts of savings from salary despite the tax rate. 

A lot of successful people get car Allowance as part of their salary and after tax the net is enough to buy/finance a top end car.

Companies pay bonuses to successful employees,  companies grant shares to employees and again after tax these can be substantial sums.

You appear jealous and automatically think that anyone who has €500,000 accumulated that by illegal means, well I can assure you its possible and not that difficult if you are willing to get the skills and work hard.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (22 Apr 2022)

Des Pondent said:


> 2 days, 49 replies and over 4,000 views.
> 
> I think there are a few out there with similar concerns.


I think most of us are more shocked than "with similar concerns ", paying taxes isn't something that anyone likes, but if people wantonly "evade" their tax liabilities it effects the entire population both directly and indirectly.


----------



## T McGibney (22 Apr 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> I think most of us are more shocked than "with similar concerns ", paying taxes isn't something that anyone likes, but if people wantonly "evade" their tax liabilities it effects the entire population both directly and indirectly.


I'm not shocked at all by the OP's story, because I never for a second believed a word of it. It's preposterous.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (22 Apr 2022)

T McGibney said:


> I'm not shocked at all by the OP's story, because I never for a second believed a word of it. It's preposterous.


Dunno it does happen


----------



## T McGibney (22 Apr 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Dunno it does happen


That people dodge huge tax liabilities on fully documented transactions, then get drunk and tell their relatives, one of whom within a few days joins an online forum to tell everyone what happened?

It was the "shure what about it, how'd the tax man ever find out?" line that did it for me.


----------



## Peanuts20 (22 Apr 2022)

Like we never had Tax avoidance in this country 









						£1bn collected in amnesties over 13 years
					

The £176 million (€223




					www.irishtimes.com
				




And of course no one in Ireland has ever been done for not paying inheritance or gift tax








						Carer settles €1m tax bill with Revenue
					

Defaulters list show 35 taxpayers agree to pay total of €6 million in first quarter




					www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (22 Apr 2022)

T McGibney said:


> That people dodge huge tax liabilities on fully documented transactions, then get drunk and tell their relatives, one of whom within a few days joins an online forum to tell everyone what happened?
> 
> It was the "shure what about it, how'd the tax man ever find out?" line that did it for me.


That part I agree sounds iffy but look at it this way the advice and the law has had a light shone upon it. I do know of a similar situation same relationship albeit 12 years ago, and guess what Revenue found out and pursued the person who had left the jurisdiction.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (22 Apr 2022)

Peanuts20 said:


> Like we never had Tax avoidance in this country
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Avoidance is legal,  evasion isn't.


----------



## T McGibney (22 Apr 2022)

Peanuts20 said:


> Like we never had Tax avoidance in this country


Tax avoidance?  Bless.



Peanuts20 said:


> And of course no one in Ireland has ever been done for not paying inheritance or gift tax


Of course we know that tax evasion goes on, but that doesn't make the above story any more credible.


----------



## relax carry on (22 Apr 2022)

Peanuts20 said:


> Like we never had Tax avoidance in this country
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are thinking of tax evasion not tax avoidance. They are two distinct methods of not paying tax. Evasion is totally illegal (I just won't declare) Avoidance is somewhat more complex and may involve using reliefs etc in ways they were not envisaged to be utilised.

Also some of those amnesties of the past related to offshore assets. With the increase in the automatic exchange of tax related  information between countries worldwide, it's getting harder to harder to hide.


----------



## Baby boomer (22 Apr 2022)

relax carry on said:


> You are thinking of tax evasion not tax avoidance. Avoidance is somewhat more complex and may involve using reliefs etc in ways they were not envisaged to be utilised.


No person is obliged to arrange their affairs in exactly the way the Revenue would like or envisage.  If the relief is lawful; use it to the max.  The tax system is already very onerous, bordering on penal.  It is utterly abhorrent to suggest that taxpayers need or should do any more than ensure bare compliance.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (22 Apr 2022)

relax carry on said:


> Also some of those amnesties of the past related to offshore assets. With the increase in the automatic exchange of tax related  information between countries worldwide, it's getting harder to harder to hide.


Correct, even an employee getting shares via RSUs for example or options are already known to Revenue and if the tax isn't paid Revenue will be very quick to send you a letter.


----------



## joe sod (22 Apr 2022)

Baby boomer said:


> No person is obliged to arrange their affairs in exactly the way the Revenue would like or envisage.  If the relief is lawful; use it to the max.  The tax system is already very onerous, bordering on penal.  It is utterly abhorrent to suggest that taxpayers need or should do any more than ensure bare compliance.


Correct , the deemed disposal regime for investments in etfs is a case in point.  No other European country has this for simple investments that can be bought and sold online. Ireland is a complete outlier with regard to this. Its purely and simply and unfair tax when the same country won't impose a fair property tax


----------



## Defacto (22 Apr 2022)

fistophobia said:


> RE: the assertion that money was not earned from PAYE sources.
> 
> We are not all sucked into consumerism and keeping up with the McJones.
> 
> ...





fistophobia said:


> As they say in Texas..... big hat, no cattle.


Love that saying... I heard it quoted in The Millionnaire Next Door? Fantastc book!


----------



## noproblem (22 Apr 2022)

A bit like the lads on the building sites from the UK coming home in the late 70's/80's, with what was called the Amadáns gift.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (22 Apr 2022)

noproblem said:


> A bit like the lads on the building sites from the UK coming home in the late 70's/80's, with what was called the Amadáns gift.


I have never heard of  this, could you expand on its meaning?


----------



## noproblem (22 Apr 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> I have never heard of  this, could you expand on its meaning?


Might be a bit rude Paul. It concerned the white suited lads coming home and boasting about the big money they were earning.. Locals used to say they had the Amadáns gift, ie, because by the time they were going back all they had was "a big toxl and no money"


----------



## garbanzo (22 Apr 2022)

After my father in law died and probate was going through Mrs G was doing the probate. Revenue contacted her to ask about a house sale he had been involved in 13 years previously where no CGT was paid.

They were hit with interest, charges and penalties going back 13 years. To Revenue’s credit they were prepared to negotiate a little as Mrs G’s siblings knew nothing about it. It was still a significant enough bill in the end.

Moral of the story. Be as straight up in your dealings with Revenue as you have to be.

g


----------



## Johnno75 (22 Apr 2022)

Likewise. My Grandmother, who died in the mid-90s, didn’t believe in paying VAT in respect of a business she ran from the 70’s until she died. Revenue didn’t pursue her for the debt, but when she died, the VAT amount outstanding including penalties and interest were levied on her estate. As I inherited the estate (an apartment and contents), I ended up writing a cheque to the taxman to clear the tax debt so I could inherit the apartment. (The tax debt exceeded the value of the apartment at the time!).
Point being, Revenue have a long memory and you might be surprised at what they actually know about a person’s affairs.


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (23 Apr 2022)

noproblem said:


> Might be a bit rude Paul. It concerned the white suited lads coming home and boasting about the big money they were earning.. Locals used to say they had the Amadáns gift, ie, because by the time they were going back all they had was "a big toxl and no money"


We used to call them Dagenham Yanks , especially the ones who were working for Ford.


----------



## joe sod (23 Apr 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> We used to call them Dagenham Yanks , especially the ones who were working for Ford.


What did you call the ones that were working for Ford in Cork then?


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (23 Apr 2022)

joe sod said:


> What did you call the ones that were working for Ford in Cork then?


"Lucky" they had a job....the Cork plant didn't run the smelter all year so they were sent to Dagenham. Others went full time. There are stories of lads wearing fur coats for their wives /girl friends but womens coats buttoned opposite to mens and customs would take them.


----------



## PebbleBeach2020 (23 Apr 2022)

joe sod said:


> What did you call the ones that were working for Ford in Cork then?


I don't think anyone "worked" for Ford in Cork. The joke was that if you pushed a Cork Ford worker he'd start, such was the robbing by staff down there!


----------



## torblednam (26 Apr 2022)

I really love this kind of thread, please don't let it end!


----------



## Paul O Mahoney (26 Apr 2022)

PebbleBeach2020 said:


> I don't think anyone "worked" for Ford in Cork. The joke was that if you pushed a Cork Ford worker he'd start, such was the robbing by staff down there!


Thus the reason we all had Fords, the stories are comic regarding the stealing theres a lot of property in Crosshaven ,and its surrounds that are built from the crates the parts arrived in ....lads were known to transport them by bycicle.


----------



## Peanuts20 (26 Apr 2022)

Paul O Mahoney said:


> Thus the reason we all had Fords, the stories are comic regarding the stealing theres a lot of property in Crosshaven ,and its surrounds that are built from the crates the parts arrived in ....lads were known to transport them by bycicle.


Not just in Crosshaven, I know a couple of sheds on the other side of the city built out of those crates. Bad tyres from Dunlops were great for the silage pit coverings


----------



## T McGibney (26 Apr 2022)

garbanzo said:


> After my father in law died and probate was going through Mrs G was doing the probate. Revenue contacted her to ask about a house sale he had been involved in 13 years previously where no CGT was paid.
> 
> They were hit with interest, charges and penalties going back 13 years. To Revenue’s credit they were prepared to negotiate a little as Mrs G’s siblings knew nothing about it. It was still a significant enough bill in the end.
> 
> Moral of the story. Be as straight up in your dealings with Revenue as you have to be.





Johnno75 said:


> Likewise. My Grandmother, who died in the mid-90s, didn’t believe in paying VAT in respect of a business she ran from the 70’s until she died. Revenue didn’t pursue her for the debt, but when she died, the VAT amount outstanding including penalties and interest were levied on her estate. As I inherited the estate (an apartment and contents), I ended up writing a cheque to the taxman to clear the tax debt so I could inherit the apartment. (The tax debt exceeded the value of the apartment at the time!).
> Point being, Revenue have a long memory and you might be surprised at what they actually know about a person’s affairs.


Very odd stories, as tax penalties can not be charged on an individual after their death. (Arrears and interest can.)


----------



## Johnno75 (26 Apr 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Very odd stories, as tax penalties can not be charged on an individual after their death. (Arrears and interest can.)


Revenue raised the bill for taxes and charges during her lifetime and then didn’t pursue it. The debt sat on her file until she passed away and then the Executor had to negotiate with Revenue. All I know is that the tax debt was circa £20k and I ended up paying near £40k to clear the debt.


----------



## Blackrock1 (26 Apr 2022)

Johnno75 said:


> Revenue raised the bill for taxes and charges during her lifetime and then didn’t pursue it. The debt sat on her file until she passed away and then the Executor had to negotiate with Revenue. All I know is that the tax debt was circa £20k and I ended up paying near £40k to clear the debt.


so she would have known she had a liability but just ignored it?


----------



## Johnno75 (26 Apr 2022)

Blackrock1 said:


> so she would have known she had a liability but just ignored it?


Not exactly. She knew she had a liability and didn’t have it!


----------



## T McGibney (26 Apr 2022)

Johnno75 said:


> Revenue raised the bill for taxes and charges during her lifetime and then didn’t pursue it. The debt sat on her file until she passed away and then the Executor had to negotiate with Revenue. All I know is that the tax debt was circa £20k and I ended up paying near £40k to clear the debt.


Yes, if the penalties are charged while the person is still living, they remain payable post-mortem.


----------



## fistophobia (26 Apr 2022)

I would refuse to pay any leftover taxes, penalties from a deceased relative.
Is it possible to decline such an inheritance? Unless one wanted to retain a property.
It reminds of the guy that got 12 penalty points. His mother was in a nursing home, he was driving her car around recklessly.


----------



## Johnno75 (26 Apr 2022)

fistophobia said:


> I would refuse to pay any leftover taxes, penalties from a deceased relative.
> Is it possible to decline such an inheritance? Unless one wanted to retain a property.
> It reminds of the guy that got 12 penalty points. His mother was in a nursing home, he was driving her car around recklessly.


I had a choice in fairness. I could of course have refused the legacy and the Executor would have had to then sell it to settle the debt. I wanted to retain the property in the family. 

(Not sure I understand the penalty point analogy though.)


----------



## lff12 (23 May 2022)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> A loan with no repayment schedule is not a loan!


I think its still considered as a preferential loan in which case benefit in kind would apply.


----------



## lff12 (23 May 2022)

T McGibney said:


> Bit of a reach, that.  They don't routinely monitor private bank accounts in real time.
> 
> I'd imagine they received IRS data and matched it with their own records.
> 
> I wouldn't be so sure of that.


When you fill out the form for US holdings for shares there is usually a piece about cross border tax liability and data sharing (so you don't get taxed in the US as well as here). I do remember having to provide my PPS number so I think they might notify Revenue here in order to clear that you don't have an equivalent tax liability in the US.


----------



## T McGibney (24 May 2022)

lff12 said:


> I think its still considered as a preferential loan in which case benefit in kind would apply.


How can there be benefit in kind without an employment relationship between the parties?


----------

