Employer interpretation of Revenue guidelines

Thirsty said:
All of which is fair enough, but I believe I have sufficient grounds to seek a review.

The question is - how do I go about that?
Click to expand...

A review for what? Are you basically saying the company deducted too much tax from you? If so, you can claim it back from revenue. It sounds like you have an industrial relations issue rather a tax issue if you are claiming that some employees are being treated differently to others.
 
What is the actual issue?

You have the opportunity here to use accountants and tax advisors as sounding boards when their advice would normally cost you hundreds of euro.

Set out the issue but don’t mention the company (obviously).
 
It sounds like you have an industrial relations issue
Click to expand...
That may indeed be true, but without a Staff association or trades union, I don't see how that can be followed up.

I've asked the question as clearly as I can.

If I believe Acme Ltd are incorrect in their actions, in spite of their claim to be following Revenue guidelines, how do I go about getting a review?
 
Follow Sunny's advice.

Sunny said:
A review for what? Are you basically saying the company deducted too much tax from you? If so, you can claim it back from revenue.
Click to expand...

If the issue is not related to your tax let others affected deal with Revenue themselves, you'd be better to keep out of it.
 
Does this relate specially to the tax treatment of an item?
Or are they handling something in a manner that it is not just a tax impact? For example a timing of you receiving value for some payment?
 
Thirsty said:
It impacts on me - why would I 'keep out of it'?
Click to expand...

The difficulty with this thread is the lack of information you have given. This is the first time you have made it clear that it impacts on you.

So has your company deducted too much tax from you?

If not I don't see why you would think Revenue should give you a 'review'
 
It's not a review of 'me'.

It's a review of the interpretation being made and subsequent action taken by Acme Ltd.

In any event, I believe my first port of call is to Revenue.

"...first time you have made it clear that it impacts.."

A. Why would I be bothered if it didn't?
B. How does it make any difference to the question asked?

As far as questioning the guideline goes - has everyone forgotten that for years Revenue insisted NPPR was not a deductible expense?

Edit: corrected lpt to nppr
 
Last edited:
Thirsty said:
It's not a review of 'me'.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a review of 'you', you have asked 'how do I go about getting a review'


Thirsty said:
A. Why would I be bothered if it didn't?
B. How does it make any difference to the question asked?
Click to expand...

A. I don't know because you have given so little information
B. Because Revenue aren't going to give you a review of someone else's tax affairs.


My feeling on this is that the company are using revenue guidelines as an excuse for something. However Revenue are not going to investigate this unless it directly impacts on someone's tax affairs and will not provide you with a 'review' except to resolve any tax issues you might have. They are not in the business of industrial relations.
 
"...that the company are using revenue guidelines as an excuse for something"

You may be right.

However, I will write to Revenue and ask them to answer my direct questions on their guidelines.
 
Thirsty said:
"...that the company are using revenue guidelines as an excuse for something"

You may be right.

However, I will write to Revenue and ask them to answer my direct questions on their guidelines.
Click to expand...

Thirsty,

I really enjoy helping people with financial/tax issues, but I have zero interest in helping you. You’ve spent two pages speaking in code, refusing to clarify the nature of the issue, and just being difficult generally. Now you’re turning belligerent and heading off to speak with Revenue despite others advising you not to. Reading between the lines, I suspect that your employer wants rid of you because of your attitude; it can be tricky to “manage someone out”, but perhaps the Revenue Guidelines are proving a useful tool in this instance. You should reflect on these broader issues.

Gordon
 
Well that's given me a good early morning giggle anyway!

You may like to consider a new career as a fiction writer, Gordon!
 
Have to say, I'm with Gordon on this one.

You came here looking for advice but refused to give any meaningful information on what it was you wanted advice about other than generalities about Revenue Guidelines and alleged mistreatment of a group of workers by ACME Ltd.
 
refused to give any meaningful information
Click to expand...
I believe I stated in my first post that it was not easy to frame the question without giving too much identifiable information.

alleged mistreatment of a group of workers by ACME Ltd
Click to expand...
Mistreatment? Gordon Bennett!

Again, I'd refer to my first post where I said

They [Acme Ltd] accept that the (no doubt, unintended) consequence is that one group of employees is put at a significant disadvantage, but say it's out of their hands
Click to expand...
.

Let's not get too fanciful here.

I find it hard to believe that as a citizen of this country, I am not allowed to ask questions of Revenue for fear of losing my job!
 
Thirsty said:
I find it hard to believe that as a citizen of this country, I am not allowed to ask questions of Revenue for fear of losing my job!
Click to expand...
You are, but not in respect of the specifics of how another taxpayer's tax affairs are handled by them.
 
You are, but not in respect of the specifics of how another taxpayer's tax affairs are handled by them.
Click to expand...

Hold on a minute....I'm not asking about anyone else's affairs?

Thirsty says: Dear Acme Ltd, by doing XYZ you have a) have caused significant financial disadvantage and b) treated me differently from another group of employees

Acme Ltd say: We acknowledge the financial disadvantage. We have to do XYZ because Revenue say so in their Guideline 9999.

Thirsty says: Other employers do it differently, Deloitte say different, there's a case for this to be reviewed.

Acme Ltd say: We have to do XYZ because Revenue say so in their Guideline 9999.

Thirsty writes a letter to Revenue as it seems that's the best place to get clarification in the first place. (and no one here has suggested any other official channel).

Dear Revenue

Please confirm the implementation of Guideline 9999.

XYZ Method has the following consequential impact on me.
ABC Method does not.

Should this be implemented by XYZ Method or should it be done by ABC method.

Kind regards
Thirsty
 
Thirsty said:
Dear Revenue

Please confirm the implementation of Guideline 9999.

XYZ Method has the following consequential impact on me.
ABC Method does not.

Should this be implemented by XYZ Method or should it be done by ABC method.

Kind regards
Thirsty
Click to expand...

Well if you phrase it like that, you're obviously not asking about anyone else's affairs. But their answer won't be worth a damn to you. All they will do is refer you back to the appropriate legislation.

If this matter is important to you, you should consider engaging a tax consultant to advise and prepare an opinion which you can then give to your employer. This will cost money.
 
It's already costing me (and others) money, and likely to do so in the future, so it may be worth while to pool our resources and do as you say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register