Revenue paying tax to itself for employees travel benefits

B

Bronte

Registered User
Messages
15,166
I was wondering how this works. The revenue paid it's staff for travelling (presumably hotel/car/petrol) and they didn't pay tax on it? Now they have to pay the tax (to themselves). I'm a bit confused, what tax would there be on travel, is it not just an expense as versus a benefit in kind. If there was tax due, who was liable the staff or the employer?
Also do revenue have to pay penalties and interest?
 
Last edited:
Are you referring to some recent development or something? The context of your query is not very clear.
 
Sorry Clubman and thanks D that partly answers my question but leads to a new one. So some revenue staff were getting paid to travel to work, why would this be so? I thought travelling to and from work was always paid for by the employee. And if the revenue paid the tax of the benefit in kind for the employee isn't that a gift to the staff?
 
BIK is added to your gross salary and tax and PRSI is paid on that. The employee generally pays PAYE and PRSI and the employer pays Employers PRSI approx 10% (depends on salary)
Don't know if BIK was applied to employee salaries

Maybe it is the employers element that the article is concerned with?
Could be wrong though
 


I know that Customs enforcment staff on shift work (i.e., some in Dublin Airport etc) that are rostered between (I think) 11pm to 6am when public transport isn't available are allowed to claim the reduced civil service milage rate. These staff do pay tax at their marginal rate on this though (and capped at 32km round trip) but there may be similar arrangements in place that weren't properly taxed.
 
Prior to '04 it was up to the employee to declare any BIK for travelling to and from work (company vans, taxi payments etc.). After that it was up to the employer.

The settlement by Revenue to Revenue was in relation to the post '04 tax evasion, the pre '04 tax evasion by revenue employees was too long ago, too small, paye workers aren't used to extra BIK declarations, they couldn't be expected to understand tax law etc. etc..

In fairness they 'fessed up in a voluntary disclosure. They probably didn't need to.

Anyway read all about in page 57 of http://audgen.gov.ie/documents/annualreports/2007/AnnualReport2007b.pdf.

In a way it partially confirms a theory I've always held that 100% tax compliance is almost impossible.
 
I can't read 157 pages ! I now understand the revenue paid travel for staff that is considered a BIK and tax has to be paid on it by the employee and the employer. The settlement revenue made, did it also include the tax of the BIK of the employees?
 
gradgrind said:
In a way it partially confirms a theory I've always held that 100% tax compliance is almost impossible.
Click to expand...

Indeed, except I wouldn't use the word "almost". This is one of the reasons why I find the whole "tax evasion is theft. all tax evaders must be jailed." argument so galling.
 
ubiquitous said:
"tax evasion is theft. all tax evaders must be jailed." argument so galling.
Click to expand...
Which bit do you disagree with? I agree with the first part myself but not the second in all most or all cases. However I do agree with evaders paying their fair dues - and more in the form of interest and penalties if applicable.
 
ClubMan said:
Which bit do you disagree with? I agree with the first part myself but not the second in all most or all cases. However I do agree with evaders paying their fair dues - and more in the form of interest and penalties if applicable.
Click to expand...

I have no intention of getting into another prolonged discussion on this contentious topic but I do think its worth noting for example that not everyone whose name appears in the regular defaulters lists published in the newspapers is a deliberate tax evader and many of these tax settlements arise as a consequence of genuine error. As such I take issue with the regular, generalised labelling of these individuals and companies as tax cheats, tax dodgers and suchlike. Of course it suits the Revenue to treat tax settlement cases in such a manner.

There is now a certain limited irony in seeing the Revenue now being lumped in the same category. I use the word limited as there is no indication whatsoever that any official or agent of the Revenue has suffered financially or otherwise for their role in the Revenue's tax evasion, nor any likelilhood that the interest and penalties paid by the Revenue in this regard will be met by anyone except the long-suffering taxpayer.
 
csirl said:
Revenue pay tax to themselves all the time - PAYE etc. for their own employees
Click to expand...
I understand that. I was just wondering if they have paid the BIK tax liability of the employees whether this is a 'gift' or pay in the hands of the employees?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register