Yes and I don't wish to go there publicly.Not sure what you’re getting at there Leper, have you something in particular in mind?
Yes and I don't wish to go there publicly.Not sure what you’re getting at there Leper, have you something in particular in mind?
I think the accusation is that they go after the easy targets rather than the major tax cheats.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’m surprized that people manning customer service telephone lines are coming in for a hammering.
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.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.
Explain where I'm wrong then, I feel you can'tSorry, 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.
Well the advice we've received from the Regulator and others appears to be wrong.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 .
Re-read the entire context of what happened and you should pick up where you're wrong.Explain where I'm wrong then, I feel you can't
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.
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!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 .
In particular, she said that Revenue officials were strongly resistant to the concept of the "presumption of honesty" when dealing with taxpayers!
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.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 ?
Huh?! Surely a zealot would love nothing more than pursuing a major tax cheat?I think the accusation is that they go after the easy targets rather than the major tax cheats.