Naming-and-Shaming + Conscience Money + Retribution

Leper

Registered User
Messages
1,995
Two items of news concerning our Revenue Commissioners caught my eye during the week.

1. Publishing the names, addresses and amounts of tax defaulters. I have no problem with this, but most amounts were for small amounts of default (€600 or less). I wonder how many of these small amounts cost Revenue more to capture than what was brought in? Is there any merit in naming and shaming small amount defaulters? Personally, I believe it to be counter productive.

2. Conscience money was received. There was no summary of the cross-section of people paying amounts owed and all of it came in anonymously anyway. But, let's say Revenue made a few errors along the way. Does Revenue publish a list of its wrongful demands? (Pardon my bog standard English).

Mod:- If this has been discussed here before, please feel free to delete.
 
but most amounts were for small amounts of default (€600 or less). I wonder how many of these small amounts cost Revenue more to capture than what was brought in?
The same could be said for most shoplifting prosecution, or driving without road tax for example. So, we should let people away with small crimes?

I agree with your sentiments where it relates to a genuine mistake / misunderstanding: what's the benefit in naming, but where should the line be drawn?
 
It's a bit different.

Court proceedings are different - assuming you have time to sit through court proceedings.

No one publishes and issues press releases with names and addresses of people convicted of small crimes.
 
I don't take any notice of these names on tax defaulters list and think it's a wast of time most of these people are hard working people and get up early in the morning .What about a list of the long term unemployed that have sat on there behind for years and never done a stroke of work and no intrest in geting work or upskilling themselves.
 
@Leper
Where are you seeing publication of small amounts? Only cases over 35k are published, or where a court determined the settlement.

"Note: Settlements are not published where the taxpayer has made a qualifying disclosure relating to undisclosed tax, as defined in Section 1077E (1) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, where the settlement amount is less than the relevant threshold, currently €35,000, or where the amount of fine or other penalty does not exceed 15% of the amount of tax."
 
@Leper
Where are you seeing publication of small amounts? Only cases over 35k are published, or where a court determined the settlement.

"

I just looked on the latest List of Defaulters including addresses, occupations and the amounts recovered were clearly shown. Most of these were for pretty minor recoveries.
 
Part 1 of the defaulters' list covers fines for various offences including failure to file tax returns, illegal cigarette sales etc. I think these are the amounts Leper refers to. I'm surprised that Revenue refer to them as defaulters.
 
Most of these were for pretty minor recoveries.
I think you're looking at the court penalties list (Part 1)?
These are mainly the set fines for failure to make a return, and are separate to the actual settlement made. It includes other court determined fines like cigarette smuggling.
But the actual settlements (part 2) are all significant amounts.

Edit: posts crossed
 
In relation to some of the defaulters, I notice a lot of them pay a small amount and that's it, or so it seems. We don't know what revenue/state does with people, who for one reason or another don't pay, and can't seem to find an awful lot of people doing time or being penalised in other ways. What does happen when you don't pay, and have things in such a way that shows you've nothing in your name?
 
What do you think happens, you go to prison for a long time. Obviously.

I've already said that's what I thought, but there's very little written about it and no detail on no's who have been sent to prison. That's why I wondered does it actually happen?
 
If our Revenue Commissioners name and shame (and it does) surely they should come clean and publish regarding excessive assessments made and/or where on appeal the taxpayer has amounts wiped or reduced?

Posing an answer to my question:- That'll be the day! I whisper to myself.
 
If our Revenue Commissioners name and shame (and it does) surely they should come clean and publish regarding excessive assessments made and/or where on appeal the taxpayer has amounts wiped or reduced?

Posing an answer to my question:- That'll be the day! I whisper to myself.

This is interesting. What details do you think they should publish under this category, and why?

Under the current tax appeal system, all hearings are public, unless the taxpayer requests that their case be heard in camera, which it appears all do, as I'm yet to see details of one heard publicly.

The Tax Appeal Commissioners are an independent statutory body, and they can and do publish their determinations, whether they've found in favour of the appellant or Revenue.

The Tax system is largely based on self-assessment. The Oireachtas, not Revenue, has legislated that individuals who receive fines in court for certain offences (the most common being failure to file a return) will have their details published. (Those court proceedings are already public in any event.) This is hardly disproportionate, since the state cannot function without the majority of people complying with their obligations.

The individual taxpayer is the party that is most familiar with, and best informed in relation to, their own affairs, which creates an information asymmetry between the taxpayer and the State. The Oireachtas, not Revenue, has legislated that people who are found to have significant defaults, through deliberate or careless behaviour, will have the details of their settlements published. While it is publication of a civil matter, it's a very serious one, in circumstances where the State can only continue to exist and function so long as there is substantial compliance with the Tax system.

A taxpayer who receives an excessive assessment has the right to appeal, and separately has several options / layers of complaint and review procedures, both internal and external, to ensure they get fair treatment. Revenue's officers are required to follow its procedures in dealing with taxpayers. This is why I find your proposal interesting, are you suggesting individual taxpayer's details be published (I presume not), or the details of the excessive assessment, or of the officer involved, or what?
 
Over the years it appears that non payment of DIRT led to a lot of people being hit for big penalties by the revenue commissioners. Heard of some people who were advised by bank officials/managers to invest in overseas bank accounts set up by the banks who were then penalised for not declaring the interest. They've said they were told not to do anything, there was no need to, but were still severely punished. To cut a long story short, they sued the people who advised them and say they won their cases against the individuals, but not against the banks, and were awarded compensation of their original investment plus interest. Anyone ever hear of or know where to find those cases. People who told me this are very genuine people, rather well up in banking circles but not revealing who the individuals were or what part of the country they were from. All this happened in 2015 according to what was said. It was conversation at a business event and no drink or suchlike was involved at all, no boasting or similar either. Supposedly, substantial sums were involved.
 
I suspect claim was paid out of Insurance the Advisers had,I have seen it happen where Insurance or company paid up so there is no bad publicity,by allowing it to go to court,
I think is happened to j c down your neck of the woods,
 
Last edited:
Thank you for replies with an especial thanks to Torblednam for her/his insight. For argument's sake let's say Paddy is presented with a tax bill for €20,000.00. He feels he does not owe it as he has not earned it. But, Revenue names and shames him and his name, address, occupation, amount appears in black and white and has the potential for all the newspapers to piggyback. Paddy's good name is sullied whether he is innocent or not. Paddy doesn't know how his tax assessment was so high.

Let's turn back the clock to the original assessment.

1. He approaches Revenue to find out how they came up with the figures. He has little chance of dealing directly with the person/persons who assessed his earnings. Of course, he has access to a 3rd party within Revenue who will relay his concerns onto the Assessment Team. The 3rd Party (who is just a messenger) will reply directly to Paddy usually advising that charges are being maintained.

2. Paddy doesn't know if the Revenue Assessment Team has had a bad day, bad week, bad month, a bad year or perhaps is made up of some members who are somehow over zealous. Revenue, like all civil/public service bodies has internal promotional outlets. Who is to say that promotion kudos cannot be earned by the revenue brought in? Certainly, I would say that if somebody in Revenue is not bringing in the bucks he/she has little or no chance of promotion. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that somebody who is bringing in the millions will be shortlisted for higher duties.

3. Paddy will be informed that he has the right to appeal the amount. This kicks the process out of the hands of Revenue and all further dealings will be to the Appeals Board only. If Paddy has sense, he will employ a Financial Advisor who will prepare the appeal (it costs). The Financial Advisor probably will suggest that a tax solicitor should be employed too (more cost). The appeal process has a delay of up to two years.

3. The Financial Advisor will suggest to Paddy that he should pay the €20,000 up front whether he is guilty or innocent. If Paddy does not do this he is liable for a penalty of 8% per annum in interest (subject to clarification) in the amount "owed" to Revenue if the appeal is lost.

4. Let's say Paddy wins the appeal or perhaps settles for some reason or other on a lesser amount (merely for a quick solution, not unthinkable). Revenue has the bones of the €20K taken from Paddy's life savings. Paddy is not entitled to 8% interest penalty imposed on him. He must pay his Financial Advisor and Tax Solicitor (a lot more than 8%). Revenue has Paddy's details. Who is to say that Revenue won't be over zealous in future dealings with Paddy?

So, Paddy is an innocent man and the subject of some unfair treatment for reasons unknown. I believe no action will be taken against the assessors other than "you win some, you lose some." Paddy has gone through torment (who wouldn't?) and lives in fear of future assessments. If hospital consultants are held publicly liable for their mistakes, so should senior Revenue officials.
 
He feels he does not owe it as he has not earned it. But, Revenue names and shames him and his name, address, occupation, amount appears in black and white and has the potential for all the newspapers to piggyback. Paddy's good name is sullied whether he is innocent or not. Paddy doesn't know how his tax assessment was so high.
Hi Leper,
Are you aware of any case where a name was published at this early stage in the process?
Only settlements are published; i.e. an amount has been agreed by both parties, or a court has decided.

I know a few people who's names have appeared over the years. I'm yet to meet a person who Revenue pursued who was completely up to date on their tax affairs.
 
Hi Leper,
Are you aware of any case where a name was published at this early stage in the process?
Only settlements are published; i.e. an amount has been agreed by both parties, or a court has decided.

I know a few people who's names have appeared over the years. I'm yet to meet a person who Revenue pursued who was completely up to date on their tax affairs.

Hi Red Onion,
You're right. Nobody is named or shamed until after legal proceedings or settlements have been completed. However, the potential is there for anybody disputing anything with Revenue and most people are pretty private and fear what might appear in newspapers in the future.

My main thrust is that when you submit a completed tax form, you are almost standing naked in front of people whom you will never meet or even deal with. They know everything about you, your earnings and your occupation, your wife's earnings, your past occupations etc etc. You don't even know the name(s) of the Revenue people with whom you are dealing other than the "messenger" (probably wrong title). You know nothing about them, not even their names. You get the impression that you are dealing with the Gestapo.

The appeals process takes up to two years. That in itself suggests that Revenue have backed the wrong horse in lots of cases. Revenue can sit back, the tax payer must pay up front even though the amount is being disputed (or else suffer an 8% interest penalty per year over the two years wait if the appeal is lost). Then he must pay the Financial Advisor and solicitor.

I worked in the public service (several areas). I was obliged to wear a name tag while on duty. Even when I answered the phone, I had to volunteer my name to the caller even before the conversation started. I have no problem with this and understand the "why's and where's." I agree with the process. However, our Revenue assessors have total privacy and can go into work every day knowing that they cannot be identified to anybody.

Also, I believe a person wrongfully assessed should be entitled to some retribution at least. But, there's no chance of this happening.
 
Oh dear. :eek:

Leper, you appear to be fundamentally unfamiliar with how the Self assessment and Revenue audit/compliance processes operate. There's so much wrong and unintentionally scaremonger-ish in your posts that I'll need to address it line by line later, if nobody else has in the meantime...
 
Back
Top