How many Revenue officials are zealots

NoRegretsCoyote said:
@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.
Click to expand...

When there is complexity in relation to an income tax issue it's because the legislation needs interpretation. Tax law is full of things that are based on legal principles - a prime example in the context of rental income, is the issue of capital versus revenue expense. There is no simple, quick and easy way to explain that topic fully. There is a still-evolving body of case law, and the circumstances of a case will be relevant. We've had a couple of great threads here, about when certain works are a repair versus enhancement of a property and no consensus could be reached!

The Welfare system and the schemes within it are to my understanding much more codified, rules based rather than principles based, and therefore a direct comparison to the tax system is a bit apples & oranges.
 
torblednam said:
When there is complexity in relation to an income tax issue it's because the legislation needs interpretation. Tax law is full of things that are based on legal principles - a prime example in the context of rental income, is the issue of capital versus revenue expense. There is no simple, quick and easy way to explain that topic fully.
Click to expand...

And yet I can go online to find the rate of VAT chargeble on someting as obscure as an ostomy belt.

Revenue are deliberately vague because in a self-assessed system they want taxpayers to err on the side of caution and pay more.

Why shouldn't guidance on income tax be as clear as VAT? I'm not expecting a good answer.......
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
And yet I can go online to find the rate of VAT chargeble on someting as obscure as an ostomy belt.

Revenue are deliberately vague because in a self-assessed system they want taxpayers to err on the side of caution and pay more.

Why shouldn't guidance on income tax be as clear as VAT? I'm not expecting a good answer.......
Click to expand...

You’re trying to pick the exception to prove your point but it actually doesn’t!

VAT is a European tax, a construct of the EC / EEC / EU which only exists since the 1950’s, I think. Individual member states are required to transpose / reflect the EU VAT directive into their own national VAT legislation, so it only exists as a tax in Ireland since 1972. Therefore it comes with much less historical context / baggage, case law hanging out of it for starters.

It is also an indirect tax, versus income tax being a direct tax and therefore not really comparable, apples and oranges again.

You’re using rates of tax to make your point - are you asserting that there is ambiguity / lack of clarity as to the rates of income tax? If not, that’s clearly a flawed argument, and if your argument is predicated on lack of clarity around deductions / deductibility, you’ve definitely backed the wrong horse picking VAT!

Why? Because of the fact that there is a constant stream of emergent case law in VAT, as to what is or isn’t deductible. Much more so than in relation to income tax (although that’s more likely a feature of the relative novelty of VAT). It is notoriously complicated as a tax head / area of practice, despite your perception of “clarity”. Even what you used as your case in point, the relatively straightforward area of rates sees regular confusion - esoteric issues, like whether a Jaffa cake is a cake or a biscuit (for VAT purposes) regularly have to be considered by the European courts, and sometimes result in changes to national legislation and/or the VAT Directive as they’re found not to operate as intended.
 
I’m surprized that people manning customer service telephone lines are coming in for a hammering. They perform a necessary function for people who do not have a tax agent.

They deal with volume rather than complexity.

Surely a competent tax practitioner would not be dependent on a customer service telephone service for assistance in a complex area of taxation.

There is the legislation, Notes for Guidance on legislation, Tax Briefings, EBriefs, case law, a technical services section, the Tax Administration Liaison Committee (TALC) the Appeals processes, etc, all available to practitioners in addition to the expertise within their own firms.
 
torblednam said:
You’re using rates of tax to make your point - are you asserting that there is ambiguity / lack of clarity as to the rates of income tax?
Click to expand...

No.

Otherwise I am glad you went off on the educational tangent about VAT being an EU tax. As you know, Revenue are obliged to be so specific about VAT because otherwise they would be in breach of EU directives - and in court in Luxembourg!

Anyway here is an 83-post thread where intelligent people are disagreeing whether bathroom repairs can be claimed as an expense when declaring rental income. This is because the Revenue guidance is so vague!

I have no doubt that this is 100% deliberate in Revenue's part, so that staff making an interpretation will never be wrong. I've spent enough time in large organisations to know that stuff like this is not an accident.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
No.

Otherwise I am glad you went off on the educational tangent about VAT being an EU tax. As you know, Revenue are obliged to be so specific about VAT because otherwise they would be in breach of EU directives - and in court in Luxembourg!
Click to expand...

I think you’ve missed the point here. You’ve acknowledged that Revenue provide equally clear guidance on rates of income tax, as they do VAT rates. And as you point out, it’s done without the spectre of Europe hanging over them.

NoRegretsCoyote said:
Anyway here is an 83-post thread where intelligent people are disagreeing whether bathroom repairs can be claimed as an expense when declaring rental income. This is because the Revenue guidance is so vague!
Click to expand...

That thread was great craic, and thank you for acknowledging my intelligence! ;) Seriously though, the existence of that thread actually proves my point, not yours, indeed I had a reference to it in my previous post, which I ultimately dropped in the interest of brevity. There is relevant equivalent UK legislation, case law, and guidance aplenty from HMRC, and still the debates continue. As long as you don’t have a piece of legislation which covers chapter and verse in a rules based way, then the principle has to be applied to the circumstances / facts of each case. That’s the reality, and no amount of guidance from Revenue can fix it.

NoRegretsCoyote said:
I have no doubt that this is 100% deliberate in Revenue's part, so that staff making an interpretation will never be wrong. I've spent enough time in large organisations to know that stuff like this is not an accident.
Click to expand...

Revenue staff would surely love more guidance too, don’t you think, as it’s a rare bird that relishes going to primary legislation, reading it and trying to apply it to the facts of a case(s).

Can you specifically lay out an example of where guidance is inadequate and state what specifically the deficiency in the existing guidance is? I’m sure valid examples do exist, nobody’s perfect, but the point is that Revenues tax & duty manuals - which are the sum total of what is provided to their own staff as the means of applying the legislation - are available for everyone to see and use. A small amount of the content is FOI exempted, but as I understand it that’s operational considerations etc., not stuff that the punter needs to see to apply the legislation. So it’s a level playing field, the taxpayer knows what the taxman does.
 
Last edited:
But is this an area in which precision is possible or even desirable?

It is rather like the contract of or for services debate.

In the Supreme Court case of Henry Denny & Sons v Minister for Social Welfare in relation to contract and relationship of employment, Keane J referred to the English decision of Market Investigations v Minister of Social Security, where Cooke J noted that it was likely that no exhaustive list could be compiled of considerations which are relevant in determining the question of whether a person is, or is not, on business on his or her own account and nor could strict rules be laid down as to the relative weight which the various considerations should carry in particular cases.
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
I said the complete opposite. Good night!
Click to expand...

You need to edit your post then.

You quoted me asking this question:
“You’re using rates of tax to make your point - are you asserting that there is ambiguity / lack of clarity as to the rates of income tax?”

And your response was NO. Which can only mean you’re NOT asserting..... (what I asked you)...??


Edit:
Ah ok I have spotted the poor use of language in my question. Apologies! I meant lack of clarity in Revenue guidance but that’s not what I asked!! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
torblednam said:
Edit:
Ah ok I have spotted the poor use of language in my question. Apologies! I meant lack of clarity in Revenue guidance but that’s not what I asked!! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Apology accepted. I hope you read my tax return as carefully;)

I have the height of respect for Revenue officials doing their job. As a cadre they are generally a more professional bunch than other parts of the civil service, in my experience.

But lack of clear guidance on this topic is a real pity. It's a deliberate choice by management and really should be fixed.

Sophrosyne said:
But is this an area in which precision is possible or even desirable?
Click to expand...

As I asked, if precision is impossible then why is there so much provided for VAT?
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
No.

Otherwise I am glad you went off on the educational tangent about VAT being an EU tax. As you know, Revenue are obliged to be so specific about VAT because otherwise they would be in breach of EU directives - and in court in Luxembourg!

Anyway here is an 83-post thread where intelligent people are disagreeing whether bathroom repairs can be claimed as an expense when declaring rental income. This is because the Revenue guidance is so vague!

I have no doubt that this is 100% deliberate on Revenue's part, so that staff making an interpretation will never be wrong. I've spent enough time in large organisations to know that stuff like this is not an accident.
Click to expand...
That’s not the only thread on the subject. Over the years on here we constantly have landlords trying to figure it out. The reason. It’s not at all clear. Why. Because Revenue deliberately do not put up a list of what or is not deductible.

My own accountant, who is excellent, I seek guidance from. If it were clear , as an experienced landlord, who has done my own tax returns, and in a previous life negotiated with revenue for clients, I can tell you it is not easy, wouldn’t have to ask my accountant about certain purchases or works,
 
Sophrosyne said:
@torblednam has already explained that.

Perhaps you have not yet encountered interpretive difficulties with this tax.
Click to expand...
What is difficult about revenue making it clear. What Mandelbrot has done is given us an essay on interpretation of laws in order to avoid acknowledging that revenue have deliberately left their list on deductions short and vague so that we landlords and our accountants are not 100% certain.
 
torblednam said:
What topic?!
Click to expand...

The topic of what and what is not deductible as an expense for landlords.

Sophrosyne said:
@torblednam has already explained that.

Perhaps you have not yet encountered interpretive difficulties with this tax.
Click to expand...

There are interpretive difficulties with every tax and I don't expect Revenue guidance to be utterly exhaustive. My point is that Revenue provide much more specific guidance on VAT rates than on what can and cannot be claimed by landlords as a deduction for income tax. There are many AAM threads on this topic btw, very few on VAT.

It doesn't help that the Tax Appeals Commission makes its rulings so difficult to search as well. Not Revenue's fault of course.

I am not being disingenuous here, and apologies if I am not 100% clear. I've said enough and will bow out.
 
Bronte said:
What is difficult about revenue making it clear. What Mandelbrot has done is given us an essay on interpretation of laws in order to avoid acknowledging that revenue have deliberately left their list on deductions short and vague so that we landlords and our accountants are not 100% certain.
Click to expand...

Revenue are in the EXACT same position as the landlord and agent Bronte, that’s my point!

There’s legislation, and it has to be applied to the facts of every case. Repairs are deductible, that’s what the legislation says. Capital expenditure is not, that’s what the legislation says. Things are deductible, or not, by operation of law, not because Revenue say so, or say not.

If there’s an asymmetry, it probably tilts in the taxpayer’s favour, since they are the one that is in possession of all the facts of their own circumstances in the first instance. e.g. if asked about a repair cost, they probably have fairly broad scope to describe the work that was done without fear of being challenged, as invoices are often quite vague.

If someone (or their accountant), is filing their return, and they’re having to interpret the legislation because the published guidance is unclear, then they can note the fact on their return under “Expression of Doubt” which protects them from penalties in the event that their interpretation is found not to be correct.
 
Revenue are NOT in the exact same position as a landlord or agent. They have endless finance, extraordinary powers and access to the best experts.

They also can ‘change their minds’ on ‘interpretation’ of tax laws.
 
Bronte said:
Revenue are NOT in the exact same position as a landlord or agent. They have endless finance, extraordinary powers and access to the best experts.

They also can ‘change their minds’ on ‘interpretation’ of tax laws.
Click to expand...

. . . . . . and mismanage all taxpayers money in the process.
 
Bronte said:
Revenue are NOT in the exact same position as a landlord or agent. They have endless finance, extraordinary powers and access to the best experts.

They also can ‘change their minds’ on ‘interpretation’ of tax laws.
Click to expand...

Revenue don’t really have endless finance or resources; regular staff - the ones who actually interact with taxpayers & agents -would have to make a business case for access to solicitor / counsel. Remember, the context of this thread, is about whether individuals in Revenue are zealots or not. Well the individual zealot needs to have a couple of layers of similar zeal above them, to actually get support for whatever agenda / interpretation they’re pushing.

It’s interesting to see you say they have access to the best experts - if Gordon is to be believed the best are out in the private sector.

I’m not sure why “change their minds” and “interpretation” are referred to like that - do you actually mean something else there?

Taking the words at face value, of course there are times where an interpretation changes, due to issues that are highlighted, either through determinations by the appeal commissioners or the courts here, or developments in case law elsewhere. Or perhaps sometimes because somebody draws attention to a problem with a current interpretation. Surely that’s common sense?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top