# Revenue introduce AEOs (Attachment of Earnings Orders). Court process bypassed.



## z107 (28 Dec 2011)

I just got this in my inbox:
[broken link removed]

It looks like Revenue can now help themselves to tax payers' wages if there are any outstanding debts.

I would have thought such a drastic move would necessitate a referendum?

An example would be if you refuse to pay the new property tax, Revenue can just help themselves to your wages.


----------



## ajapale (28 Dec 2011)

*Revenue eBrief No. 86/11                                                                      *

*28 December 2011*

*Attachment of Wages/Salaries under S.1002 TCA 1997*

 The Finance Act 2011 extended the power of attachment to wages/salaries in the enforcement of debt due to Revenue.
   [broken link removed]  (PDF, 1.53MB) for Attachment reflecting the Finance Act 2011 changes  are published on the Revenue website at: Taxes & Duties - Tax &  Duty Manuals Section 16 FOI Act - Collection - Enforcement - Guidelines  for Attachment.


----------



## ajapale (28 Dec 2011)

Thanks for that umop3p!sdn. Would you mind if i moved it to a more serious part of the board? Ive expanded the title a little.

aj
moderator


----------



## z107 (28 Dec 2011)

ajapale said:


> Thanks for that umop3p!sdn. Would you mind if i moved it to a more serious part of the board? Ive expanded the title a little.
> 
> aj
> moderator



I would be happy for you to move it to where ever you deem more appropriate. The more people that know about this the better.

(I posted it in letting off steam because I thought it might be quite an emotive topic)

Thanks for expanding the title.


----------



## Purple (28 Dec 2011)

I don't see the problem with this. It should save the state money.


----------



## oldnick (28 Dec 2011)

OP - I don't think you've read the guidelines ? This move only affects big amounts owing for a long time by people earning over50k  -and loads of notice must be given.

Nobody could object to that.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Dec 2011)

[FONT=&quot]Seems absolutely reasonable to me. The Revenue, on behalf of citizens, can get money due from taxpayers who are refusing to pay. 
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]


> Attachment  is  used as  an  alternative  to Sheriff  or  Solicitor  enforcement  and is speedy and cost effective.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Dec 2011)

Hasn't something similar been introduced regarding court fines? 

There were huge complaints about people going to jail for non-payment of fines, so that was scrapped. So it was replaced by the power to take the fines from salaries or social welfare. Again, this seems like a very reasonable approach to me. 

If someone refuses to pay their taxes or fines, it should be easy for the state to get the payment without having to pay huge fees to the legal profession. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Dec 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> An example would be if you refuse to pay the new property tax, Revenue can just help themselves to your wages.



Unfortunately, I don't think that this is correct. If you refuse to pay your property tax, the Revenue can't seize it.

But if you are fined for not paying it, I think that the fine can be seized from you bank account. I hope that this is the case.


----------



## oldnick (29 Dec 2011)

Surely the fine cannot be seized from one's  wages/salaries under the Attachment thing under discussion -unless, of course, someone is fined over 10.000 euros for not paying property tax -plus they earn over 50.000.
Or have I misunderstood this?


----------



## z107 (29 Dec 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Unfortunately, I don't think that this is correct. If you refuse to pay your property tax, the Revenue can't seize it.
> 
> But if you are fined for not paying it, I think that the fine can be seized from you bank account. I hope that this is the case.



An Attachment of Earnings order means that the money is taken from your wages before your wages goes into your bank account. Your employer takes the sum specified when processing the Payroll.

They have this system in the UK. It is used for collecting council tax and student loans etc.

Is it coincidence that they are introducing this in Ireland? Just as unpopular property and water taxes are being introduced?



> Seems absolutely reasonable to me. The Revenue, on behalf of citizens, can get money due from taxpayers who are refusing to pay.


Let's be clear on this. It is certainly NOT on behalf of the citizens. It is on behalf of the state.


----------



## RonanC (29 Dec 2011)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Let's be clear on this. It is certainly NOT on behalf of the citizens. It is on behalf of the state.


 
What does the 'the State' mean to you? Or do you mean on behalf of the Government?


----------



## Threadser (29 Dec 2011)

I also have absolutely no problem with this. If people owe the money, have the resources and refuse to pay up then it should be deducted at source from their wages.


----------



## z107 (29 Dec 2011)

So does anyone see any problem with this?
Am I alone?


----------



## z107 (29 Dec 2011)

/close


----------



## ajapale (29 Dec 2011)

Thread reopened.


----------



## ajapale (29 Dec 2011)

My problem with the proposal is that it bypasses the due process of the courts.

There is a long standing arrangement of garnishing earnings on foot of court order in force in ireland. This can be a bit of pain for payroll but it does exist.

If revenue want to attach earnings why dont they just go to court and obtain a court order like any one else.


----------



## nuac (29 Dec 2011)

Revenue could always attach sums due to self employed by their customers.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Dec 2011)

ajapale said:


> My problem with the proposal is that it bypasses the due process of the courts.
> 
> There is a long standing arrangement of garnishing earnings on foot of court order in force in ireland. This can be a bit of pain for payroll but it does exist.
> 
> If revenue want to attach earnings why dont they just go to court and obtain a court order like any one else.



It's a matter of cost and efficiency.  How long would it take to get a court order? How much would it cost? How many adjournments could the taxpayer get? 

The taxpayer would presumably have to pay the costs of the Revenue and so it only costs them more.

If someone is 6 months' late with the payment of their tax and if they have received a notice of the intention to seek an attachment, then there should be no need to involve anyone else in the process.


----------



## Thirsty (1 Jan 2012)

I'm thrilled - perhaps we could extend such measures to those parents who decline to pay their court-ordered child maintenance...


----------



## Brendan Burgess (2 Jan 2012)

Thirsty said:


> I'm thrilled - perhaps we could extend such measures to those parents who decline to pay their court-ordered child maintenance...



absolutely.


----------



## ajapale (2 Jan 2012)

Thirsty said:


> _*court-ordered*_ child maintenance...



I might be wrong but I think that the current proposal allows revenue to  _*by pass*_ the courts. 

This is my problem with the proposal.

I agree with umop3p!sdn when he suggests that the measure may be unconstitutional and would require a referendum to allow it stand if challenged.




umop3p!sdn said:


> [broken link removed]
> 
> It looks like Revenue can now help themselves to tax payers' wages if there are any outstanding debts.
> 
> I would have thought such a drastic move would necessitate a referendum?


----------

