How many Revenue officials are zealots

Leper said:
Every organisation has zealots, dossers and normal hard working people and Revenue is no exception. If Revenue didn't do its job and chase the odd person or two, it wouldn't be doing its job. The fear I have is that Revenue can "chase" easy targets instead of real targets.

I bet some people working in Revenue can see zealots in action every week. From what happened in other government agencies potential whistleblowers probably would remain quiet and so the zealots can drive on unhindered until some innocent victim takes his/her case to the Revenue Appeals Process. This can take up to two years to resolve. But, I reckon most such cases are resolved before the appeal is heard.

If we can source figures of the appeal process (i.e. those which run full course and those settled within the procedure) perhaps then the zealots can be weeded out?
Click to expand...

I’m not sure what kind of innocent victim you’re envisaging, can you clarify what exactly you have in mind? How do you distinguish an easy target from a real target?

But certainly, you’d expect a tax official who wastes not just their own time, but their superiors’ too - by raising unwarranted assessments and causing a resource intensive appeal process (which is in effect civil litigation) to commence - would get their wings clipped very quickly. Unless you subscribe to Gordon’s school of thought where it’s a hive mind and they’re all out to get everyone.

In relation to appeals; a very high proportion of appeals are settled before hearing, for a variety of reasons, no different than with any form of litigation.

As an example, back in the early / mid 2000’s at least one lecturer for a body providing a recognised professional tax qualification, when lecturing a class would check whether there were any Revenue staff in it. If not, they would impart certain tricks of the trade - like not settling a Revenue audit even though you can see the writing on the wall, and then appealing any/every tax assessment as a negotiating tactic, as you’ll get a better deal because Revenue “don’t like” going in front of the appeal commissioners. That kind of carry on will definitely skew the figures.

There will also be some proportion of cases where Revenue withdraw because of some perceived weakness in their case. One typical example being where a person chose not to engage properly with an enquiry, resulting in an estimated assessment having to be made, or a tax relief denied, and only in the course of appealing do they produce information/evidence that clarifies things and allows the matter to be resolved.
There’s also lots of cases where both parties reach a compromise settlement to avoid the uncertainty of litigating the issues.

If you’ve an interest in it, the Tax Appeals Commission publishes an Annual Report with facts & figures in it. Curiously, they don’t (in the 2018 report anyway) indicate how many appeals were upheld and how many were determined in Revenue’s favour. Historically I’ve a figure in my head that 70%-80% of cases determined by the Appeal Commissioners are/were in Revenue’s favour, but I don’t know where I got it from.
 
Last edited:
torblednam said:
I’m not sure what kind of innocent victim you’re envisaging, can you clarify what exactly you have in mind? How do you distinguish an easy target from a real target?

But certainly, you’d expect a tax official who wastes not just their own time, but their superiors’ too - by raising unwarranted assessments and causing a resource intensive appeal process (which is in effect civil litigation) to commence - would get their wings clipped very quickly. Unless you subscribe to Gordon’s school of thought where it’s a hive mind and they’re all out to get everyone.

In relation to appeals; a very high proportion of appeals are settled before hearing, for a variety of reasons, no different than with any form of litigation.

As an example, back in the early / mid 2000’s at least one lecturer for a body providing a recognised professional tax qualification, when lecturing a class would check whether there were any Revenue staff in it. If not, they would impart certain tricks of the trade - like not settling a Revenue audit even though you can see the writing on the wall, and then appealing any/every tax assessment as a negotiating tactic, as you’ll get a better deal because Revenue “don’t like” going in front of the appeal commissioners. That kind of carry on will definitely skew the figures.

There will also be some proportion of cases where Revenue withdraw because of some perceived weakness in their case. One typical example being where a person chose not to engage properly with an enquiry, resulting in an estimated assessment having to be made, or a tax relief denied, and only in the course of appealing do they produce information/evidence that clarifies things and allows the matter to be resolved.
There’s also lots of cases where both parties reach a compromise settlement to avoid the uncertainty of litigating the issues.

If you’ve an interest in it, the Tax Appeals Commission publishes an Annual Report with facts & figures in it. Curiously, they don’t (in the 2018 report anyway) indicate how many appeals were upheld and how many were determined in Revenue’s favour. Historically I’ve a figure in my head that 70%-80% of cases determined by the Appeal Commissioners are/were in Revenue’s favour, but I don’t know where I got it from.
Click to expand...

1. I am not questioning your bona fide performance in Revenue. From what I read on the forum I believe you are a good state employee and conduct your work in a professional manner.

2. Then there's the zealot, a rat in a self imposed rat race. He believes he is the conscience of Ireland Ltd and makes it a must to collect as much revenue as possible whether it is warranted or not. His performance is self promoting and I don't believe his superiors would always stand in his way. It is better to be in a better performing section than an under-performing section so zealots escape the net. Take internal promotion as an example - what chance would anybody have against a zealot. Zealots by their nature tend to dismiss everybody else. We'll never know, but how many zealots drove their victims over the cliff?

3. The fact a very high proportion of appeals are settled before hearing indicates there is something dreadfully wrong at the first point of contact with the taxpayer.

4. In the appeals process Revenue withdraws because of perceived weaknesses. This alone indicates that some in Revenue are more aggressive than needs be.

5. I must applaud your honesty and transparency. But, I believe you are a lighthouse in a dark place where much of your light is ignored.
 
Leper said:
1. I am not questioning your bona fide performance in Revenue. From what I read on the forum I believe you are a good state employee and conduct your work in a professional manner.
Click to expand...

Whoa and stall the wagon. I’m not saying where I work, I’m an individual with opinions, the same as any other.

In the anonymous world of the internet I could be one of Putin’s sophisticated bots, a teenager with time on my hands, or a crazy cat lady in a bedsit in Bolton.

Whoever I am, I profess to know stuff about tax here. Other people are free to theorise, but I’m not presenting or representing anyone’s views other than my own personal and anonymous ones.
 
If that was true, and frankly, I have my serious and sincere suspicions, you could simply have said some brutal, brittle and bulimic lady from a bedsit in the back of beyonds or something.
 
I know of revenue being bullies, of them giving incorrect information, of them overstepping during audits. Most of them aren't like that. Most of them are pretty decent.

BTW the phone contact, that's not actually revenue. That's a crowd down in Cork the same people do I think Irish water phone queries etc. A call center. Starts with A but I forget the name.
 
Leper said:
5. I must applaud your honesty and transparency. But, I believe you are a lighthouse in a dark place where much of your light is ignored.
Click to expand...

Mandelbrot is that, but he has been pretty much a zealot on here on certain issues. eg NPPR, and he will never ever acknowledge any shortcomings in Revenue staff.

No insult intended just so there is no misunderstanding as I think he's a great poster.
 
Bronte said:
Mandelbrot is that, but he has been pretty much a zealot on here on certain issues. eg NPPR
Click to expand...

Were the fines for non payment of NPPR set by the Government of the time?

Or was it the Revenue who decided what the fines should be?

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Were the fines for non payment of NPPR set by the Government of the time?

Or was it the Revenue who decided what the fines should be?

Brendan
Click to expand...

The issue that Bronte is admonishing me for my zealotry on, was not the fines Brendan, but the tax treatment of the €200, as to whether it was deductible from rental income.

That was a fun debate!

Edited to add:
The zealots did actually win the argument, by the way: https://www.irishtimes.com/business...e-wins-appeal-on-second-home-charge-1.3261923
Are you still a zealot, when you're just correct? ;)
 
Last edited:
Bronte said:
Mandelbrot is that, but he has been pretty much a zealot on here on certain issues. eg NPPR, and he will never ever acknowledge any shortcomings in Revenue staff.
Click to expand...

It’s not as simple as that. I’m pretty sure my previous posts would be along the lines that if viewed objectively Revenue is no worse than, and probably better than, most other similar sized organisations in its Governance and the general conduct of its personnel.

There’s always room for improvement, but I’m always likely to pop up if someone’s making a sweeping generalisation about 9 out of 10 this that or t’other, without something evidential to support it. Just for balance like!
 
torblednam said:
Abtran. And that’s specifically for the LPT helpline.
www.irishtimes.com

Outsourcing firm Abtran receives nearly €2m in fees from Revenue

Firm operates helpline for State’s local property tax
www.irishtimes.com www.irishtimes.com
Click to expand...
That's them. They can't actually properly deal with you and hand you over to revenue. Revenue are still sending me letters about LPT on my late mother's estate, I rang them up to sort it out and got someone thick so I told them they can keep sending me the letters forever. I just bin the reminders. I do the same too with Ulsterbank's letters about my address. Something about being abroad and proving it. I find as I'm getting older I'm getting thicker myself about dealing with stuff I'm not of a mind to.

The worst I ever dealt with was Irish water. They told me to go read the legislation. So I paid nothing. And for my late mother they sent me a refund which I thought was hilarious. Might as well go the whole hog now. Leo hates the fact I've never paid the BER. Waste of good money to tell me the hotwater tank needs a lagging jacket.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Were the fines for non payment of NPPR set by the Government of the time?

Or was it the Revenue who decided what the fines should be?

Brendan
Click to expand...
Government. It gave Moan to Joe and others oddles of air time. I felt sorry for people who genuinely didn't know about it. Particularly people abroad like me. It was an outragous fine. It's now linked to LPT. Actually LPT is a very efficient part of Revenue.ie.
 
torblednam said:
It’s not as simple as that. I’m pretty sure my previous posts would be along the lines that if viewed objectively Revenue is no worse than, and probably better than, most other similar sized organisations in its Governance and the general conduct of its personnel.

There’s always room for improvement, but I’m always likely to pop up if someone’s making a sweeping generalisation about 9 out of 10 this that or t’other, without something evidential to support it. Just for balance like!
Click to expand...
There is nothing worse than banks. I put revenue streets ahead of them. My last visit to a bank in Ireland about a year ago was to a young one who was as rude as could possible be. I asked her to print out something for me with my address on it to pop over to the credit union to prove my address to and she said they don't print anything. And you're supposed to conduct you business standing up with other people listening. They also dress like they were going to the pub.
 
I've never paid tax anywhere else so lack a benchmark, but.............my occasional dealings with DEASP have been much more pleasing.

Forms are much more intuitive and obvious, things are explained clearly on their website, it's pretty obvious if you're entitled or not. There is no odd reference to paper concepts like Form 11 and Form 12 when you are filing online, etc.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
Forms are much more intuitive and obvious, things are explained clearly on their website, it's pretty obvious if you're entitled or not.
Click to expand...

But is that not because the underlying issues are much simpler?

Tax is complicated. The forms are going to be difficult.

Revenue staff, especially at a junior level, are going to make mistakes.

Brendan
 
@Brendan Burgess

Income tax for most people is not that complicated. When there is complexity Revenue are deliberately vague, for example on what landlords can and cannot claim as expenses.

Eligibility for welfare schemes like carers is complicated but DEASP make a good fist of explaining it clearly.
 
At the risk of sounding like a complete snob I would presume that DEASP are more used than Revenue to dealing with people who are likely to be in lower skilled and more precarious employment and therefore have mastered the art of plain forms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top