How many Revenue officials are zealots

Is the correct snswer to the query raised in the thread title - not enough ?
Given the level of tax non compliance as evidenced by the Revenue quarterly defaulters list and the continuing scandal surrounding non resident accounts perhaps a cadre of zealots is required.
The Order of righteous tax gatherers perhaps ?
 
Is the correct snswer to the query raised in the thread title - not enough ?
Given the level of tax non compliance as evidenced by the Revenue quarterly defaulters list and the continuing scandal surrounding non resident accounts perhaps a cadre of zealots is required.
The Order of righteous tax gatherers perhaps ?
I think the accusation is that they go after the easy targets rather than the major tax cheats.
 
I’m surprized that people manning customer service telephone lines are coming in for a hammering.

Just to add my tuppence to the well justified hammering.

People staffing customer care lines are often unable to deal with my queries. "If it was simple I wouldn't have needed to call you" " thanks for spending 15 minutes investigating the problem and finding out that it is as I explained at the start" "So you have no suggestion as to how we move forward" These are the things that go through my head, I usually stay polite.

Its not my fault that they are unable to do their job, I don't care if the reason is because they are undertrained or under resourced, they are the public face of their organisation and take a wage for that.

And then there is Eircom:eek::eek::eek:
 
I think the original question is misplaced.

The two types of Revenue official are not the zealous and non-zealous. I think its a good point that Revenue officials dont try to collect tax that isn't due.

The two types are those that seek proof of any taxpayers assertions and those that believe nothing a taxpayer says.
 
But they’re not Brendan. They’re recharacterising a donation by a corporate to a charity as a taxable benefit in kind and looking for circa 50% income tax from a director/owner. There’s no statutory basis for them to do that. The fact that the charity isn’t CHY Revenue approved just means that the company is denied its corporation tax deduction, i.e. no tax break.
That's the law, any charity must have a charity number to accept any donations or to operate as a charity without one it is illegal under the 2009 Charity Act.
Additionally it's the Charity that applies for its tax exemption it's not automatically granted.
From what you said above the Revenue are 100% correct in their treatment as the charity doesn't have its tax admin in order.

Your ire should be pointed at the "Charity " not Revenue.
 
That's the law, any charity must have a charity number to accept any donations or to operate as a charity without one it is illegal under the 2009 Charity Act.
Additionally it's the Charity that applies for its tax exemption it's not automatically granted.
From what you said above the Revenue are 100% correct in their treatment as the charity doesn't have its tax admin in order.

Your ire should be pointed at the "Charity " not Revenue.

Sorry, but you’re completely wrong.
 
That's the law, any charity must have a charity number to accept any donations or to operate as a charity without one it is illegal under the 2009 Charity Act.
Additionally it's the Charity that applies for its tax exemption it's not automatically granted.
From what you said above the Revenue are 100% correct in their treatment as the charity doesn't have its tax admin in order.

Your ire should be pointed at the "Charity " not Revenue.

Companies are allowed to make donations to charities and get a certain tax treatment to allow the donation as a trading expense and get relief. Its not just a case of being on the approved charity list either. There are other entities as well that will allow the relief like educational bodies or anything decided by the Minister. Even international charities that promote human rights that will allow the company get tax relief. As Gordon says, revenue can deny the tax relief but I can't see any reason why they would tell a company owner that the donation is taxable BIK.
 
Companies are allowed to make donations to charities and get a certain tax treatment to allow the donation as a trading expense and get relief. Its not just a case of being on the approved charity list either. There are other entities as well that will allow the relief like educational bodies or anything decided by the Minister. Even international charities that promote human rights that will allow the company get tax relief. As Gordon says, revenue can deny the tax relief but I can't see any reason why they would tell a company owner that the donation is taxable BIK.
Well the advice we've received from the Regulator and others appears to be wrong.
We will however continue to abide by their rules as laid out .
 
I think the original question is misplaced.

The two types of Revenue official are not the zealous and non-zealous.

.....

The two types are those that seek proof of any taxpayers assertions and those that believe nothing a taxpayer says.

Ha! That reminds me. I attended a change management conference in 2018 where Josephine Fehilly (former chair of Revenue Commissioners) was speaking. She spoke about the difficulty of changing the culture in Revenue. In particular, she said that Revenue officials were strongly resistant to the concept of the "presumption of honesty" when dealing with taxpayers!

So, I guess that would mean that zealotry is alive and well.
 
Well the advice we've received from the Regulator and others appears to be wrong.
We will however continue to abide by their rules as laid out .
I would abide by Revenue rules if you want tax relief. The Charity ReGulator is less expert of interpreting tax legislation that the Revenue themselves, who are very clear that you cannot even rely on their own guidance!
 
In particular, she said that Revenue officials were strongly resistant to the concept of the "presumption of honesty" when dealing with taxpayers!

That's interesting, the same thought was running through my head in regards to this thread.
The Revenue have the opposite presumption to the legal system.
With the legal system they have to prove you are guilty whereas with Revenue you have to prove that you are innocent.

Saying that I have the utmost respect for the Revenue Commissioners and enjoy my interactions with them to a certain extent.
 
Is the correct snswer to the query raised in the thread title - not enough ?
Given the level of tax non compliance as evidenced by the Revenue quarterly defaulters list and the continuing scandal surrounding non resident accounts perhaps a cadre of zealots is required.
The Order of righteous tax gatherers perhaps ?
Given the forthcoming debt burden, we could do with a few more zealots. Let's face it, despite perceptions, the effective tax burden is modest in this country.
 
Back
Top