tax office error

Hi, sent P12 to revenue for 2005. They notified me a couple weeks ago that it was still outstanding?? Now they have sent me a cheque demand with my P21 for €2500. They have made a mistake putting my husband down for recieving €9000 U/B that year instead of receiving €1230 U/B that year. I am sending in proof of this to-day and we should be liable for around €1200 tax for 2005 (His employer did'nt deduct enough tax that year either!! Lucky us).
Do you think they will add interest on to this?
Also, can I ask for them to reduce our tax credits over a couple years instead of asking for a cheque by return?
If so, whats the max years we can reduce credits for?
 
ruthkell said:
Do you think they will add interest on to this?
Also, can I ask for them to reduce our tax credits over a couple years instead of asking for a cheque by return?
If so, whats the max years we can reduce credits for?
Click to expand...

Interest is not normally applied to PAYE underpayments.
You could request the underpayment be split over a couple of tax years. for €1,200 the likely would be possibly 2 years.
 
Why should an Engineer understand accounting and Tax? Does an accountant/Tax office understand Engineering?
My employer calculate it incorrect last year and the accountant calculated that I had overpaid a couple of thousand Euro resulting in a tax refund. If I had left this over 4 years the tax office would have gained this amount from me.
 
leghorn said:
Many (most?) people do not know how the tax system works. Even fewer know how PRSI operates, judging by recent threads on AAM. They are at the mercy of the revenue.
Try explaining to someone with very basic literacy how cumulative PAYE tax works. It's not that they can't be bothered. Every penny counts, especially if they are on low income.
If a system doesn't work, the users shouldn't be blamed.
Click to expand...
Understanding the whole system is not easy. But understanding the basics to the extent that you are able to double check your tax credits and allowances is. Many people (including many who I know who would be well able to) simply don't bother and mistakenly assume that their employer or Revenue are responsible to keeping things up to date.
 
Ubiquitous,
My point above was not a pitch advocating that PAYE taxpayers should start queueing outside their local accountants offices (God knows we have enough to be doing as it is) but was merely to counter the nonsense that only "the more affluent employ accountants to do the necessary" as if this was something underhand or criminal :confused:
I did not put in the ONLY.......and by inserting it , it changes what I meant.
 
I don't accept that. Imho, your use of the term "the more affluent" implied that you were referring to an exclusive group, hence my use of the prefix "only". I don't think it matters a whole pile now anyway.
 
Roker, couldn't agree more, and what if you are not very literate or numerate and you lose out, then they only refund you for four years. If the same applies and you are auditied , they can go back for fifteen years. No matter what any accountant on this forum says, in my opinion this is unfair. We always talk about vested interests particularly those in property; if the tax system was very easily understood and help was freely available to those who needed it, would it be in the interest of the tax office or tax professionals.
This is an issue that affects all of us and the system should work for all of us , not just those clever enough or qualified enough to understand it.

Ubiquitous, you put in an ONLY which changed my meaning,,,,,,read your post again.
 
Brianne said:
No matter what any accountant on this forum says, in my opinion this is unfair.
Click to expand...
No accountant on this forum, to my knowledge, has ever said that the four year rule is fair. My own view is that it is a disgrace and is probably unconstitutional. I can't wait for the day when someone appeals its validity to the High Court or Supreme Court.

Brianne said:
We always talk about vested interests particularly those in property; if the tax system was very easily understood and help was freely available to those who needed it, would it be in the interest of the tax office or tax professionals.
Click to expand...
In fairness this is patently untrue. The only "vested interests" who benefit from the four year rule are the Revenue (who have less admin work because of it) and the Exchequer (who profit financially from it by restricting taxpayers' rights to claim their entitlements).

The four year rule is a disaster for all tax professionals who find themselves dealing with arrears cases from time to time.

The main bodies representing tax professionals and accountants (ITI, ICAI, ACCA, CPA) repeatedly call for simplification of our tax system and attack any legislation or Budget measures that increase its complexity. It isn't their fault if these appeals are ignored.

Brianne said:
Ubiquitous, you put in an ONLY which changed my meaning,,,,,,read your post again.
Click to expand...

I still contend that your comment "where the more affluent employ accountants to do the necessary and are unlikely to lose out" is a mile away from the reality.
 
Brewing terminology

The more popular etymology places the word's origins in the brewing industry.[citation needed] In 1876, British soft drink maker Hiram Codd designed and patented a bottle designed specifically for fizzy drinks. Though his Codd-neck bottle was a success in the fizzy drink industry, alcohol drinkers disparaged Codd's invention, often saying it was only good for "wallop" (a slang term for beer in the late-19th century).[citation needed] The term soon became "Codd's Wallop" and was eventually used for anything of low-quality or rubbish.



Ubiquitous, glad that we agree on the unfairness of the rule and glad to hear that the professional tax bodies are calling out for change in rules to simplify thing.
See above on definition of codswallop. I think there must be guidelines somewhere on this site re the use of such terms in describing anyone's contribution, even if one disagrees wholeheartedly with said post.
 
Brianne said:
Ubiquitous, glad that we agree on the unfairness of the rule and glad to hear that the professional tax bodies are calling out for change in rules to simplify thing.
See above on definition of codswallop. I think there must be guidelines somewhere on this site re the use of such terms in describing anyone's contribution, even if one disagrees wholeheartedly with said post.
Click to expand...

I apologise. I already had edited my post to eliminate that word, though unfortunately you beat me to it :)
 
If you receive a P21 stating an underpayment of say €200 and it also states that this underpayment will not be collected they will not give you a tax clearance certificate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top