Taxpayers who appeal Revenue decisions to be named

[Brendan Burgess]

by publishing names and personal details online. The tax defaulters list goes far beyond compliance and drifts into public shaming.

These are significant tax defaulters. It's easy enough to keep your name off the list. Don't default.

 

[robert.tressell]

Is that what we say to people who are assaulted as a result of being doxxed by the defaulters list? "Don't default" I think that ignores reality as people end up on the defaulter list for many reasons - genuine disputes, technical uncertainty or losing an appeal. Once interest and penalties are added, a modest liability can tip over 50k very easily.

Publishing names and addresses isn't enforcement, it's public shaming and carries real work risks.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

people end up on the defaulter list for many reasons - genuine disputes, technical uncertainty or losing an appeal.

Most end up because they tried to evade paying taxes.

I have never heard of a case where someone was assaulted for not paying their taxes?

When you think of it, people who pay their taxes tend to be law abiding citizens and don't take the law into their own hands.

 

[cremeegg]

I'm assuming if the taxpayer gets named, so do the Revenue personnel involved.

I presume this is tongue-in -cheek.

Are you not a former tax official, or is that a different poster ?

 

[relax carry on]

Just for anyone unfamiliar with the publication criteria for the tax defaults list, the legislation is section 1086A of the Taxes Consolidation act. Pages 64 and 65 of the Compliance Intervention Framework outlines the obligation to publish once a strict set of criteria are met. There is no exemption form publication based on the type of taxable activity you are engaged in. Once you meet the publication criteria, you are published.

 

[joe sod]

I don't understand this "public shaming" when it comes to tax defaulters but no similar "public shaming" regarding welfare fraudsters ,why is this ? surely this shows a lack of consistency or even hypocrisy.
From googling I see that the UK does publish names of welfare defrauders but in N Ireland the SF minister then removed this provision in 2020 but they looked to re introduce in february 2025. Why was SF so squeemish about publishing welfare defrauders but not tax defaulters?
At least they have the provision in UK its not even up for debate or even discussed here.

 

[Brendan Burgess]

its not even up for debate or even discussed here.

Well you have raised it often enough!

Tax defrauders list but no welfare defrauders list

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/state-overpaid-116m-in-social-welfare-last-year-annual-report-reveals/a380536118.html An article about 116 million being overpaid in welfare payments which would include welfare fraud. However to my knowledge these defrauders are allowed to pay back...

www.askaboutmoney.com

 

[torblednam]

I presume this is tongue-in -cheek.

Are you not a former tax official, or is that a different poster ?

It's not tongue in cheek. If the Revenue officer gives evidence, as often happens in tax appeals, then their name would be in the determination when it's published.

No, I'm not a former tax official.

 

[bipped]

Well you have raised it often enough!

Agree that everyone should pay their taxes but maybe it’s a valid question. It seems strange that it’s only tax defaulters who are outed and shamed on a public database.

There are many others who defraud the state or break the law or maybe pose a threat to the public yet they don’t have their private addresses published. It sounds a bit discriminatory to treat one group of offenders so differently - it’s as if they deserve public humiliation but others are spared that when they have paid fines. Does anyone know why this is the rule for tax issues? (Aside from it being in the revenues tax manual).