Current Revenue Policy on Refunds over 4 years

J

Jonny

Registered User
Messages
77
Hi Folks

Has anyone recently had any experiences with the Revenue on the exceptional allowance of a refund of income tax that has passed the 4 yr. time period ? have case in with the revenue but no definite decision yet

Thanks
 
I'll wager my match tickets for the Euros that the answer won't be a yes Jonny. I know for a fact that Inspectors all across the country are being told they mustn't budge on this.

Here is an ebrief that issued in the last week in relation to "out of time" claims to repayment: [broken link removed] The ebrief links to the tax & duty manual which instructs Revenue staff. http://www.revenue.ie/en/about/foi/...ration-tax/part-37/37-00-30.pdf?download=true
 
Section 128 FA 2012 inserts a new Section 865B in the TCA which gives one exception to the existing policy. That's where there is an overpayment of tax in a year more than 4 years back and action by Revenue results in a liability in that same year or accounting period. Then the overpayment is available for offset against the additional liability.
Otherwise, as other posters have said, Revenue are hard on the application of the rule.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps things have changed. I came across an issue about three years ago where, following marriage, an incorrect tax credit was applied to my wife. (It was only brought to her attention by a Revnue staff member who happened to comment that the figures looked wrong).

We argued, successfully, that as the error occurred from day one, we couldn't have known that our tax credits were incorrect and that we should be entitled to a refund of tax.

It took three letters but eventually a series of cheques issued in respect of successive years going back 6/7 years. Of course these cheques were not accompanied by any explanation letter or apology but we didn't really mind!!
 
On what grounds?

The taxpayer can appeal the Inspector's decision to the Appeal Commissioners, then if unsatisfied with the Appeal Commissioner's decision, can apply for a rehearing before the Circuit Court, or skip that and have a case stated to the High Court on a point of law...

Are you saying there's a defect in the law? (Not being argumentative, just not sure where you're coming from!)
 
It may be the law Mandlebot but that's always subject to a court challenge, which has not happened yet. Presumably the changes in the 2012 Act mentioned above were brought about because of the unfairness where the revenue went back further than 4 years but one owed money but also had unclaimed expenses. I suspect the change in the law was brought about by someone threatening them with court.
 
Bronte said:
It may be the law Mandlebot but that's always subject to a court challenge, which has not happened yet. Presumably the changes in the 2012 Act mentioned above were brought about because of the unfairness where the revenue went back further than 4 years but one owed money but also had unclaimed expenses. I suspect the change in the law was brought about by someone threatening them with court.
Click to expand...

AFAIK the change arose as a result of a strange decision by the Appeal Commissioner (and/or CCJ) in interpreting the existing law.

You're talking about a high court / supreme court challenge to rule that the law is unconstitutional. I don't see how that would succeed but then I'm not a legal expert!

The key thing here is that the system is one of self assessment. The onus is on a taxpayer to manage their affairs properly and file a correct return. They have 4 years to claim any repayments due. A limit has to be put in place, otherwise the system could become impossible to administer. Perhaps the limit should be more than 4 years, but having no limit would be impractical.

Revenue may only go back beyond 4 years in cases of fraud or neglect, in other words serious cases of evasion etc.

I wonder how many of the posters going ape on here in the last few days here over Mick Wallace would be happy if they were told that Revenue couldn't seek to recover the tax in cases of systematic evasion spanning years, because of a 4-year limit. That would be an incredible inducement to evade.
 
Update as follows; So far the refund (over 4 yrs) has been partially allowed as an offset against subsequent years liabilities. Currently working on the balance. It is a very,very tough concession to achieve due to the current leglisation as quoted above. However overall fairness is being somewhat gained. Its ongoing....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top