irish life - right or wrong

[CCOVICH]

Maybe Revenue should just get their court order, get the relevant data from IL, and start auditing each & every one of these individuals with full interest, penalties and publication in each case.

I would agree with this approach, that's the whole point of the exercise isn't it? To extract as much money for the exchequer as possible. If people evaded tax, they should be punished. I think there has been enough amnesties at this stage. If IL or any other insurers knowingly facilitated this tax evasion, they too should be punished. The Revenue have already said may pursue this through a separate audit )depending on the results of this investigation I suppose) and also those who invested less than €20k.

 

[z107]

Let's not pretend that cost is a real issue here.

Money is always the issue.

Now we're getting to the nub of the issue. No-one likes Revenue. No-one likes paying taxes. But everyone likes whinging about their granny being on a trolley for 3 days. So here's the thing. If you want public services, you gotta pay for them. If you want a fair society, you need Revenue to enforce the legislation.

I'd hardly call our society 'fair' by any stretch of the imagination. I would rather everything was privatised, so I get to pay for whatever services I actually want, (without a third party extorting money I've worked very hard for). However, this issue is for another thread.

So you are saying tax evaders should effectively have a 'service level agreement' with Revenue, i.e. if Revenue doesn't catch me within x years, then I've got away with it. Why would you want to encourage tax evasion in this way?

Maybe some people don't realise that they were 'evading tax'. Now they'll be landed with outrageous penalities and fines because it wasn't brought to their attention earlier.

For what specific reason? For administering the policy, of course. And being informed about issues of tax liability comes under this heading.

Fair enough. Although their details certainly should not be given to third parties.

Maybe Revenue should walk away from the whole mailshot idea and start really playing hardball.

I agree. They should extort the money in the most efficient manner, this being their purpose.

 

[ubiquitous]

So you are saying tax evaders should effectively have a 'service level agreement' with Revenue, i.e. if Revenue doesn't catch me within x years, then I've got away with it. Why would you want to encourage tax evasion in this way?

For your information, the Revenue do have a Customer Service Charter that they must observe in their dealings with taxpayers, whether it suits them or not. See [broken link removed] and also the Revenue Audit Code of Practice [broken link removed] For the record, these standards were introduced by the Revenue not to "encourage tax evasion" as you allege but to safeguard individuals civil rights in a free and democratic society.

Maybe Revenue should walk away from the whole mailshot idea and start really playing hardball....Maybe Revenue should just get their court order, get the relevant data from IL, and start auditing each & every one of these individuals with full interest, penalties and publication in each case.

Maybe they should. However, it is freely acknowleged that this would be

(1) an impossible logistical exercise given the number of cases involved, and the strict procedures that must be followed in every case in compliance with the above Revenue Audit Code of Practice

(2) contrary to the "presumption of honesty" provisions of the above Customer Service Charter, which would probably be used to legally challenge the enforcement of penalties in any case where it is found that a liability arises

(3) a waste of resources given that it is widely accepted that over 90% (probably much more) of people who invested in Life Assurance Products from 1980 onwards did so on a wholly legitimate basis with no question of tax evasion.

 

[CCOVICH]

Maybe some people don't realise that they were 'evading tax'. Now they'll be landed with outrageous penalities and fines because it wasn't brought to their attention earlier.

I don't think that is a defensible reason for not paying tax. If this money was from the proceeds of a property sale, payment for sevices rendered or goods sold, then tax is obviously due.

 

[RainyDay]

For your information, the Revenue do have a Customer Service Charter that they must observe in their dealings with taxpayers, whether it suits them or not. See [broken link removed] and also the Revenue Audit Code of Practice [broken link removed] For the record, these standards were introduced by the Revenue not to "encourage tax evasion" as you allege but to safeguard individuals civil rights in a free and democratic society.

Given that the charter says nothing about a 'statute of limitations' type time limit on investigations into tax evaders, I don't see the relevance of this point to this discussion.

 

[ubiquitous]

Given that the charter says nothing about a 'statute of limitations' type time limit on investigations into tax evaders, I don't see the relevance of this point to this discussion.

Well you did say that

So you are saying tax evaders should effectively have a 'service level agreement' with Revenue

I simply pointed out that they DO have such agreements with all taxpayers, evaders or otherwise.

The existence of the Customer Service Charter and the Code of Practice are indeed absolutely relevant to this discussion as the standards specified therein for Revenue to follow would preclude a number of courses of action that you have suggested in this thread.

 

[RainyDay]

Well you did say that


I simply pointed out that they DO have such agreements with all taxpayers, evaders or otherwise.

The existence of the Customer Service Charter and the Code of Practice are indeed absolutely relevant to this discussion as the standards specified therein for Revenue to follow would preclude a number of courses of action that you have suggested in this thread.

Try quoting my full sentance instead of just the segment that suits you, i.e. "So you are saying tax evaders should effectively have a 'service level agreement' with Revenue, i.e. if Revenue doesn't catch me within x years, then I've got away with it" - now tell me how the charter you refer to is relevant to the specific timing issue I raised.

 

[ubiquitous]

Look,

I tried to inform you and other readers of the Revenue's Customer Service Charter and the Audit Code of Practice. I did this in an effort to be helpful and nothing else.

I honestly don't know why I bothered if all you can do at this stage is to try to drag me into a 'punch & judy' type debate.

Btw, I did not make any point in this debate about the idea of a 'statute of limitations' for Revenue offences as the actual position on this topic is well known.

I never said either that the Charter or the Code of Practice addressed this specific issue - however it does address other specific issues and ideas that you raised - eg presumption of innocent/guilt, and the notion that the Revenue can use the Revenue Audit process to indiscriminately trawl through the affairs of an entire subset of taxpayers to uncover evasion on the part of a small minority of that subset.

Try quoting my full sentance instead of just the segment that suits you,

Read my post of 9.52 this morning in which I quoted the entire sentence to which you refer.

In relation to my latter post, I don't know where you got the idea that it somehow "suited me" to quote a single line rather than the entire sentence. It just happened that I wanted to make a particular point in relation to the first line of that sentence. It wasn't as if I was trying to quote you out of context or whatever (especially as I had indeed quoted the entire sentence an hour or two previously) so I really don't know what you are getting so worked up about.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

The Revenue going easy on those who come out with their hands up is a very bad precedent.

All the purges so far have been based on the Revenue's access to local institutions. Those who invested abroad in truly foreign institutions have remained free from scrutiny.

But some day there will be an EU agreement or even an OECD agreement which will truly cross all borders. Should evaders be afraid of that day? Not really as they will likely be given the opportunity at the time to come clean relatively unscathed.

 

[CCOVICH]

The Revenue going easy on those who come out with their hands up is a very bad precedent


Really? Judges in trials for far more serious offences than tax evasion give reduced sentences where defendants plead gulity at the outset of the trial, generally on the basis that they are saving the State the expense of a long trial.

Also, I don't think they are 'going easy'. Interest and penalties are payable, albeit at a lesser rate than is the case if the guilty don't come clean before the May deadline, and their names are not published.

 

[RainyDay]

Life is too short to get into this analysis-paralysis. I'll simply restate my main points again.

The implication that Revenue are the bad guys here because of the time delay is flawed. Of course Revenue aren't perfect. Of course there are things they could do better. But the bad guys are the tax evaders. Revenue are the good guys here.

Any attempt to impose a specific time limit of X years within which Revenue could carry out an investigation would be to create a charter for tax evaders - in fact, it would create a charter for those who can afford expert professional advice that can really hide & bury these issues under a network of offshore locations.

And those who don't want IL to carry out the mailshot for Revenue - be careful what you wish for. You might get it. The alternative approach from Revenue just might be even more unpalatable.

 

[GreatDane]

Hi

For the record, I think Rainyday's correct in there being no statute of limitations in the period where the Revenue Commis. can go back and investigate ones tax payments ... we all gotta pay tax, such is life (did you hear me Mr. Builder, Mr. Plumber, Mr. Carpetenter, Mr. Tiler etc )

However, they need to fund their own mailshots etc imho

Cheers

G>