Indo - "Revenue is chasing tens of thousands of pensioners over owed tax"

T McGibney said:
Then Revenue should bar taxpayers from completing such returns until the information has been imported.
Click to expand...
Revenue don't have the power to unilaterally do that, it would require a change to legislation, and such a change would arguably be subject to challenge by someone on principle (that a person shouldn't be precluded from filing a return to Revenue as soon as the period in question has ended etc...)

Anyway, the "incomplete data" in the specific instance we're discussing is either or both pension and employment details - if a "dutiful" person completes their own income tax return, overlooking the fact that they had income from these sources, simply because Revenue haven't prefilled the details for them, they probably shouldn't be filling in their own return...
 
torblednam said:
Revenue don't have the power to unilaterally do that, it would require a change to legislation, and such a change would arguably be subject to challenge by someone on principle (that a person shouldn't be precluded from filing a return to Revenue as soon as the period in question has ended etc...)
Click to expand...
So what if someone took a patently pointless challenge to a sensible restriction?
torblednam said:
they probably shouldn't be filling in their own return...
Click to expand...
Yeah, keep blaming the citizenry when things go wrong.
 
T McGibney said:
So what if someone took a patently pointless challenge to a sensible restriction?
Click to expand...
It's your opinion that it would be patently pointless. If you accept it would require a legislative change, then the people writing that legislation would be the ones that would need to be sure of the defensibility of the change. I used the word arguably because I can see how such an argument may well have validity (although IANAL).
 
From experience in dealing with Revenue I’ve found that completing a truthful online claim during the first week of January every year is the best way to avoid any unwanted surprises. Retired people please note.
 
torblednam said:
Revenue don't have the power to unilaterally do that, it would require a change to legislation, and such a change would arguably be subject to challenge by someone on principle (that a person shouldn't be precluded from filing a return to Revenue as soon as the period in question has ended etc...)
Click to expand...
In all the years that I have completed a Revenue form 54, the yearly form was never issued at the start of the new tax year.

It was March or April before they were issued.

So delaying a tax claim is not beyond the power of Revenue.
 
@torblednam. #74above

To clarify. I have not received a letter from revenue ....... yet!

Form 11. I seem to recall that the prepopulated figure on Form 11 for the COAP was greyed out. I tried to write over it but that was not accepted. (I think normally the prepopulated figures are black and you can delete and change them). I did not see any box to tick but may have missed something.

The summary page at the end did not include the COAP in my total salary so presumably not included in the tax calculation. I didn't want to change the total salary figure as I wasn't sure of what other figures to put in for prsi, usc etc so I just accepted revenues figures and sent off an enquiry. I am still waiting for a response.


I am new enough to Form 11 returns, basically because of my UK work pension being >5000€. That is accounted for in my tax credits. Hopefully next year my UK state pension and Irish state pension figures will also be accounted for in my tax credits, the figures will be prepopulated in black so I can amend if necessary and filing a return should be more accurate and easier. I have resisted looking for a tax accountant to help me so far!
 
S class said:
In all the years that I have completed a Revenue form 54, the yearly form was never issued at the start of the new tax year.

It was March or April before they were issued.

So delaying a tax claim is not beyond the power of Revenue.
Click to expand...
Wow, Form 54, that's a blast from the past! I didn't even know it still existed...

I'd wager that you certainly could get a claim dealt with earlier than March or April, notwithstanding that you might not have access to the current year stationery - I've certainly seen revenue accepting CG1's that relate to a year other than the one specified at the head of the form.
 
T McGibney said:
So what? There is a Finance Act every year. And all tax laws get amended wherever deemed appropriate.
Click to expand...
Any legislative amendments Revenue puts forward are subject to review by the the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in the Attorney General's, who carefully consider the constitutionality of the changes.

My point is simply this: just because you're of the view that it would be a sensible change, does not mean that it's a foregone conclusion that it would be a constitutional one.

A summary of the outcome of my chat with AI about this question:

In law, something that is "patently pointless" is typically a legal action that is so utterly devoid of a legal basis that it has no chance of success. This might apply to a case that is frivolous, vexatious, or clearly contrary to established and settled law.

A challenge to the law as described would have clear potential constitutional bases, primarily the right to property under Article 43 and the principle of proportionality. The argument that a state action, even in a matter of taxation, unduly interferes with an individual's ability to manage their financial affairs is a legitimate legal argument. It is not frivolous or without foundation.

The success of a challenge would depend on the evidence presented by the challenger. For example, if the delay in filing were to cause a significant financial hardship for a large number of people—such as individuals unable to access a much-needed tax refund for an extended period—the argument that the law is disproportionate would be much stronger. If the State could not provide a strong, evidence-based justification for the delay (e.g., that it is truly necessary for the integrity of the tax system, as opposed to mere administrative convenience), the challenge would gain traction.

The proportionality argument would be that changing to a mid-February start date is not the least restrictive means of achieving the legitimate objective of administrative efficiency. The court would have to weigh the State's evidence for the necessity of the delay against the individual's evidence of the harm caused by it.
 
torblednam said:
I'd wager that you certainly could get a claim dealt with earlier than March or April, notwithstanding that you might not have access to the current year stationery - I've certainly seen revenue accepting CG1's that relate to a year other than the one specified at the head of the form
Click to expand...
Thanks torblednam.

That information would have been very useful to me in the past
 
In 2022, my wife took ill and had to go on illness benefit (August 2022). We completed our tax returns in early January 2023, and she noticed only her first payment of illness benefit (one week) from the DSP was showing up, which was incorrect, but yet the statement of payments records received on my welfare were in order at that time with the true and actual amount received in 2022. This was the response from Revenue, so its quite possible a lot of these pensioners filed their returns in early January 2023, just like us, and the transfer of information from DSP to Revenue was not yet fully completed for 2022 records.
Screenshot 2025-08-08 at 17.34.39.png
 
torblednam said:
Any legislative amendments Revenue puts forward are subject to review by the the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in the Attorney General's, who carefully consider the constitutionality of the changes.

My point is simply this: just because you're of the view that it would be a sensible change, does not mean that it's a foregone conclusion that it would be a constitutional one.

A summary of the outcome of my chat with AI about this question:
Click to expand...
Yet for all that, there was a stage this spring when the months of January and February (and possibly March) had passed and it was still impossible to access, complete and file a Corporation Tax Form CT1 Return for a period ending in any of those months.


And yet the tranquility of the constitutional scholars (really???!!!) remained somehow undisturbed.
 
T McGibney said:
Yet for all that, there was a stage this spring when the months of January and February (and possibly March) had passed and it was still impossible to access, complete and file a Corporation Tax Form CT1 Return for a period ending in any of those months.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your point is.

Imperfection in how man-made systems and processes work in the real world, is not the same thing as legislating to have those imperfections enshrined as a legally imposed reality.

The State is supposed to provide education for everyone but I know plenty of parents of autistic kids running into brick walls in recent years, trying to find places in their local schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top