Employer interpretation of Revenue guidelines

T

Thirsty

Registered User
Messages
3,765
I'm struggling to frame this question without being too specific; but here goes. Names are made up to protect the innocent!

My employer, Acme Ltd is responding to a query with the view that their actions are required by Revenue.

However the actions do not square with other several other employer's actions. So either all the others are breaking the law or Acme Ltd are mis-reading it (it wouldn't be the first time).

There is no staff association or union in Acme Ltd.

The issue has been raised with the relevant folks in Acme Ltd & they are certain they are in line with Revenue requirements.

They accept that the (no doubt, unintended) consequence is that one group of employees is put at a significant disadvantage, but say it's out of their hands.

How do I go about getting a review done? Can I bring it to the FSO?
 
I haven't written to Revenue myself.

So far I just have Acme Ltd telling me this is what Revenue are saying.

Should I write to Revenue?
 
You'd need to give us a bit more than that.

Just say what the issue is, you can surely do that in a way that doesn't identify the employer...
 
Thirsty said:
I haven't written to Revenue myself.

So far I just have Acme Ltd telling me this is what Revenue are saying.

Should I write to Revenue?
Click to expand...

As the saying goes 'you're hearing one side of the story' so you need to get confirmation yourself what Revenue have to say on the matter. It would speed matters up if you were to ring them, but as it concerns a group of people, and the fact that you will possibly need to revert to the Company, then writing may be best. I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting on the reply though as it may take some time.
 
Sue Ellen said:
As the saying goes 'you're hearing one side of the story' so you need to get confirmation yourself what Revenue have to say on the matter. It would speed matters up if you were to ring them, but as it concerns a group of people, and the fact that you will possibly need to revert to the Company, then writing may be best. I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting on the reply though as it may take some time.
Click to expand...

Revenue are highly unlikely to comment on the internal affairs of any taxpayer, unless they've already concluded an audit or enquiry into the matter. They most certainly won't comment to third parties in that regard.

Most situations like this are prompted by professional advice received on foot of general Revenue guidance on new, or clarification of existing, legislation.

It would be insane of any employee to unilaterally ring Revenue in relation to a query relating to their employer's tax compliance, without at the very least getting appropriate legal advice beforehand. I'm frankly amazed that this is suggested here.
 
T McGibney said:
Revenue are highly unlikely to comment on the internal affairs of any taxpayer, unless they've already concluded an audit or enquiry into the matter. They most certainly won't comment to third parties in that regard.

Most situations like this are prompted by professional advice received on foot of general Revenue guidance on new, or clarification of existing, legislation.

It would be insane of any employee to unilaterally ring Revenue in relation to a query relating to their employer's tax compliance, without at the very least getting appropriate legal advice beforehand. I'm frankly amazed that this is suggested here.
Click to expand...

Rather an over the top reaction. If it is something that is affecting Thirsty's tax payments they are hardly going to lock him up for making a simple phone call or writing a letter to know where he stands. Heading for possible expensive legal advice before checking with Revenue seems strange to me. If he is not entitled to know then he can be told that.
 
"Most situations like this are prompted by professional advice received on foot of general Revenue guidance on new, or clarification of existing, legislation."

You would certainly hope so!

Having said that I showed the relevant people in Acme Ltd a published document from Deloittes on the same issue, which was significantly different from Acme's stated view.

So I'm confident that there is at least more than one interpretation.

I guess I need to write to revenue in the first instance.
 
Sue Ellen said:
As the saying goes 'you're hearing one side of the story' so you need to get confirmation yourself what Revenue have to say on the matter. It would speed matters up if you were to ring them, but as it concerns a group of people, and the fact that you will possibly need to revert to the Company, then writing may be best. I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting on the reply though as it may take some time.
Click to expand...
Sue Ellen said:
Rather an over the top reaction.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... Do read on.

Sue Ellen said:
If it is something that is affecting Thirsty's tax payments they are hardly going to lock him up for making a simple phone call or writing a letter to know where he stands.
Click to expand...

Who mentioned locking anyone up? I didn't. I'd frankly be more concerned that they'd lose their job for making an unauthorised and likely ill-conceived communication to Revenue about their employer's tax compliance position.

That's why I suggested legal advice if such a course of action is to be taken.
 
Thirsty said:
So I'm confident that there is at least more than one interpretation.
Click to expand...
That wouldn't exactly be a first. Do bear in mind though that any general guidance offered by the likes of Deloitte will invariably be couched in disclaimers as to its applicability to individual situations.

I guess I need to write to revenue in the first instance.
Click to expand...

See above. If you insist on so doing, make sure you have written advance authorisation from your employer.
 
Sue Ellen said:
Rather an over the top reaction. If it is something that is affecting Thirsty's tax payments they are hardly going to lock him up for making a simple phone call or writing a letter to know where he stands. Heading for possible expensive legal advice before checking with Revenue seems strange to me. If he is not entitled to know then he can be told that.
Click to expand...
As the company's interpretation of the Revenue guidelines are impacting on the tax paid by employees it is perfectly reasonable for the employee to contact Revenue in a personal capacity to seek clarification that they are paying the correct rate of tax. It is between the tax payer and the tax collector.
 
T McGibney said:
I'd frankly be more concerned that they'd lose their job for making an unauthorised and likely ill-conceived communication to Revenue about their employer's tax compliance position.
Click to expand...
But they are contacting revenue about their own tax compliance.
 
Purple said:
As the company's interpretation of the Revenue guidelines are impacting on the tax paid by employees it is perfectly reasonable for the employee to contact Revenue in a personal capacity to seek clarification that they are paying the correct rate of tax. It is between the tax payer and the tax collector.
Click to expand...
The tax payer in this case appears to be the employer. It is the employer who has made a decision on how they are to comply. (We haven't been told what is exactly the issue so must guess.)
 
If you insist on so doing, make sure you have written advance authorisation from your employer
Click to expand...
I don't believe for one minute that this is required.

I can only give a hypothetical example (and it's not an AVC or pension issue, just using that as an example).

But let's say that Acme Ltd, on reading Revenue guidelines etc., came to this conclusion

Employees with blue eyes have their pension contribution deducted at each weekly payroll, but it's not paid into the fund until 4 weeks later.
Employees with brown eyes have their pension contribution deducted at the end of the month and it's in their fund 2 days later.

Acme Ltd believes that they are in compliance because they are treating the employees equally in that the pension contributions are paid into the fund on the same date. Notwithstanding the fact that blue eyed employees are losing out on their fund earnings.

Bear in mind this is a hypothetical example, so please don't start telling me the interest earnings lost are very minor - that's not the issue! ;)

I've since found at least two other issues where Acme Ltd claim that their XYZ policy is due to Revenue requirements, but have found clear evidence that this is not the case. It suits Acme Ltd to have that policy, but the reason doesn't hold water.
 
Thirsty said:
I can only give a hypothetical example .
Click to expand...
Your hypothetical example makes no sense.

My comments above stand.

And as I've said earlier, you haven't told us what the issue is so mine and other comments here are made only generally. As such, at least as far as I'm concerned, you're free to take them or leave them.
 
Lets see if I can make it simpler so...

1. Two groups of employees are being treated differently.

2. Acme Ltd says this is in compliance with Revenue Guidelines.

Other items where Acme Ltd has said it's policy is due to Revenue requirements have been demonstrated to be incorrect; I believe there is a case to be made that this action is also an incorrect interpretation of Revenue guidelines.

So it would appear that an independent review, or similar, would be appropriate.

That's where I came in with my question.
 
The problem with Revenue "guidelines" generally is that they are actually de facto rules that carry significant actual and contingent tax liability implications unless they are followed slavishly. Just as nobody is ever sacked for buying IBM, it is usually safer for an employer to implement Revenue "guidelines" to the letter than to ignore them in the hope that nothing bad will ever happen.

Similarly, it will be a brave (or reckless) independent consultant or reviewer who will recommend to a client that they deviate from a Revenue "guideline" without compelling reason.
 
Last edited:
All of which is fair enough, but I believe I have sufficient grounds to seek a review.

The question is - how do I go about that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top