"We are the only OECD state where some get back more than they pay in income tax"

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
You would have to ask Revenue that? Why don't they chase money that should be flowing into the government's coffers?
Cost benefit analysis. We are talking about relatively small sums on an individual basis. Collectively it could be a tidy sum, but pursuing to the extent of detailing every single call, for every single user, is futile.
A more rational approach is to allow a 'reasonable' deduction from a fixed price plan. Don't you agree?

The point being, if I pay €60 a month for a business mobile plan and Revenue AGREE that I can deduct €60 as a 'reasonable' amount, I would be stupid not to claim the full €60 as a business expense even if I also use the phones for personal use. Wouldn't it be stupid not to claim the full €60?
 

Firefly

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,168
Cost benefit analysis. We are talking about relatively small sums on an individual basis. Collectively it could be a tidy sum, but pursuing to the extent of detailing every single call, for every single user, is futile.
A more rational approach is to allow a 'reasonable' deduction from a fixed price plan. Don't you agree?
Again, that's up to Revenue. You've mentioned that these exaggerated expenses are "All legal and above board". Well they're not legal. They may very well be "above board" as far as Revenue are concerned, but that's a call Revenue are making.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
11,504
I'd believe it and see nothing wrong with this.
Yeah, the only issue they had with it was the time it Revenue took up for such small money when they saw bigger issues. My parents were likely one of the few who were horrified when their bank suggested they should be opening an Ansbacher account.
 

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
Again, that's up to Revenue.
Yes it is. Please read the posts fully.

I am talking about situations where REVENUE AGREE TO A 'REASONABLE' AMOUNT....to deduct as a business expense.
Revenue have decided, it is their choice...you would be stupid not to avail of the full amount as a business expense that REVENUE HAVE AGREED TO...wouldn't you?
 

Firefly

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,168
Yes it is. Please read the posts fully.

I am talking about situations where REVENUE AGREE TO A 'REASONABLE' AMOUNT....to deduct as a business expense.
Revenue have decided, it is their choice...you would be stupid not to avail of the full amount as a business expense that REVENUE HAVE AGREED TO...wouldn't you?
I have read the posts. You have said making exaggerated expense claims are "All legal and above board". I have argued that they are not legal even if they are above board. Do you still think that making exaggerated claims are legal just because Revenue may not pursue them? I'm am happy though that you agree it is up to Revenue also.

You have also tried to make the case that this is similar to rich people claiming children's allowance, which it is not as claiming children's allowance is perfectly legal.
 

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
Do you have a link for this?
Here is an article that explains it somewhat.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/business/small-business/time-to-check-those-expenses-written-off-against-tax-or-pay-the-price-29144566.html

Now if I am self-employed and am running a €50 a month phone bill, I can claim this €50 a month as a business expense (or a portion thereof).
My actual business usage, if my calls are forensic analysed may only amount to €30 a month. But in the absence of that forensic study, the Revenue, may decide that a reasonable amount for me to deduct would be €50 a month, considering factors such as my trade and turnover.
So if I sell strawberries from a stall on a Saturday only, and my business phone expense is €100 a month, that may raise some questions.
But if I'm working 6 days a week as a plumber, with a turnover of €70,000pa. The revenue may agree that my monthly €50 phone bill for a business expense is reasonable. Even though, were it to analysed, my business usage is actually less than that.
Certainly, from the plumbers perspective, he would be stupid to claim anything less than his actual business usage, wouldn't he? Instead, he will be more inclined to claim the upper limit of his phone bill for business use - thus a tendency to exaggerate the actual amount, but all legal and above board as long as Revenue AGREE with it.
 

Firefly

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,168
Normally when someone declares something to be legal they would back it up by something more substantial than a newspaper article. I did find it amusing that the reference came from the Indo by the way!


Certainly, from the plumbers perspective, he would be stupid to claim anything less than his actual business usage, wouldn't he? Instead, he will be more inclined to claim the upper limit of his phone bill for business use - thus a tendency to exaggerate the actual amount, but all legal and above board as long as Revenue AGREE with it.
My point is that is incorrect. Just because Revenue may agree to it doesn't mean it is legal. In fact, there is nothing stopping Revenue analysing someones records if they see fit, as per Leo's parents.
 
Last edited:

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
Normally when someone declares something to be legal they would back it up by something more substantial than a newspaper article. I did find it amusing that the reference came from the Indo by the way!
Admittedly I'm struggling to find anything on the Revenue website, but aside from the article (written by a tax consultant) I have direct experience with Revenue on this exact matter. Only in my case it was for staff mobile phones - they were set at a fixed monthly rate for business use with certain limitations (calls outside Roi, data usage etc would incur additional charges payable by the employee).
The fixed monthly bill was an allowable cost as it was for business use. It was accepted that a certain amount of personal usage would apply, but as it didn't affect the monthly bill, then this usage would be disregarded.

I don't get the Indo reference.
 

Firefly

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,168
Admittedly I'm struggling to find anything on the Revenue website, but aside from the article (written by a tax consultant) I have direct experience with Revenue on this exact matter. Only in my case it was for staff mobile phones - they were set at a fixed monthly rate for business use with certain limitations (calls outside Roi, data usage etc would incur additional charges payable by the employee).
The fixed monthly bill was an allowable cost as it was for business use. It was accepted that a certain amount of personal usage would apply, but as it didn't affect the monthly bill, then this usage would be disregarded.
That's all fine & dandy and sounds like you're in clover. The point I am making is that exaggerated expenses are not legal and it's up to Revenue to pursue them, as we have both agreed.

I don't get the Indo reference.
I wouldn't have though socialists would read the Indo, never mind use it as a reference.
 

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
Silly me, sure I'd forgotten, your a capitalist ;)
Capitalism is merely a feature of Socialism. Some people see capitalism as an ideology in itself, true, if the ultimate societal goal is as shallow as price discovery.
But if you think outside the concept of the 'market', then you can see that without socialism, capitalism is redundant.
 

Firefly

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,168
Capitalism is merely a feature of Socialism. Some people see capitalism as an ideology in itself, true, if the ultimate societal goal is as shallow as price discovery.
But if you think outside the concept of the 'market', then you can see that without socialism, capitalism is redundant.
I take it by not replying that you still believe exaggerated expenses relating to personal expenses are legal?
 
J

jjm

Guest
Capitalism over socialism the bottom line is we need to keep an eye on both in Ireland,
 

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
I take it by not replying that you still believe exaggerated expenses relating to personal expenses are legal?
No I don't. Allowable expense claims, agreed with Rehvenue, results in exaggerated claims. I take it by not responding you believe a self asssesed taxpayer would be stupid to not to avail of the maximum allowable?
The article I posted also allows for a tax deduction of €3.20 (unvouched) per day for heat, electricity, internet, where a person's private residence is also their registered business address. Or €750+ per year.
Do you think a person who uses their residence as their registered business address would be stupid not to avail of this allowable, legal tax deduction?
 

Firefly

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,168
No I don't.
Thanks for clarifying. So these expenses are not "All legal and above board" then. It's good we agree on that.

Allowable expense claims, agreed with Rehvenue, results in exaggerated claims.
You would need to provide something to back this up, but yes in a self-assessment model it's not inconceivable that exaggerated claims are made. Again, this is up to Revenue to pursue.

I take it by not responding you believe a self asssesed taxpayer would be stupid to not to avail of the maximum allowable?
That's up to each self assessed taxpayer to determine.

The article I posted also allows for a tax deduction of €3.20 (unvouched) per day for heat, electricity, internet, where a person's private residence is also their registered business address. Or €750+ per year.
Do you think a person who uses their residence as their registered business address would be stupid not to avail of this allowable, legal tax deduction?
That's up to each self assessed taxpayer to determine.
 

TheBigShort

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,789
yes in a self-assessment model it's not inconceivable that exaggerated claims are made
Thank you.

That's up to each self assessed taxpayer to determine.
I was asking you, for your opinion. Do you think it would be stupid or not, not to avail of the maximum allowable and legal deduction (in effect, to exaggerate the expense claim in order to reduce tax liability)?
 
Top