Revenue interviews

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

daviddavid

Registered User
Messages
1
Hi
I received a letter from Revenue that they were calling out to look at my companies controls and systems which are in place to ensure returns are made to revenue on time.

They said its a pro-forma form which is required to be filled by them on the day.

What should I expect? Is it sufficient for just the directors to attend or must the book-keeper and accountant attend.

Revenue said it is to gain an understanding of what our business is.
 
daviddavid said:
Hi
Is it sufficient for just the directors to attend or must the book-keeper and accountant attend.
Click to expand...

Totally up to you, but I'd never advise anyone to attend such an interview without appropriate professional representation.

These fishing expeditions can turn dirty.
 
If they are coming out to you, it means something has already been flagged with them

Have everyone that looks after your accounts / returns available for the meeting, as the previous poster said, unless they go away happy these things can drag out for a long time and cost you plenty of money in penalties/interest etc if they find anything.
 
azerogo said:
If they are coming out to you, it means something has already been flagged with them

Have everyone that looks after your accounts / returns available for the meeting, as the previous poster said, unless they go away happy these things can drag out for a long time and cost you plenty of money in penalties/interest etc if they find anything.
Click to expand...

I don't think that was what the previous poster advised.

I would suggest that initially the bookkeeper only meet with Revenue. They may be able to answer the questions and close the matter. If it can be dealt with in a low key way thats great, you don't want to over react initially.

You have no idea really why they are coming, I must admit I have never heard of a visit for the reason given. They well may be looking into something involving a supplier or customer of yours and just want to see that your records match what they have been given elsewhere. It may be just routine, they really do make random visits.

If the thing is more serious, you can in effect deny whatever the bookkeeper said, he wasn't aware of the full picture etc. If the Directors are to meet with Revenue, they need to be as well briefed as possible beforehand and should certainly have the best professional advice.
 
Not sure I'd agree with Tommy or CremeEgg's advice, although I often tend to have a different perspective on these things...

Revenue want to conduct what sounds like a Profile Interview; this suggests they perceive some risks but aren't so concerned as to commit their resources or yours to a full blown audit. To address the risks they want to talk to the people who run and manage the company.

They will expect to meet director(s) and / or the company's tax advisor on record on the day of their call. If neither of the above attends then they don't actually have someone of any authority with whom they can conduct an interview.

I agree with previous posters that if possible you should have your tax advisor there, but the directors not attending increases the risk that you have something to hide or that you just don't take your dealings with Revenue seriously.

So in essence by doing that you would be not engaging with the process as Revenue intend it to operate, and could land yourself an audit, as taxpayer behaviour is always a factor taken into account when choosing cases for audit.
 
I certainly take torblednam's point that Revenue will expect to be taken seriously, and of course they should be.

However if they are "calling out to look at my companies controls and systems which are in place to ensure returns are made to revenue on time" as the OP said, this is something a bookkeeper should be able to explain. Especially as they have been given notice of the visit.

You want to avoid a situation where a director is put on the spot by being asked a question they don't understand and saying something ill-considered.

Perhaps have a director meet the Revenue visitor when they arrive, introduce the bookkeeper, have a cup of tea then leave.

After a day going over "the controls and systems" either the Revenue visitor will be satisfied or they will have further questions. Which I think they leave in writing. A director then has an opportunity to prepare, do some research and get advice before answering.
 
T McGibney said:
Er, that's actually what I said, pretty much all I said.
Click to expand...

But you then liked and endorsed the advice suggesting they create "plausible deniability" by absenting the officers from the meeting and putting in someone without any actual authority.
 
cremeegg said:
I certainly take torblednam's point that Revenue will expect to be taken seriously, and of course they should be.

However if they are "calling out to look at my companies controls and systems which are in place to ensure returns are made to revenue on time" as the OP said, this is something a bookkeeper should be able to explain. Especially as they have been given notice of the visit.

You want to avoid a situation where a director is put on the spot by being asked a question they don't understand and saying something ill-considered.

Perhaps have a director meet the Revenue visitor when they arrive, introduce the bookkeeper, have a cup of tea then leave.

After a day going over "the controls and systems" either the Revenue visitor will be satisfied or they will have further questions. Which I think they leave in writing. A director then has an opportunity to prepare, do some research and get advice before answering.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how it's better to have a bookkeeper be asked something they don't understand and say something ill-considered than a director.

You are also focusing too narrowly on what the purpose of the intervention is; the last line of the OP says "Revenue said it is to gain an understanding of what our business is". They want to gain that understanding by talking to the organ grinder not the monkey, and whatever way you stack it up if they arrive out to a small company which is owner managed, they will probably be concerned if the main man/woman isn't available to answer their questions.
 
torblednam said:
I don't understand how it's better to have a bookkeeper be asked something they don't understand and say something ill-considered than a director.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it seems obvious to me.

torblednam said:
You are also focusing too narrowly on what the purpose of the intervention is; the last line of the OP says "Revenue said it is to gain an understanding of what our business is". They want to gain that understanding by talking to the organ grinder not the monkey, and whatever way you stack it up if they arrive out to a small company which is owner managed, they will probably be concerned if the main man/woman isn't available to answer their questions.
Click to expand...

The OPs company appears to be of a size to have, directors, a bookkeeper and an accountant, all separate people.

The bookkeeper should certainly be able to explain the "companies controls and systems which are in place to ensure returns are made to revenue on time" if that is all Revenue are interested in. In most companies I suspect the bookkeeper would understand these better than the directors.
 
An interesting difference of opinion on how to approach this.

I have deleted some posts which threatened to take it off topic.

Brendan
 
torblednam said:
But you then liked and endorsed the advice suggesting they create "plausible deniability" by absenting the officers from the meeting and putting in someone without any actual authority.
Click to expand...

My doing so most certainly did not suggest anything of the kind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: jjm
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top