Revenue commissioners and levels of fines and penalties

N

N0elC

Guest
As far as I understand it, the Revenue Commissioners are tightly constrained in terms of penalties and charges issued when they have uncovered an incidence of tax underpayment.

So what discretion do they really have? If their discretion is minimal, then I can’t see how they would encourage errant taxpayers to admit their evasion, as there would be little to be gained by them in coming clean, as it were.

Other than a clean conscience, I suppose.

;)
 
Last year, a formalised system to cover interest and penalty settlements was included in the new Revenue Audit Code of Practice. It is generally not possible to negotiate on interest and traditionally a little more leeway was available in relation to penalty settlements but any old precedents will now be largely obsolete since the introduction of the Code of Practice.

The system does include a major incentive for errant taxpayers to come clean, as it were. Interest on an early settlement will be much smaller than on a settlement made a number of years down the road.
 
Maybe [broken link removed] (Notes for Guidance - TCA 1997 - 2002 Edition, Part 47 penalties, revenue offences, interest on overdue tax and other sanctions) is of use?
 
revenue

I don't think you could say that Revenue have very little power to encourage compliant behaviour. Commiting a Revenue offence (i.e. tax evasion) could leave you (if convicted on indictment) liable to a fine of e127k and a 5 year term in Mountjoy!

The new Revenue audit code also represents a serious shift in the attitude of Revenue in audits.
 
Re: revenue

Is the Revenue Audit code of practise available online? I have looked in the publications/codes of practise section on www.revenue.ie but to no avail.
 
revenue

So how many politicians have actualy served time in Mountjoy for tax evasion?? In fact how many people have actually served time for this?
 
revenue

While on the subject is there a time limit beyond which you can be procescuted? e.g if incorect returns were made over 10 years ago. Even better is there a time limit on how far back you can personally recover taxes paid to revenue if you feel you overpiad.
 
revenue

Point taken. Not too many sitting in jail, but nonetheless the power is still there to do it.

As far as I am aware, Revenue can only go back ten years to prosecute. But they only allow you to go back four years to recover overpaid tax. I think the four year period was introduced in recent finance bill - used to be six.
 
Re: revenue

In the case of DIRT evasion by financial institutions the Revenue imposed a six year statute of limitations on offences committed by the institutions but none for offences committed by the individual savers involved :)rolleyes ) so perhaps they have some discretion in these matters?
 
Re: revenue

In cases of (alleged) fraud or negligence, Revenue can go back as far as they like in pursuing errant taxpayers for arrears. There is no "statute of limitations" as such. This is why some people who held Ansbacher accounts or bogus non-res accounts as far back as the 70s have had reason to settle with the Revenue in recent times.

The Revenue have no authority whatsoever to initiate criminal prosecutions in Ireland. This is the responsibility of the DPP. Nor have the Revenue the power to convict anyone of an offence or to punish them, (apart of course from the standard interest, penalties and publication arrangements which apply to tax arrears settlements). This is the responsibility of the Courts Service.

Hence it is incorrect to blame the Revenue if you think that not enough people are going to jail for tax fraud.
 
revenue

Thanks N0elC, for starting a discussion on what has to be my pet topic for getting on my high horse. My BP has doubled since I started think about this.
Personally I believe the the whole tax issue is fundamental to Ireland becoming a true European country & not the mickey mouse banana republic that we are.
If taxes are paid fairly by everyone then the burden of tax is shared across the board & thus taxes can be lowered. If however we have a system that encourages evasion ( i.e. no penalties or insignificatant ones i.e. Lowery, Charlie, Liamo L ) well then people will continue to evade tax as they think they can get away with it.
One present issue that makes me sick is that George Redmond is being pursuded( & rightly ) for the proceeds of his corruption over the years. However he was only the monkey & had no friends in high places. How come the big-boys who benefitted to the tune of millions aren't being dragged into court?????
 
Re: revenue

thus taxes can be lowered

But we already have some of the lowest rates of direct taxation in Europe, if not the world. On the other hand, as has been pointed out several times here on AAM, many people seem to want both low taxes and high levels of public services (in particular health care) without taking cognizance of the obvious trade-offs involved. It's a bit like people wanting neither landfills nor incinerators/thermal treatment plants! :eek
 
revenue

Would you want those muppets in the Dail spending your higher taxes?? Do you honestly think that if we doubled our taxes we'd get double the services??
But I take your point Clubman we do have low tax rates, they just seem high when you compare them to what you're actually getting for them in return.
However I do take issue with the so called super-earners & the remarkably low rates they pay as they have mechanisms via clever accountants to significantly reduce their tax payments not to mention governments giving them money for nothing e.g. the whole ESAT issue.
 
That's if they find you with the normal stuff. What do they do when they catch you outright skimming cash from a business, as someone I know has just been caught big time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top