Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE debate -
Wednesday, 24 Jan 2007

Tax Allowances and Reliefs: Discussion with Revenue Commissioners.

The next item relates to the underpaying of allowances and reliefs by taxpayers which we will discuss with the Revenue Commissioners. The committee is now joined by Norman Gillanders, assistant secretary and DeclanRigney, principal officer. On behalf of the committee I welcome the witnesses and thank them for attending today's meeting.

Before the discussion begins, I would like to advise that while the comments of Members of the Oireachtas are protected by parliamentary privilege, those of visitors are not so protected. I would remind the committee that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the committee or the Houses.

We will commence with a short presentation from Mr. Gillanders, which will be followed by an open discussion with members of the committee. Mr. Gillanders may proceed.

Mr. Norman Gillanders

I am not using PowerPoint or any other visual aids this week. I will give the committee a statement dealing with the issues.

I thank the committee for the invitation to this meeting and for the opportunity to make an opening statement. I am the head of Revenue's operations policy and evaluation division, which includes the customer service policy branch. Mr. Rigney, my colleague, is head of the customer service policy branch. Customer service policy includes the pay as you earn system and my division has overall responsibility for improving services to pay as you earn taxpayers.

I will give members a quick summary of the current position of the pay as you earn system and the way Revenue handles and facilitates claims for credits and reliefs. I will also comment in passing on some of the issues that emerged at the committee session last Wednesday, some of which appeared to us to be either incorrect or to give a mistaken impression, for example, regarding the pay as you earn Form 12, the Med 1 and Med 2 forms and the claims procedure, and the responsiveness of our telephone service.

To put matters in context, in recent years we have put a major effort into modernising the pay as you earn service. The computer systems and contact channels have been changed and we are trying to make it as easy as possible for people to claim their due entitlements. This is in the wider context of a significant growth in the number of pay as you earn taxpayers, including a large immigrant component, and far greater mobility in the workforce. Many people now change jobs more frequently and holding multiple part-time employments is not unusual. All of this has put greater pressure on pay as you earn administration and the changeover to the calendar tax year from 2002 has had the effect of increasing the pressure during the first quarter of every year. We issue almost 2.5 million tax credit certificates in January and February each year, incorporating the budget changes which are finalised only a few weeks beforehand. That generates significant contact with us in that we have two peaks which coincide, namely, the people seeking the end of year reviews or repayments and people trying to contact us about the tax credit certificates they have just received.

We began reforming the administration of the pay as you earn system in the late 1990s. It is of significance to the committee that in 1999 we took a decision, in which I was involved, regarding the way we deal with claims for tax relief. We eliminated as far as possible the need for written claims for tax relief and began to encourage claims over the telephone. Eventually, we introduced a national 1890 lo-call service. This was more convenient for taxpayers and more efficient for us. I emphasise that because there was an over-emphasis that surprised us on claims forms and tax returns at last week's meeting.

Since 2003, we have had four regional lo-call numbers in operation where telephone claims for relief can be made. The service is backed up by very modern technology using VOIP, voice-over Internet protocol, which allows us to present calls to our case workers. There is a facility called Screen Pop. As the call comes in, the system asks for the taxpayer's PPS number and it presents to our case worker the taxpayer's computer record as well as any recent item of correspondence from him or her. We can do that because all pay as you earn correspondence is scanned into the system. That compares with the most advanced customer service technology in use in the country today.

We believe the system is working. Typically, the 1890 service handles 50,000 calls per week. The numbers we are dealing with are probably beyond the experience of the rest of the public service and beyond that of even the largest businesses in the country. The number of calls per week will increase during the next few months.

I assure the committee that, generally, there is no difficulty in recent times in getting through to our pay as you earn telephone service. We have been operating for many months at an answering level of 90%, which in effect means that everybody gets through either on their first or, in a minority of cases, second call. The expert advice we have received on operating these systems is that an 80% or over response rate probably suggests there are too many on the system. In fairness to the Revenue staff who man the system, claims that it is breaking down do not accord with the facts. It is a difficult job and we pay tribute to our staff who operate the system. It is a test of their professional and technical knowledge in that they typically take between 60 and 100 — sometimes more — calls per day. The calls range in difficulty from being very easy to being very hard and they do not know what the next one will present. They do a great job and will be busy in the next few months. I had better own up to the committee that there was a technical glitch this morning that brought the system down for the first time in months but we are working to get it back up.

The on-line and other self-service initiatives are worth mentioning. At the end of 2005 we completely rebuilt the core pay as you earn system which has been in place in some shape or form since the early days of computerisation. We were able to put on to the back of the new system the full Revenue on-line service, ROS, which was launched in the middle of last year. Contrary to the impression conveyed last week that ROS was not available to pay as you earn taxpayers, it is and has been since last May. I hope all committee members received a letter from our chairman containing a PIN number to access the system.

In the past two years we have also introduced a range of other self-service options for those who do not avail of the full service. There is a PIN-based self-service channel which can be assessed by mobile phone, texting, voice recognition software on the telephone or on the Revenue website. The PIN-based service covers bin charges, trade union subscriptions, the home carer's credit, age credit and the dependent relative credit. It also allows taxpayers to notify us of a change of address. It is good that they can now do this through the self-service channels. They can also log on to the system and check where their last item of correspondence is in the queue. This is linked to the VOIP computer system and the work flow channels we have devised.

It is important to emphasise that we have kept the traditional contact channels open. Taxpayers can still write or call to us; hundreds of thousands do so. Last year we had just under 900,000 walk-in callers. We are extending and upgrading the Dublin information centre, one of our key walk-in points, to deal with the big increase in the number of walk-in customers, largely farm workers or other recent immigrants. Management in the Dublin region plans to open an Internet café type facility in the O'Connell Street office as part of this process. The facility is due to be completed and open within a few months.

I will comment briefly on the two forms that featured prominently in the ITI presentation last week. The impression was given that most pay as you earn taxpayers had to complete Form 12 to claim credits, reliefs, request a balancing statement or make a repayment claim. That is not the case and has not been for a long time. Form 12 is only required from high income earners and those who claim the higher value and more complex reliefs. The vast majority of workers never see the form. Last year less than 5% of all PAYE taxpayers completed Form 12. For the benefit of the committee, we have produced a table that contrasts the institute's view of how reliefs are claimed with the information taken from our staff manual which shows taxpayers how to claim them. In fairness to the institute, it is likely that the tax practitioners represented by it fall into the small minority required to complete Form 12. That could well be the source of the confusion in this respect.

Does Mr. Gillanders have the table?

Mr. Gillanders

I do.

Perhaps he would circulate it to members. Being a public document, we could publish the information today.

Mr. Gillanders

The Chairman can do so.

I will ask if it can be released to the media also.

Mr. Gillanders

It looks like a useful summary for the public on how to claim. When we completed it the other day, we thought it might form the basis for a useful information leaflet.

The other forms to which I wish to refer are the medical expenses claim forms — Med 1 and Med 2. The Med 1 form runs to four pages, of which two contain information and on one of which one's name and address is looked for. One make one's claim on one page. The Med 2 form is completed by the dentist in respect of qualifying dental expenses. There is no longer a requirement to send it to us. One simply keeps it in case we decide to do a spot check on one's claim. We also ask people to do this with their medical expenses receipts. We ensure a stock of Med 2 forms is available to and kept by and completed by dentists. Therefore, the branding of Form 12 and the Med 1 and 2 forms last week as barriers to the claiming of reliefs bemused us slightly.

Again referring to the matters inferred by the committee last week, there was mention of swift repayments. Contrary to the impression given, all repayments are prioritised. I was in one of our tax districts last week and the district manager told me he and his staff had been there after 6 p.m. on the Friday before Christmas signing off on repayment claims. We take such claims extremely seriously because we know people are waiting for the money to be paid to them. Repayments can be made directly into their bank accounts if they wish.

Providing for the claiming of relief at source is an initiative we have taken to circumvent the need to make claims to us. From 2001, we moved to a system of claiming tax relief at source in the case of mortgage interest and medical insurance premiums. This was facilitated by the relatively small number of intermediaries involved. Intermediaries can charge their customers the net amount taking into account the value of the tax relief which we refund to them.

As announced in the budget, starting this year, credit institutions will be allowed to operate DIRT-free accounts for the over 65s and those who are incapacitated. All age related credits and credits for trade union subscriptions will, as far as possible, be given automatically. We are also making arrangements to allow the amounts paid under the prescribed drugs refund scheme to be automatically refunded at the taxpayer's marginal rate of tax. For 2008, the plan is to move towards automatic repayments in respect of some hospital and other medical expenses. We are also looking at the question of nursing home payments.

We could describe our approach to pay as you earn taxpayers as "there is no need for claim forms for most credits". Therefore, any suggestion of one claim, one form seems like a retrograde step to us. Our philosophy regarding credits is that wherever possible one should claim once and keep it forever in order that our computer system will automatically carry forward the value of standard credits from one year to the next.

We operate self-assessment ethics. We assume people are honest and thus allow them to claim their dues. A small proportion of claims are checked. This is in line with international best practice and what we have been doing for the self-employed sector since the late 1980s. As I mentioned, very few pay as you earn tax returns — Form 12 — are issued by us.

We have also developed other prompting mechanisms. As I said, carrying reliefs forward automatically is the best way to prompt claims. However, we also automatically issue a claim form to anyone who has claimed relief for medical expenses above a limit of €1,000 because at that level the chances are he or she will have a further claim in subsequent years. The same happens with an elderly person claiming the DIRT exemption.

I mentioned already that claims for refunds are genuinely prioritised, as are requests to get people off emergency tax. We do not know when a person is on emergency tax until he or she tells us. Such persons are on the employer's payroll system, not on the Revenue computer system under emergency tax, but once we are informed we certainly take immediate steps to regularise the position.

On public information campaigns and advising people on how to claim what they are due, the starting point is that every year each of the 2.2 million PAYE taxpayers gets a tax credit certificate, which shows in detail what credits he or she has been given. We issue 2.5 million certificates because these days a substantial number of PAYE workers have more than one job. Everybody gets a short leaflet explaining all the standard credits available.

We encourage taxpayers to check the credits given against those available and to inform us if there is a credit which they are not getting to which they are entitled. We have phrased this over the years in many different ways — "Please read this" or "Reading this leaflet could save you money". We have tried every conceivable formulation.

One must bear in mind that the texting options for some of the credits basically boil down to the proposition that if one sends us a text, we will send back €60, €40 or whatever, and we still do not get the full take-up. The starting point is the information we send out with the tax credit certificates. The credit certificates for 2007 will be in the post in the next few days and we will have placed advertisements in newspapers and on the radio telling people about this.

We conduct public information campaigns from time to time. In 2006, we started when the chairman of the Revenue wrote to all those on our PAYE record telling them about the new ROS service, and during August and September we launched a nationwide campaign, which continued into October, to encourage uptake of health-type reliefs, the bin charge credit and rent relief. The response to the campaign has been encouraging and we are pulling the figures on that together at present. It is certain that we will be running similar campaigns in the future.

We produce a wide range of publicity booklets which can be found in our public offices and on the website. The leaflets and claim forms for medical and dental expenses are available in clinics, surgeries, pharmacies and the like. More limited information is available on teletext — that was mentioned at the committee last week.

Increasingly, the booklets and leaflets are becoming available in other languages or contain directions to where there are web versions of the text in other languages. The ROS letter issued by our chairman, for example, contained pointers to web-based information in Polish, Lithuanian and two dialects of Chinese. I was able to mention that yesterday to my barber when I was getting a hair cut. He is a Chinese chap who knows where I work. He told me that he felt he was due a refund and was not really comfortable using the telephone. I was able to point him in the direction of the self-service option and the Cantonese version of the information. We are actively recruiting Chinese staff and there are Polish staff in the office already.

Wherever it makes sense, we work through trade fairs, representative bodies and employers to get the message through. We visited 500 employers last year, most of whom operated large businesses. We would have spoken to their payroll staff and any employees in the businesses who wished to discuss their tax issues. Some 4,000 people visited our stand at the National Ploughing Championships in Carlow and there was considerable interest in our stand at the Construction Industry Federation Expo just before Christmas.

We participate in the Jobs Ireland workshops for people who are prospectively coming to Ireland to work and we try to give them the details of the tax system before they come here. We participate in The Irish Times business in education forum. The newspaper produces a pack, which is sent to secondary schools every year, and we include material about how the tax system works, what tax revenues are used for and how to claim entitlements.

However, despite our best efforts, everybody does not claim what is due, for which there are many reasons. People do not bother to claim amounts that, by today's standards, are small. Others are not comfortable with even the basic numeracy required to understand how tax is calculated while some people prefer to stay away from officialdom in general and the Revenue, in particular, and there is not much we can do about that. I assure taxpayers that if they seek what is due to them, we will allow claims without fuss. We have applied the self-service ethic and the presumption of honesty in our dealings with PAYE taxpayers. There is no question of us launching an investigation into a PAYE worker who claims what he or she is due. There is a small probability of a basic credibility check and, in a small number of cases, we seek the documentary evidence people are asked to retain.

We face many challenges in all areas of our work. There is a general recognition of our success in the area of anti-evasion and, from time to time, there is a concern that we do not have the same enthusiasm for customer service. However, we do and we have an ambitious programme to develop the PAYE service and market the PAYE self-service options. We will continue to ensure people claim what is due to them. We recognise that a number of people are uncomfortable using the telephone or Internet services and, as long as people wish to engage with us by post or in person, we will continue to provide those facilities for them with the personal service, courtesy and professionalism our frontline staff exhibit daily.

I thank Mr. Gillanders for his presentation. The committee has a different perspective on this issue from the Revenue. How many people claimed tax relief last year, for example, on trade union subscriptions?

Mr. Declan Rigney

We are compiling the 2006 figures but we have a figure for 2005. In 2005 approximately 290,000 people claimed on trade union subscriptions.

That is approximately half the trade union membership in Ireland and, therefore, 300,000 people were entitled to a €60 tax credit, which amounts to €18 million, which they did not claim. In 2004 the tax credit was €40 and if the same number did not claim that would have amounted to €12 million while in 2003 the equivalent figure was €9 million and in 2002 it was €6 million. Between 2002 and 2005, therefore, approximately €45 million has not been claimed in tax relief on trade union subscriptions by 300,000 union members.

Mr. Rigney

The figure I gave was for 2005. As Mr. Gillanders has mentioned, there was a campaign to encourage the uptake of the most common credits, including that for trade union subscriptions. We had a fairly significant increase in the number of claimants during 2006. In addition, it is likely that a significant proportion of the 600,000 trade union members the Chairman mentioned are not paying any tax.

It is not saying much for their trade unions if their income is not taxable. However, I understand Mr. Rigney's point. A worker does not need to be earning much more than the minimum wage to pay tax.

Mr. Gillanders

There is a fact contained in the Budget Statement that nearly 900,000 PAYE workers are now outside the tax net. A credit is no good to someone outside the tax net. It is as simple as saying: "Send us a text and we will send you 60 quid". However, people do not do it. We can bring the horse to water but we cannot make him drink, which is the problem we have with some of these. There are so many channels. People can pick up the phone, text us, use the Internet, self-service options or web options. People choose not to do it despite continual prompting from us.

The Revenue Commissioners carried out a publicity campaign on trade union subscriptions. Therefore the amount due for the years prior to the publicity campaign is probably much higher because fewer people were claiming it then. The estimate of €45 million to €50 million due to trade union members for tax relief on union dues is conservative. With 300,000 members involved it would mean €150 for each person.

Mr. Gillanders referred to bringing the horse to the water. However, I do not believe the Revenue has been bringing the horse to the water. During October it is not possible to pick up a daily or Sunday newspaper or watch the television around the time of the 6 o'clock news without seeing advertisements calling on people to submit their self-assessment income tax returns by 31 October. I have yet to feel bombarded by that level of advertising by the Revenue advising people they are due money back and asking them to claim it. While it has wonderful systems in place, they are not being communicated to the public with the same vigour as it does for tax return deadlines.

While some people may be afraid of officialdom, it is the task of the Revenue Commissioners to address it. While Mr. Gillanders may say there is not much the Revenue can do if people do not like dealing with officialdom, it is the primary task of the Revenue to inform people that they need not be afraid of anything and it is not coming after them. Part of its job is to eliminate the fear it knows exists.

Mr. Gillanders

It is part of our mission today to help the committee get that message across. We are not claiming that everything we do is perfect and we are developing the programmes all the time. It is significant that last year, the potential claimants for the credit for trade union subscriptions were reminded when they got their tax credits in January and February 2006. They were reminded again when the chairman wrote to every PAYE taxpayer with a fairly modern-looking leaflet advising them of three or four ways to claim the credit for the trade union subscription. We also ran the campaign in the autumn. We take this role seriously and will continue to develop it. We are greatly encouraged by the apparent surge in uptake following the autumn publicity campaign and we need to have such activities in the future.

I wholly support Mr. Gillanders's approach to the matter. Like the Chairman, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation considering trade union subscriptions and other data sources, such as the number of properties rented privately and the household budget service for how much people spend on medical expenses. I came up with a figure of €350 million outstanding each year to PAYE taxpayers. It is a huge figure — almost €1.5 billion — if one takes it over four years. If the Revenue Commissioners were owed €1.5 billion, I am sure they would not simply send e-mails and wait to see what would fall to them from the sky. That is not the way it works. If the Revenue Commissioners were owed such moneys, they would rightly use their full powers to pursue those funds. The Revenue Commissioners have to show similar determination when they owe money to taxpayers if such people are to have confidence that the commissioners will return to compliant taxpayers what is theirs. Such determination is not being shown, however.

As it is clearly not the case that there are thousands of trade unions, it should be possible to provide for refunds at source. It would not be difficult to provide for refunds at source in respect of trade union subscriptions. Similar refunds should be provided for in many other cases, such as bin charges. I note that the Revenue Commissioners are starting to make such provision in the case of nursing home payments. That people are not claiming tax relief on rent payments suggests to me that there are many non-compliant landlords. If the Revenue Commissioners contact tenants in a systematic manner to try to get them to make such claims, it will be a win-win situation for them. They will probably find that they could be getting more money from landlords.

In regard to the medical expenses relief, for example, it is clear that the Revenue Commissioners know how many nursing homes and doctors there are, because they receive tax returns from each of them. The Revenue Commissioners know how much money is spent on such medical services every year, and they also know how little money is claimed as medical relief every year. They cannot sit on their hands and say that the people in question do not contact them.

A demand was made last week for a study. The Revenue Commissioners have all the data needed for a systematic study of how much money is spent on medication. I accept that tax is not deductible for some people who are earning less than the minimum wage. Many of the 900,000 people to whom the Revenue Commissioners have referred are part-time workers. They are not full-time workers. If they were full-time workers, even on the minimum wage, they would be within the tax net and would be getting these things. I know that one can say that, statistically, one third of people are not within the tax net, but not all of them are people in typical families with one or two earners. I do not accept that as an explanation of this phenomenon.

I note that the Revenue Commissioners have taken some action in respect of DIRT and are talking about taking some action in respect of nursing homes. It suggests that the penny has dropped — it is now accepted that older people who are not in the tax net have not been claiming DIRT. The officials should know it is not difficult for them to do an audit to begin to get a picture of how much the Revenue Commissioners owe people. When such a figure has been determined and they know that a certain amount of money is owed, they will have an enormous impetus to go for the tax at source. I am aware that the Revenue Commissioners pursue repeat business by sending reminders to people, but they should try to access the new cases of people who have not made claims. While I accept that the Revenue Commissioners are making significant progress, we are approaching this issue from way off the pace.

I would like to raise a couple of specific issues. Will the Revenue Commissioners agree to conduct a study of this matter? Will they try to produce a fair estimate of the amount of money that is outstanding in the different areas? Do they support the notion of a tax advocacy service, which was proposed to the committee last week? Such a service could be provided by a body that is independent of the Revenue Commissioners and the taxpayer. It could be based in the Ombudsman's office, for example. The advocacy service would ride shotgun, to an extent, for compliant taxpayers, just as the Revenue Commissioners quite rightly ride shotgun for non-compliant taxpayers. Would a change of that nature lead to a change in direction? I understand that the Revenue Commissioners often miss instances of underclaiming when people change jobs. Do the representatives of the Revenue Commissioners think their systems are sufficiently designed to facilitate the repayment of moneys in such circumstances? Is there scope for improving the design of such systems? Some tax practitioners have told me that the system used by the Revenue Commissioners is not designed to facilitate payments of this type — its design is much more suited to receiving payments.

Mr. Gillanders

I will answer those questions. There is quite an agenda there to be got through. I will first deal with the issue of trade union subscriptions. When that credit was introduced, we hoped to work with the trade unions and introduce relief at source. Unfortunately, the trade union side was just not in a position to help us with the necessary data. We will return to the representatives in the near future to determine whether they are now in a position to facilitate us. We would obviously have opted for relief at source for trade unions to begin with.

On DIRT refunds to the elderly, I mentioned in the course of my initial presentation that we prompt them every year to claim these refunds. In the last year for which I saw statistics, we issued 15,000 prompts but there were only 1,000 claimants. Therefore 14 out of 15 are simply not claiming. I wonder whether current interest rates are such that the amounts of DIRT on small deposits are so small as to make refund claims too much trouble — I do not know. This is a problem we should have resolved within the next year or so by allowing the financial institutions to operate the DIRT-free accounts for the qualifying elderly persons.

How long does it take for a senior citizen to retrieve DIRT after making a claim? Is form 54D used in this process? Since last week I, as Chairman of the committee, have been inundated with phone calls from people with claims in the system for nine months. They have now submitted their claims for 2006 but have not yet received the repayments from last year's claims. Is there a delay?

Mr. Rigney

There is no delay in regard to any repayments. As Mr. Gillanders said, we prioritise repayments, and 54D claims are also prioritised as part of this process. Typically, our turnaround time for repayment is ten days, and this is part of our customer service standard. Typically, we meet this consistently.

Mr. Gillanders

I can give some statistics on the average turnaround time for correspondence in the course of the year.

We will come to that later. I am sorry for interjecting.

Mr. Gillanders

I will deal with the other points Deputy Bruton raised.

Any study to determine the amount of unclaimed relief would be based on considerable aggregate data, and there would be a very large margin of error. I am not sure it would help us to make one better targeted refund claim. It may be that we can develop further prompting mechanisms by examining the nature of our case base and identifying niches where people could be prompted better. We will certainly take that on board. A study would give us big aggregates but it would not let us target a single cent—

If one believes one owes €1.5 billion, surely the Revenue Commissioners' obligation is to state this is right or wrong or that the figure is really €3 billion or only €1 billion. I have a statistical base to suggest this is the figure. I do not really accept that the Revenue Commissioners can just wash their hands of the matter and say the figure might be aggregate or hard to pin down exactly. The office is in the best position to calculate the figure. It is an important issue and a case of money that is not ours to keep.

Mr. Gillanders

We are constrained by the fact that people need to submit a claim to us for us to know what they are entitled to. We give them every opportunity to make these claims. I have already said that, as our computer systems become more sophisticated, we can develop more intelligence on niches in which particular types of taxpayers, by virtue of the characteristics of their files, may be more likely to receive an entitlement. We can try prompting them better. I am not sure that a macro-study would do any good in terms of directing a single cent of relief to the people who are entitled to it.

The tax advocacy issue essentially involves a policy decision and it is not the role of the Revenue Commissioners to make it. We work within the legal and institutional framework agreed by the Oireachtas. The Minister dealt with this in reply to a parliamentary question on 22 November. He said:

Since the inception of the Ombudsman, significant numbers of taxpayers have exercised their right to make complaints to that office. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has carried out a number of special investigations on her own initiative under the Ombudsman Act, such as into the operation of schemes for disabled drivers and the repayment of tax to certain widows. When calls were previously made for the establishment of a taxpayer advocate, the then Ombudsman drew attention to the duplication of role and responsibilities that such a development would involve.

Apart from the statutory role and responsibility of the Ombudsman, other avenues are also open for taxpayers to make their complaints and to seek satisfaction for perceived unfair treatment. They can lodge a customer service complaint about the standard of service received in their personal contact with the Revenue Commissioners by telephone, correspondence, fax, e-mail or in person to a Revenue public office. They can request a review by Revenue of any aspect of the way in which their tax affairs have been handled. Such reviews are undertaken by a senior Revenue official who was not involved in the original decision or, at the taxpayer's request, jointly by an external reviewer and a senior official. Taxpayers who are dissatisfied with specific treatments by Revenue can also make an appeal under statutory provisions which grant access to the appeal commissioners. The appeal commissioners are completely independent of the Revenue Commissioners.

The fact that few people are enthusiastic about paying taxes is all the more reason for effective channels of complaint and appeal by taxpayers against poor service or unfairness. However, given the comprehensive and accessible system already in place for complaints or appeals by any taxpayer who feels unfairly treated by the tax system, it is not obvious to me that there is a case for putting in place the additional layer of a tax advocate's office.

I see the customer service staff of the Revenue Commissioners and the senior management, such as myself, as taxpayers' advocates. It is our job to administer fairly and efficiently the taxes and duties and we take that job seriously. We need to hammer home again and again the notion of the presumption of honesty and the move on the part of Revenue towards treating PAYE claimants under self-assessment principles.

It is fair to say that 50,000 callers per week is an impressive figure and we should compliment the staff in the Revenue Commissioners who, in most cases, deal efficiently with callers. I understand how they might feel aggrieved if they feel they are doing a good job. We should, however, also explore the areas mentioned by Deputy Bruton about under-claiming; one does not contradict the other. Also, how many apply for a refund to find they owe tax? We hear anecdotal accounts of people receiving bills for small amounts and it is off-putting.

The people we talked to last week mentioned two primary groups who are less likely to contact Revenue: the young taxpayer and the older taxpayer. I understand that attitude of the older taxpayer, because he or she may have had the experience of not being able to contact offices by phone and having to wait at a hatch that may or may not open. It was an appalling experience and it takes a long time for people to get over, although older people may represent a greater number of those who would be entitled to claim money back given health expenses, an area where under-claiming exists. Can the Revenue Commissioners contact people who never contact them, who work and pay tax, or does it send correspondence to everyone?

In respect of bin charges, if one gives one's PPS number to the local authority it can be passed to the Revenue Commissioners but where tags are paid people are unlikely to collect bits of paper over 12 months and send them to the Revenue Commissioners. Is that a viable system? There is no point allowing a certain amount each year if 70% of people do not claim it. While it is a welcome initiative, if people do not claim it then it stays on paper.

Does the ten-day turnaround for responses from customer services apply to all types of claim, or do some take longer than others? How do the Revenue Commissioners decide whom they check at random? After last year's focused media campaign do certain areas remain a problem and, if so, what are they? While older people have historical reasons for not contacting the Revenue Commissioners, do younger people not do so because they do not understand the tax system, and therefore need to be informed directly? I presume the Revenue Commissioners have a budget for their media campaigns. How does the budget for tax collection compare with the budget for tax refunds? Is there an equal spend or is a disproportionate amount spent on collecting taxes?

Mr. Gillanders

There are relatively few cases of people who apply for a refund and end up owing money. There are guidelines for small underpayments which we do not pursue. The hatches are long gone. The committee is welcome to visit one of our public offices and see some of the systems in operation.

We have not focused on people who never contact us. It is easy enough to see who is not contacting us. We tell them every year what credits we have allowed them and occasionally remind them of their entitlements through advertising campaigns. We are one of only two countries in the world that operates the cumulative system of pay as you earn, the point of which, if it works properly, is that if one has the credits and allowances to which one is entitled one need never contact us because the system will deliver an accurate tax liability at the end of the year. The point of pay as you earn is to eliminate contact.

My point was that if someone contacts the Revenue Commissioners seeking a refund, he or she is confident about that. Someone who never does that is in a different category, and may not want to contact the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. Gillanders

I appreciate the point, but our problem is that the system works well for hundreds of thousands of people — typically those with a basic entitlement to credits who have been in a single job for a long time. The system works a treat and that is the way it was meant to be. How we isolate those who do not contact us for perfectly good reasons from people who, perhaps, have small claims they have not been making, is a problem for us.

We have some information on the average time taken in working days to clear unworked post on hand. These are averages and obviously refer to cases that are simple and can be dealt with relatively quickly. More complex issues can take longer. Typically, the working days on average for post going through last year, started at just over five days in January. It went up to eight days in February, which is part of our peak period for work. It continued to climb to about 11 days at around the end of April. That was when we were at our busiest last year. Then there was a consistent fall back to eight, five and down to three and a half days at the end of 2006. We calculate a type of weighted average for this, which shows that the average time dealing with correspondence during 2006 was probably around six working days. People who are requesting refunds tend to contact us urgently as regards coming off emergency tax, etc., and such cases will be dealt with a good deal quicker. As far as we can judge, the average delay was about six days during 2006.

Mr. Rigney

I should like to come in on a couple of supplementary points. As my colleague, Mr. Gillanders, has said, the cumulative system we use seeks to charge the correct amount of tax at the appropriate time. In terms of PAYE and how it operates, it is a fair and equitable system in comparison with other jurisdictions where there is an end of year process and so on.

Last week there was some discussion around the tax credits regime. Certainly under the old system, there was an issue as regards the table allowance, where taxpayers thought, on looking into their circumstances, they were entitled to a rebate, but because they were on the wrong tax table this ultimately ended up as an underpayment. It is quite difficult to explain that to them. The tax credits system is flexible in that it can charge the appropriate tax at the correct rate on the particular pay day. Therefore, a good deal of progress has been made in that regard on the question of undercharges.

In terms of targeting people, it is very difficult to do that. When we start looking at a customer contact channel strategy we try to tailor our service to the particular group audience in question. Putting services exclusively on-line is not the way we want to go. We have targeted and tailored the younger taxpayers. We believe that texting, which is a major preoccupation of those under a certain age, is a growth area for us in terms of making it easier for people to contact us and have their queries dealt with.

The ten-day turnaround time has already been addressed. I should just clarify that where payments have a ten-day deadline, some 80% of those are dealt with within ten days and the balance within 20 days. Some 80% of correspondence is dealt with within 20 days. If it is a difficult case which cannot be dealt with within 20 days, an interim reply will be posted.

I will now deal with a couple of other small points, including the problem of trying to figure out why people do not make contact with us. There is a whole range of reasons for this. Deputy Bruton mentioned the rent credit. In some instances claimants are reluctant to give the landlord's details, such as PPS numbers. People may have small amounts of credit due to them, but because they have other sources of small, non-PAYE income, such as dividends or social welfare, they feel it just equals out and they do not bother to pursue things. Therefore, there is a range of reasons people do not get in touch with us.

The issue of bin charges has been raised several times. We have looked at providing tax relief at source for bin charges. It may have been a little easier when refuse collection was the preserve of local authorities, but now that we have a multiplicity of companies involved in this business, it would be extremely difficult to make TRS work. We are looking at whatever options are there. We have started on the path of giving automatic credits and we are looking at all the opportunities around that.

What is the budget for advertising?

Mr. Gillanders

I am not sure of that off the top of my head. The total budget for the office runs to several hundred million euro. This consists of the total cost of salaries and capital costs. It is effectively a business that employs 6,500 people, so it has a big budget.

The point I was making was that there was an equal spend.

Mr. Gillanders

There has been considerable growth in the value of refunds in recent years. In 2002 we had €242 million in PAYE refunds. The provisional figures for the end of 2006 are about €420 million. I am satisfied that some of that larger sum is represented by retrospective claims for small amounts not granted in earlier years. We give multiple-year reviews so there is an element of catch-up. I am confident in the bigger figures for 2006.

Can Mr. Gillanders supply to the committee the headings and categories under which those refunds are being made?

Mr. Gillanders

We can have a look. I am not sure how much detail we have.

The Revenue Commissioners must have some indication. They should supply us with whatever information they have, because then we can see where the gaps exist.

Mr. Gillanders

We will have to come back to the committee on that.

I welcome our guests to the committee. I would like to ask a question about the Finance Act 2003. Who was the driver behind the change from ten-year retrospective claims and entitlement for PAYE workers to four years? We have been told that it came from the Revenue Commissioners and that it was indicative of the administrative headaches involved. Can the witnesses give us their opinion?

There is a stark difference between their position on many matters and that of the institute that was here last week. If it is the case that the genesis for this change came from the Revenue Commissioners, and that this deals with ordinary PAYE workers, I would expect that the Revenue Commissioners deal with such uncomplicated cases on a continuous basis. Given that the list of reliefs, credits and allowances circulated by the witnesses today include 13 examples in which a verbal claim is accepted, why would we restrict people's entitlement to retrospective claims of overpayments to four years? No valid explanation has been given. The explanation presented heretofore of the administrative difficulties does not hold up, given the acceptance of verbal claims.

The greatest bulk of people entitled to such rebates are ordinary PAYE workers, for whom members are simply examining the list of entitlements as circulated. This does not stand up and the decision to pursue such change, as well as the passage of the Finance Act 2003, was highly punitive. Many people who, through no fault of their own, have learned slowly of their entitlements and have become emboldened to pursue them, find they cannot receive their entitlements retrospectively. This includes the interest element that one pays for sums of which one had the use for some years. At present, I understand the interest rate in question is approximately 4% and perhaps the witnesses can throw some light on this matter.

The other matters I wish to raise probably do not fall within the immediate domain of the witnesses. They probably pertain to the Department of Finance and the Minister's intent regarding the extension of reliefs. However, is it possible that Revenue has no input in this respect? That would be strange. As I have not yet served as Minister for Finance, I am curious as to how close is the engagement between the Revenue Commissioners and the Department on such matters.

In particular, I refer to the ceiling for mortgage interest relief, which is approximately €6,000 at present. Last year witnessed five European Central Bank interest rate rises on mortgages taken out and further increases have been signalled for this year. The simple example demonstrated to the joint committee by the Irish Taxation Institute last week of a family dependent on an income of €50,000 revealed an annual interest commitment in excess of €9,000. However, the ceiling is only €6,000. Does this not lack imagination and is it not a further curtailment of families that aspire to home ownership in the current difficult market, in which housing prices have been inflated beyond the reach of many? I refer to both the examples cited before the joint committee last week and to double-income families. Has Revenue any role or function in this regard?

What about the difference between routine and non-routine dental care? At present, Revenue provides relief for non-routine dental care such as orthodontics, etc. What is the prospect of incorporating routine dental care, which can be very expensive? Why is the ceiling in respect of medications or drug payments in line with people's entitlement to the drugs payment scheme and its threshold? Many people have not applied for the drugs payment scheme, which I understand comes to approximately €85 per month per household. Revenue's ceiling in this regard is the sum expended up to that point in any particular month and accrued over the 12-month period. What about those who have neither availed of the drugs payment scheme nor applied for that entitlement and who pay a considerable outlay on drugs and medication on a monthly basis? It was noted earlier that people have their own reasons for not doing this or that and some do not avail of the drugs payment scheme. Does Revenue not believe it is restrictive to curtail such people's entitlement to reliefs on the basis of the detail of that scheme alone?

I will conclude with a point regarding the provision of information. Although Revenue has a regional office network, the offices are not accessible in many localities, particularly in rural Ireland. We have a poor public transport service in the greater part of rural Ireland and people may find it difficult to access our guests' respective offices or to deal with matters such as this, as they are not all computer literate. They may find telephone contact difficult. Greater comfort and a better understanding could be achieved with direct contact. My approach to this matter is not critical. Rather, it is my experience that those who do this work do it well, but many cannot avail of one-to-one contact.

I hope it will not be seen as a ridiculous proposition, but is there any way in which Revenue could reach out better from its regional offices to major population centres in surrounding counties? People could attend a mobile information unit which could visit a number of key population locations annually to allow people to access it more freely and easily. When Revenue staff involved at the coalface of explaining this work meet people away from the hatch and talk them through issues, satisfaction is generally the result. That must be our shared goal. I make my proposition in the hope it may trigger a favourable consideration of the idea.

Better access is important. The better-off in society can access accountants and tax advisers, but it is the great swathe of ordinary PAYE workers who cannot afford such access and whose working hours coincide with the hours during which Revenue's services in its regional centres are open. There is a difficulty in this respect and I commend to our guests a means of overcoming it to be more accessible via examining appropriate times and locations in counties proximus to regional centres. I hope there would be a better level of satisfaction as a result.

Mr. Gillanders

The four-year limit was introduced in the Finance Act 2003. We advise the Department of Finance on these matters, but changing the limit was and is a policy issue. We operate the law as it stands. When the current scheme was introduced, it was endorsed by the then Ombudsman.

I shall summarise the arguments made. The time limit balances the interests of the citizen and those of the State. Since 2003 citizens have had a statutory right to claim a refund of tax going back four years, including where Revenue has levied tax due to an error in law. An interest rate of 4% applies to refunds. It is fair to say the four-year limit—

An interest rate of 4% from what date?

Mr. Gillanders

Either from the date the claim is made or—

That could be now. Someone would not get anything in respect of the amounts paid in the previous four years.

Mr. Gillanders

—from the date the error was noticed.

Is there a considerable difference?

Mr. Gillanders

We will clarify the matter.

The difference may be significant.

The rate has been as high as 6%, but is currently 4%. It is not keeping pace with the ECB's intent.

Mr. Gillanders

The four-year limit serves to reduce the exposure of the State to claims in Irish and European courts that could give rise to substantial refunds. The need for a degree of Exchequer protection has been recognised in judgments in the Irish courts and the European Court of Justice.

I will stop Mr. Gillanders there. In his penultimate sentence, he stated: "could give rise to substantial refunds". That is what we are trying to achieve, so I do not think his argument is adequate.

Mr. Gillanders

Let us be realistic; there are very few PAYE taxpayers for whom a full year limit is an imposition. PAYE tends to collect the correct tax as it falls due during the year. In effect, there are very few PAYE cases for which a file of unclaimed reliefs would remain open.

Since Christmas, I have been inundated with inquiries arising from the substantial increase made in the budget to the incapacitated relatives allowance. In some schools, not a single parent had heard of this allowance, let alone claimed it, and they thought it a new provision. This four year limit will cut such people off at the pass. We could all describe similar situations of PAYE workers in difficult circumstances who never knew about certain allowances. While this committee accepts it is a point of policy, I suspect we will have a view on that policy when we prepare our report next month.

I hope so, because the entire exercise is worthless other than for the publicity it generates and the individuals it encourages to pursue their rights. Our focus is on the vast swathe of PAYE workers, including those paying trade union contributions, and I suggest the numbers who do not claim their current entitlement substantially exceed the estimate of 50%. The pension entitlements we discussed earlier may sound like small amounts but the money involved can be extremely important in individual cases and can accrue to substantial lump sums over several years. Our hope of ensuring a greater uptake of entitlement to reliefs and credits has been undermined because, where an entitlement to ten years would previously have resulted in a substantial sum after interest was applied, the entitlement now only extends to four years. I accept Mr. Gillanders point about advising because I believe the Revenue Commissioners exerted a critical influence in the decision to reduce the entitlement from ten to four years in the Finance Act 2003. The Minister for Finance at the time was complicit in terms of facilitating the change and the net result was that, with the stroke of a pen, ordinary taxpayers lost their entitlement to refunds stretching over a six year period of their working lives. That is absolutely wrong and it runs contrary to everything this committee would wish to see in terms of taxation and justice for PAYE workers.

Mr. Gillanders

To clarify, the Revenue Commissioners are subject to the same four year look back period as citizens, although Revenue can look back over a longer period in audits or investigations where fraud or neglect is suspected. I am not aware of any case in which we have sought to go back more than four years under the rubric of neglect and I cannot envisage any circumstance in which we would do so.

Provision had been made for the defence of neglect and, with regard to the many PAYE workers who have not claimed their entitlement one could argue that neglect was involved. A variety of other reasons could also be to blame, such as fear of officialdom or discomfort with form filling. A large section of the population would fit into those categories and that amounts to neglect. Revenue has granted itself a right of defence. Mr. Gillanders said he could not envisage a situation where it would go back more than four years in such cases but I very much doubt that is the case. It has certainly not provided a similar defence for ordinary taxpayers. There is no equality in its approach. A taxpayer may claim for four years but Revenue has an out-clause.

Mr. Gillanders

Fraud is the subject of a valid out-clause. I cannot envisage we will ever rely on neglect for that purpose.

Mr. Gillanders's point is well made and I suspect all members of the committee agree with him. This concerns legislation and policy and Mr. Gillanders cannot say much more as he operates the legislation passed by the Oireachtas. However, we will return to the issue in our report and push for a policy response.

Mr. Gillanders

It is important to note that the change in the limits was well flagged. There was hardly a surge in claims from PAYE taxpayers around the time we changed the limit. I see many parliamentary questions and representations but I am not aware of one referring to hardship or to a person who had felt hard done by.

Surely the four-year rule only applied from 1 January.

Mr. Gillanders

It was well flagged.

Mr. Rigney

It commenced at the time the Bill was passed at the end of 2004, not the end of 2006.

Mr. Gillanders

I will deal with the Deputy's point in good faith. I have not seen a single representation or parliamentary question of that nature.

I visited an incapacitated relative and, like Deputy Murphy, suspect that some cases date back 16 years as people did not know they could claim. Ultimately, as a committee we will want such issues addressed. Ordinary people do not know about some of these matters.

I welcome what the Chairman said. It matches exactly the way I feel about the matter. If we are to make progress, we must press ahead with whatever changes are necessary to ensure justice for ordinary workers.

Mr. Gillanders

The incapacitated child credit is mentioned in the tax credit leaflet we send out every year.

Are there many claimants?

Mr. Gillanders

We launched a marketing drive at the end of December 2006 and received 3,306 new claims

Are there only 3,306 incapacitated children in Ireland?

Mr. Gillanders

They were new claims made during 2006. I attribute some of them to the marketing campaign. The Deputy raised other items such as mortgage interest relief but they are policy issues and I cannot comment. I will refer them to the political system.

What about the question of routine and non-routine dental care? Are they policy issues?

Mr. Gillanders

The structure of the reliefs reflects decisions made in the Oireachtas over a long period of time, albeit sometimes on the advice of Revenue. However, we can only take the law as we find it. We are now entering terrain a long way from that advised in the brief for this meeting.

We are delighted Mr. Gillanders and Mr. Rigney are present to talk about such matters. Revenue has a channel of communication which equates to a channel of influence. I hope Mr. Gillanders will take on board some of the points made and joins members in influencing change.

I welcome Mr. Gillanders and Mr. Rigney. I found their presentation very interesting. They make me feel guilty for not claiming my tax reliefs because they make it sound so easy. Any organisation which receives 9,000 personal visitors each year and deals with 50,000 telephone calls per week must be lauded, as it is not an easy job; it requires much work and effort and we do not hear many complaints. People do not like paying tax but I have not heard many complaints from people feeling they are over-taxed. It is important to note that Revenue exhibits total integrity as an organisation and that everything is above board and this is vital to maintain people's faith in it. I know from my business background of dealing with Revenue in Limerick that, from a business point of view, it is outstanding. As a small starter company Revenue held our hands all the way and could not have been better. I often felt it is a pity some do not realise just how fantastic people find Revenue.

It is good that the initiatives in the budget will allow tax relief to be claimed at source, especially when one considers the farce of pharmacy drugs prescriptions and fiddly bits of paper. Many tax reliefs are not claimed because people feel they are too small to justify being claimed.

As a Senator I have driven a policy document on child care and when the Minister for Finance was before this committee last year, I raised the matter. In the 2006 budget the Minister said a person in the informal child care sector could mind up to three children belonging to somebody else in his or her own home, earning up to €10,000 tax free. However, in reality, once the person earned more than €10,000, he or she would be taxed on the entire amount. I raised this with the Minister last year and the threshold was increased to €15,000 in the 2007 budget.

I am concerned that the informal sector would become part of the overall system so we can know who is minding children. If a childminder gets involved in the Minister's scheme, he or she becomes part of a system and the local child care committee connects with him or her, supplying information on education, diet and so on. However, only between 130 and 140 availed of this scheme in 2006, yet there are around 200,000 people minding children. I have heard that people are not availing of the scheme because they do not want taxman getting involved in their businesses.

I do not want to see this fine financial proposal fail. As a business person I know businesses and Government policies fail because they do not innovate and they do not consider whether their methods are correct. I do not wish to see this scheme carved in stone only to learn next year that it was not availed of. What can Revenue do to get these informal childminders into the system? The national development plan will see investment over the next seven years ensuring 50,000 extra child care places in the formal sector. However, the need is so great for child care places that this scheme must work. I am afraid it will be discarded because people do not avail of it owing to a fear of the taxman. Can Revenue come up with an innovative way to make this scheme work, to entice people to come forward and to formalise the sector?

My compliments are not a matter of flattery or of throwing bouquets but of genuine admiration. I found it very interesting. I am glad we have got a balance from last week. When I was told that Form 12 had 16 columns I thought, "mother of God", but today I have heard it only relates to 5% of PAYE workers. It was important that the Revenue Commissioners came in and gave the other side of the story. I very much enjoyed listening to Mr. Gillanders and Mr. Rigney. I do not usually like such matters, but the witnesses made it interesting. I was particularly interested to hear transactions can be carried out by text messaging. It is the modern way of doing things and it is fantastic. Well done.

Mr. Gillanders

I thank the Senator for her kind words; I will pass them on to our colleagues in Limerick.

Our volume of business is huge. Apart from the things we have mentioned, we have: 1.9 million items of PAYE post; the lo-call telephone system handled almost 2.25 million calls in 2006; approximately 90,000 Forms 12 and 878,000 personal callers; and we issued 1.03 million balancing statements which led to 617,000 refunds. The volume of business is truly immense.

Can Mr. Gillanders confirm the number of refunds issued?

Mr. Gillanders

It was 617,000.

Were those all made to PAYE workers?

Mr. Gillanders

Yes.

That is significant.

Mr. Gillanders

We have any amount of statistics that we can supply the committee with. It might be useful for us to collate the key statistics from the PAYE system and give them to the committee.

This committee will produce a report on this issue. I would like the secretariat to have a designated person through which it can liaise with the Revenue. We want to be accurate in what we say. However, we may have some things to say that the Revenue will not like.

Mr. Gillanders

The contact person would be Mr. Rigney.

That is fine. Please supply us with his telephone numbers and e-mail addresses. It is my intention to issue a short, concise report on this topic in February. We will not let it drag on because we will have to deal with the Finance Bill. We want to report soon and we want to liaise with the Revenue.

Mr. Gillanders

We will be glad to do that.

I am not shirking the awkward question about the poor take-up of the child care in the home scheme. I wish to reflect on that and see what we can do.

I am sure that if I or other legislators take the initiative with the Minister we will examine how this can be improved. I do not want this to fail because we need more child care places. We need to know who is minding the children.

Mr. Gillanders

It is something I have not thought much about and—

Child care and ageing are some of my key issues as a Senator. It would bother me to hear next year that only another 150 people had taken it up. The Minister might then say that he would discontinue the programme and that would be that. If this was a business, the managers would say it must be improved upon. It is a good scheme and we must ask how we can improve on it to entice people into it.

Mr. Gillanders

Anyone earning those relatively low incomes annually will not feature on the Revenue's radar. We have introduced a system of computerised risk analysis and case selection systems for all our audits and compliance interventions. It really is geared at full-scale commercial businesses.

One woman raised this issue with me. She said she was afraid her husband's income would be affected. One knows that they are afraid of their living lives.

Mr. Gillanders

I know what the Senator is talking about. However, the practical reality is that we are gearing all our audit and compliance interventions on a risk basis which is carefully calculated by reference to rules. Our intention is to focus on the high risk cases.

However, I take the Senator's point. Instead of waffling on, I need to think about this and we can then talk to her about some of these things.

Will Mr. Gillanders respond to us on this subject?

Mr. Gillanders

I will need to think about it.

I thank the Revenue for coming here and talking with us today. There has been a vast improvement in the efficiency of the organisation over the past 20 years, and this includes the efficiency with regard to refunds where claimed. The Revenue on-line system is fantastic for those who are, so to speak, hybrid taxpayers. The main income may be PAYE but we may have other stuff as well.

One complaint dealt with by the Minister for Finance involved what one might call a peppery local tax practitioner at some time having difficulty getting through to the office by phone. As witnesses pointed out, it is important not to close off traditional methods of contact. The widest possible range is needed. There is a case, made here by other members of the committee this morning, that the time limit for claiming or reclaiming what one might call socially sensitive entitlements may be examined again.

There is a fair amount of tax unclaimed in terms of repayment. Equally, Revenue has a great deal of tax due that is outstanding, some of which it may never succeed in collecting. There is a problem with small tax reclaims. At the extreme level, I use the analogy of the bus fare. If the bus fare is 95 cent and I put a euro into the machine, I will not go down to the office to claim the five cent because it would take a good deal of time. As somebody who has occasionally made small tax reclaims for relatives, I am aware there is quite an amount of work and many hours involved in getting together the necessary dockets, counterfoils and so on to do that. It is understandable, therefore, why those claims are not made.

Listening to the discussion a thought occurred to me about those tax reliefs related to charges that people pay out. Two examples are the trade union subscriptions, which are paid out or deducted, and bin charges. This is more a policy issue, and I am not asking the witnesses to comment on it, but maybe there is a case for refundable tax credits in both instances to, first, encourage what I would call socially desirable people to join unions and, second, to ensure that those who are not exempt from paying bin charges pay those charges, which is socially and environmentally desirable.

There is one important relief not listed by the Irish Taxation Institute, and that is the annual public transport ticket. My understanding — correct me if I am wrong — is that this claim is made by an employer to the Revenue. I am not sure that scheme is sufficiently publicised. It is an important and desirable relief meant to encourage commuters to use public transport on a daily and weekly basis. That is more a policy issue but that relief possibly ought to be extended. I am talking about the park and ride facilities. There are car parks attached to certain Luas stations, for example, and a car park charge should be allowable against tax.

The final point I would make, by way of clarification, is that I was a member of the tax strategy group for five years as an adviser. Members of the Revenue sit on that group also and play a prominent part in it. As we know, they have an important role in advising the Minister and civil servants on the feasibility and effects of tax changes. Therefore, the Revenue is intimately involved in that aspect. Deputy Ó Caoláin, who has left the meeting, referred to not yet being Minister for Finance. The last Sinn Féin Minister for Finance was Michael Collins and I am not sure when we will see the next one.

Is there any response to this issue of public transport tax?

Mr. Gillanders

We have publicity material on it and I looked over it in preparation for coming here today.

How many people take up that scheme?

Mr. Gillanders

I am not sure.

Have the representatives any figures on that?

Mr. Gillanders

No.

Mr. Rigney

We can get them. It is a scheme that is run through the employer, as the Senator pointed out.

Is the take-up of it increasing?

Mr. Rigney

I am not sure.

CIE has undertaken an interesting analysis of a Superman-type commuter on the train. There are many daily commuters from Portlaoise to Dublin. I have increasingly heard mention of this.

It might be useful to have some statistics on this scheme. It is not adequately publicised and the fact that the Irish Taxation Institute ignored it tells its own story.

I have a few brief questions for Mr. Gillanders and Mr. Rigney. Returning to the question of the moratorium in regard to applying for unclaimed tax, whether it be the current four year period or the former ten year period, has legal advice been sought from the Attorney General as to whether there are sound legal grounds for that? An argument could be made that no moratorium applies in regard to overpaid tax and why should one apply at all, whether for four years or ten years, for claiming tax from the Revenue system?

The modelling that takes place before the introduction of any tax credit may be largely a matter for the Department of Finance but I am curious, as was Deputy Ó Coaláin, to know whether any tic-tacking is done before a tax credit is introduced and whether the Revenue offers advice on the introduction of such a credit? Is there knowledge about the likely take-up of a tax credit prior to its introduction and does the Revenue use such information to ascertain whether such a tax credit, when introduced, is subsequently successful?

The large number of people on the minimum wage who are outside the tax net is an issue that was glossed over in earlier questions. A question of tax equity arises in regard to a large number of the smaller tax credits such as trade union membership, rent or medical expenses, irrespective of whether they are being sufficiently claimed, for which people on the minimum wage are not earning enough to claim in any event. Surely a question of tax equity arises if people are not earning enough to avail of those credits, while people who earn more pay less for each of those services. That brings into focus the point Senator Mansergh made about the possibility of refundable tax credits, which would even out that playing pitch, but I understand that is a policy question.

With regard to points Senator Mansergh made on transport based relief and public transport based relief in particular, has any review of this scheme taken place? I acknowledge that the representatives have undertaken to give figures of the take-up of the scheme. A difficulty concerning the scheme is that the relief is administered through employers rather than given directly to the individuals concerned. That explains why it is not well known and the take-up of it is not as large as it could be. Has Revenue undertaken an internal review of this scheme?

Mr. Gillanders

I will go through those questions. The change to four years, applying to the look-back period, was introduced by way of an Act of the Oireachtas. We operate on a legal presumption that Acts of the Oireachtas are the law of the land and are constitutional.

Did Mr. Gillanders also make that mistake?

Mr. Gillanders

Regarding advice on credits and on tax policy, as Senator Mansergh said, we are active in the tax strategy group. We work closely with Department on Finance on policy matters. We would certainly give advice on likely costs, on likely take-up of reliefs, which is related to the cost issue, and on administrative practicality.

Is Revenue asked about the effectiveness of a tax credit as opposed to a direct grant? Sometimes policy decisions are made whereby grants are given for capital provision, for instance, and sometimes it is in the form of a tax relief.

Mr. Gillanders

That kind of issue came up last week in regard to the bin charges credit when Mr. Dermot O'Brien from the Irish Taxation Institute said it might be more effective to deal with that issue through other means. We would give opinions and, I suppose, rational and balanced views on what is proposed, including costings. Where it seems to us that something would be better done through a system of grants, then we would say so but there are other considerations. It is part of a much wider political process and if the political system chooses to operate things through tax, then it is our duty simply to administer them. We give advice, a decision is made and then we get on with it. That is the answer to that question.

The question of a refundable tax credit system would be a huge issue for us. It would need to be fully thought out how it would work, what it would do, how it would interact with other possible policy alternatives, such as social income schemes, and so forth.

I raised it in regard to a couple of specific items and not necessarily across the board.

Mr. Gillanders

I take the Senator's point. I believe Deputy Boyle's question was a bit wider than that. We would have to think it through. Refundable credits have not been part of the tax system until now for ordinary income tax payers, including pay as you earn taxpayers. We would have to think about the consequences and the administrative systems and how they would operate and be funded, for example. Would employers have to fund them weekly and so on? There are many issues around it which we would have to think through.

Would it be so complicated if one took a couple of specific small payments such as trade union subscriptions and bin charges? I accept that some people are exempt from bin charges so, in a sense, Revenue would be giving them double credit if it refunded them but for people who are not exempt and for people who pay trade union subscriptions, would it be such an administrative mountain?

Mr. Gillanders

The main thing it would require would be substantial enough changes to our computer system which operates on the basis that when the credit reaches zero, then the credit is regarded. When the credit operates to reduce the liability to zero, then the credit is regarded as expended. Credits are taken en masse and are off set against the gross tax payment due. We would have to figure out how that might work. The question for us would be whether it would so complicate our system as to outweigh any possible advantage to it. I would have to think it through.

If it is done through the tax relief at source, would it not have the same effect? If Revenue gave the tax relief at source for trade union subscriptions, even if a person was not on a taxable income, he or she would get the 20% benefit, the €60 off his or her union dues. He or she would end up paying the net amount as one does with one's mortgage interest. It is effectively the same thing.

Mr. Gillanders

One could decide to do it that way.

Tax relief at source is the perfect system for mortgage interest relief because one finds people who would not have an income tax allowance for their interest get it directly at source through the financial institutions.

Mr. Gillanders

That is a simpler issue than a full system of refundable tax credits.

That is how this should be done.

Mr. Gillanders

The issue would be whether or not — it would be a policy decision—

To me, these issues are very straightforward.

Mr. Gillanders

The question is whether one should give the credit to everybody or—

Revenue does this in the case of mortgage interest and health insurance premiums. Even if people do not have taxable income, they receive a 20% rebate.

Mr. Gillanders

Yes. The Chairman is correct.

There are refundable tax credits.

There is tax relief at source in a couple of cases and the system is working well.

Mr. Gillanders

The question is whether one has to be a taxpayer or simply in the PAYE system to obtain relief. Before we can give tax relief, we must have a record for the person concerned.

If it is done at source as in the case of mortgage interest relief, one need not be a taxpayer. Am I correct in saying that?

Mr. Gillanders

Yes.

Mr. Rigney

If the person is not in the tax net, there are difficulties.

The person still gets the benefit in the case of mortgage interest relief because the financial institution charges him or her mortgage interest net of tax relief. If he or she is not liable for tax, he or she has got the benefit. That is the beauty of it because up until now only taxpayers were getting the benefit of such reliefs. The same applies in the case of health insurance premiums. An elderly person who does not have taxable income and who has an insurance plan with VHI receives the equivalent of 20% tax relief at source. That is my understanding.

Mr. Gillanders

The Chairman is correct. The only issue relates to how one would set it up.

We would set it up in the same way. I am sorry for being so flippant but Mr. Gillanders understands what I mean.

Set it up through the employer.

Mr. Gillanders

It is operated through employers because it is the employer who funds the benefit and we agree not to treat the salary sacrifice, as it is called, as a taxable benefit.

That is a moveable feast. Often it is the individual, through his or her salary, who funds the benefit.

Mr. Gillanders

As a starting point one needs to publicise it better.

I apologise to Mr. Gillanders. This meeting was scheduled to start at the same time as the Labour Party's parliamentary party meeting and I am sorry I could not attend earlier.

I want to raise a couple of points which arose last week. The first concerns access by telephone to Revenue. Mr. Gillanders suggested the Revenue's pick-up rate is approximately 90%, but there are periods, particularly at this time of year and before Christmas, when the systems appear to crash and be inaccessible. One can make many attempts at calling but Revenue's telephone lines are not in operation. I am not sure how long the crash periods last, but it obviously happens when people contact Revenue in great numbers. Last year and again this year it has been remarked on to me — I am sure to other members also — that getting through to the Revenue Commissioners presents a big problem. In that context, does Revenue undertake constant reviews and monitoring of its call centre technology to ensure in so far as possible this problem is reduced?

That leads me to my second point. Does Mr. Gillanders possess statistics for the number subject to emergency tax? Will he outline the circumstances in which this arises? This concerns persons new to the economy, young persons entering the labour force and those with multiple jobs. Nowadays many persons take up a number of jobs out of necessity or because they are contract workers. I understand servicing this area is onerous for the Revenue Commissioners. Does Mr. Gillanders have statistics for the number subject to emergency tax? What is the average duration someone is subject to emergency tax and the average time taken in issuing certificates and making repayments? How are people who are subject to emergency tax categorised?

It can also be difficult for smaller employers who employ part-time and contract workers to help employees with their taxes. Many such employers are anxious to be tax compliant but they often find the paperwork, red tape and even contacting the Revenue to deal with part-time contract workers very difficult and demanding. The institute of taxation survey published last year identified this issue as one with which tax practitioners reported difficulty.

Mr. Gillanders

Technical breakdowns in the PAYE telephone system are few and far between. There have only been one or two but, unfortunately, a breakdown occurred earlier.

The demand is significant.

Mr. Gillanders

The system is monitored in real time and statistics on the success rates for the previous day are available early the following day. A new PAYE system was introduced early last year and the launch coincided with the two peaks in demand we experience every year, which follow the issue of tax credit certificates and applications for tax refunds for the previous year. For the first few months last year, the system was under a great deal of pressure because its launch coincided with these peaks and staff also had to undergo training. At one stage, we were down to a 50% success rate but since then the system has improved. Overall, 70% of calls were answered and this figure varied from region to region. A total of 80% of all calls offered were answered in September 2006. The figure increased to 84% in October, 87% in November and 86% in December. Our technical advice is that if more than 80% of calls are being answered, it is likely too many operatives are on the system.

What does "answering the call" mean?

Does that mean if 100 people call, 80 are likely to get through on their first call but 20 will have to call again?

Mr. Gillanders

Yes.

Would Revenue not advertise the times the system is under least pressure? While certain times of the year are busy, certain times of the day are also busier. There is nothing as frustrating for an individual who pays tax at 42% and who is not in receipt of major property tax breaks, that no matter what time he or she phones, he or she cannot get through. I receive representations from significant numbers of people about this. They understand the demand on the system and that Revenue has made many improvements but they cannot understand the response rate. Flexi-time has been adopted by the Revenue and it might be helpful to tell people the best times to call. If calls could be made at 9.30 a.m., it would be better than having all the calls made at 2.30 p.m.

Mr. Gillanders

That is a fair point and something we could consider. The industry norm for answering is 80%. If we are answering more than 80%, the time taken for the call to get through to the Revenue case worker means that people are sitting around waiting for calls to come in. The 80% answering rate is regarded as the best.

It means 20% of people need to dial again.

Mr. Gillanders

They are virtually certain to get through on the second call if they do not make it on the first.

When people call those numbers they need to press various keys for different options. Many people, whom Mr. Gillanders claims have been answered, give up in that process and go away. Many of the 80%—

Mr. Gillanders

Our answering figures refer to the people who get through to an operator.

Many people are happy to press the key to order a form.

Mr. Gillanders

These rates track people who get through to a member of the Revenue staff.

What does that mean? Some 80% of people do not seek to talk to a person. Sometimes they can do their business by pressing keys.

Mr. Rigney

We take 10,000 calls each day. The number of people trying to contact us is higher. A tranche of those are filtered out through self-service options. For example, if I phone about a repayment letter I sent last week, I can go through an automated service advising the stage at which that letter is in the Revenue process. Those numbers are excluded from the figures my colleague mentioned.

Is Mr. Rigney saying that the Revenue is getting considerably more than the 2.25 million phone calls?

Mr. Rigney

Self-service transactions, requests for forms and leaflets, the claiming of credits and the checking of correspondence would add approximately 20% to the 10,000.

So it is closer to 3 million calls.

Mr. Rigney

In terms of servicing the people, we measure those who ask to speak to a member of our staff. Those are the people to whom we are really interested in providing the service. A measure we are considering during peak times is a callback facility, allowing customers to leave a voicemail message and we would get back to them at a time suitable to them. While considerable work would be required, we feel it would be beneficial.

Can I ask about people on emergency tax?

Mr. Gillanders

We have statistics up to Monday of this week indicating the overall answering rate at 87%.

Approximately how many people contacted the Revenue by text?

Mr. Gillanders

It varies with the time of year.

What would be the number over the year?

Mr. Rigney

I will give our self-service transactions on texting in December, which is a quiet month. We had 555 text transactions during the month.

It is a new idea and it is only taking off.

Mr. Rigney

The nature of it is that it needs good advertising and we are considering ways to broaden its uptake. We will be advertising it in the—

Does the customer need a PIN along with the PPS number to be registered with the Revenue?

Mr. Rigney

Yes, it is generated on our register of PAYE taxpayers. Each taxpayer gets a PIN.

How does a taxpayer get that PIN? We are down to the nuts and bolts.

Mr. Rigney

It is going out with our bulk issue.

Does everyone now get a PIN?

Mr. Rigney

On the tax credit certificate that will issue in the next week or so—

Is that new?

Mr. Rigney

There was a campaign. Our chairman wrote to everybody last year with each individual's PIN.

Is it for texting?

Mr. Rigney

It is for everything — texting, on-line transactions and telephone self-service options.

So this is new. This is the first time for it to go out with the annual certificates.

Mr. Rigney

It is going out with the bulk issue of tax credit certificates.

The Revenue should make sure to tell the people about it.

Mr. Rigney

There is a leaflet and a letter.

What I mean is that if it is not on the television advertisement, it counts for nothing.

Mr. Gillanders

The advertisement we are putting in the newspapers features the self-service and PIN functions very prominently. We need to encourage the take-up of those options, as they are effective and painless. We will remind people to use the self-service options.

People will not understand the number unless they see it on an advertisement on the television.

Mr. Gillanders

Yes. We are doing that.

I do not mean any disrespect to those involved in other forms of advertising. Given that hundreds of thousands of Irish taxpayers avail of satellite television services, such as Sky TV, which broadcasts Irish advertisements, I suggest that the advertisements should not be confined to RTE. This message needs to be shown on the television stations that people watch.

The Chairman can take a credit from Mr. Murdoch.

Everybody understands what I mean.

Mr. Gillanders

Mr. Rigney will answer the question that was asked about emergency tax.

Mr. Rigney

I will deal with the circumstances in which emergency tax arises. It is not possible for the Revenue Commissioners to state how many people were on emergency tax at the end of the year. The emergency tax system is operated by employers, as it is required to be.

Is it fair to suggest that up to 200,000 people are on emergency tax?

Mr. Rigney

I have no way of knowing. The Revenue Commissioners get a great deal of business from people who are trying to get off emergency tax.

Mr. Rigney

Emergency tax cases probably receive more priority than most other cases. The Revenue Commissioners realise that it is a punitive system.

Mr. Rigney

The objective of the staff of the Revenue Commissioners is to try to remove people from the emergency tax system as quickly as possible. The staff deal with cases to try to improve the circumstances of those involved by giving them week 1 certificates, or temporary basis certificates.

How many people are on week 1 certificates? The Revenue Commissioners must have that figure, which will give us an indication of the extent of this phenomenon. The cumulative system has been mentioned. People on week 1 certificates are on emergency tax, in effect.

There are many people in such circumstances.

Yes. It must be possible to tell from the computers in the Office of the Revenue Commissioners how many week 1 certificates have been issued.

Mr. Rigney

I do not have that information to hand, but we can provide it. Emergency tax arises when an employee comes to an employer without any documentation, such as a P45 from previous employment, a tax credit certificate or some indication of his or her circumstances and entitlements in his or her previous job. It also applies to a person when he or she takes up employment for the first time. Emergency tax can arise when people give their new employers their P45 from previous employment that was also dealt with on an emergency basis for tax purposes. That might have been the case because they were in the job for just a week before they moved on, for example. Similarly, a person might have to avail of the emergency tax system because he or she arrived in the new job without a PPS number. The employer regulations of the Revenue Commissioners state clearly that an employer must provide for emergency tax arrangements if the commissioners are unable to establish the relevant identity for the employee.

The Revenue Commissioners have a large volume of business. Deputy Burton rightly mentioned the increase in the number of non-nationals who need tax credit certificates so they can get into the system. I reiterate that people receive priority treatment in such circumstances. The Revenue Commissioners try to ensure, as far as possible, that people get basic tax credits and that the relevant rate, such as 20%, applies. We ensure that such people are taken off emergency tax as soon as possible.

Do the Revenue Commissioners have a special focus on specific industries like the construction sector and the hotel trade?

Mr. Rigney

The officials from the Revenue Commissioners who handle these things in each of the regions know they need to facilitate taxpayers, regardless of the sectors in which they work, so they can be given basic credits as quickly as possible. We do not target specific industries. We adopt a blanket approach across all sectors. I accept that there is greater mobility, etc., in some sectors. The Revenue Commissioners are able to turn the requests around very quickly. We are trying to improve things from the employers' perspective. We hope to use the Revenue Commissioners' on-line system to facilitate employers in regularising their employees' affairs. We are developing a system whereby an employer will be able to submit Part 3 of a P45 electronically without having to submit it to us in paper form. We are pursuing a number of initiatives aimed at the regularisation of the affairs of employees.

Consider the classic case of a small firm that employs part-time cleaners. This is an area that often causes employers in small businesses to pull their hair out. A cleaner may only be working for ten hours over two days per week and he or she may come in and do the windows on the premises, for example, and then leave. At the same time, many employers want to be compliant. Does the Office of the Revenue Commissioners feel it is making progress in terms of employer compliance?

Consider the example of a young person setting up a design business. He might have one full-time employee and may employ two to three others on a part-time, temporary, casual contract basis. These are the employers who find it very difficult and onerous. As the Chairman will know, if the person starts business in January and lets the compliance issue lag, he may well have built up a significant problem by November.

Mr. Rigney

We regularly interact with the employer bodies, such as IPASS and the Small Firms Association, to determine the issues at stake. We are taking steps and will shortly unveil a dedicated employer service to deal with queries from all employers, large and small. It would provide a single point of contact for employers to deal with the issues about which the committee members are talking. We are in the process of scoping out what this service will consist of, and we will be advertising and publicising it extensively. There are major steps under way to provide a service to employers to address the issues Deputy Burton raised.

I have proposed the concept of a taxpayers' advocate for a number of years and there is now consensus in respect thereof. Has the Office of the Revenue Commissions examined or had a chance to visit similar offices in other jurisdictions? Does it carry out a peer group review of its operations in terms of customer service?

Mr. Gillanders

We dealt with this earlier.

I apologise. Two meetings were scheduled for the same time.

Mr. Gillanders

That is fine. The question of the taxpayers' advocate is essentially a question of policy which was outlined by the Minister in a reply to a recent parliamentary question. He believes there are adequate redress and complaint mechanisms in the existing system, including the Office of the Ombudsman. We have quite a number of dealings with the Ombudsman. As I stated, there are complaints mechanisms that allow one to complain to the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. One can have a serious complaint dealt with through our internal review mechanism. There is also provision for joint internal and external review involving our panel of external reviewers, who are independent of our office. There is quite a range of redress mechanisms available in the system. Although the case is being made for a taxpayers' advocate, I have not really seen a fully thought through or argued proposal why we should have one in our current regime.

On the PAYE sector, it is the role of the Revenue Commissioners, especially the customer service branch, to act as the taxpayers' advocate. Given what is available at present, I wonder whether the advocacy role would simply add another intermediary in dealings between the taxpayer and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. We want to encourage taxpayers to come to us. I mentioned that we are working hard to apply a self-assessment-type ethic to dealings we have with the PAYE sector. We operate a self-service where people can make their own claims for credits and make a presumption of honesty where we check only a small minority of claims. We want people to claim what is due to them and we have no intention of investigating or probing into the affairs of PAYE taxpayers when they claim small amounts. For that routine sort of interaction, we have a model that works. When citizens have more serious problems with us, the Ombudsman's office, internal and external appeals, appeal commissioners and the courts all exist to address them.

The estimates for the amounts of unpaid credits and other refunds run to between €150 million and €250 million. While the amounts as far as the individual taxpayer is concerned are small, the cumulative amounts can be significant. While that continues, there is a need for a visible mechanism that will encourage taxpayers and the Revenue Commissioners to ensure taxpayers get their entitlements.

When Revenue introduced the four year limit on refunds and for making claims, and put in place a look-back facility for fraudulent claims, did that facility apply to negligent cases? This applies in particular to medical expenses because they are often incurred in times of stress and people are not in a position to apply for them all at that time. Can Revenue tell us how it interprets the look-back provision? Is the four years a full four year period? There can be a review on the grounds the taxpayer did not submit an application properly. If so, he does not get interest because the claim was not properly made but does Revenue interpret look-back rights in favour of the taxpayer or apply the bureaucratic rule that does not apply to business or the major tax allowances the very well off can get? Those people have much longer look-back provision times. Is it interpreted in favour of the taxpayer in a generous manner or according to the official, tight four year rule? Regularly people find they did not claim and the message has always been that the four year rule is binding and anything outside of that is not allowed.

Mr. Gillanders

We are not aware of any real issues with PAYE workers being affected adversely by the four year rule. I can say in all honesty that we see many representations and parliamentary questions about individual cases but I have not seen in my work any issues around the four year rule and PAYE taxpayers.

If, however, the Deputy is asking if we would go beyond four years in a PAYE case to look at a MED1 claim, absolutely not. There is no question of our ever going next or near something of that nature.

There is no question of going back more than four years?

Mr. Gillanders

Yes.

Even if a refund was due?

Mr. Gillanders

Yes.

Can Revenue go beyond four years for a late MED 1 form?

Mr. Gillanders

Four years is the statutory period.

We have discussed this and the gentlemen must operate the legislation as we enact it. I suspect we, as a committee, will express a view on this in our report next month.

We have had a long and extensive discussion and, on behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. Gillanders and Mr. Rigney for their attendance and contribution today. The committee wishes to liaise directly with the Revenue Commissioners and intends to publish a report—

I acknowledge, as I am sure others did, that the Revenue Commissioners are improving the system and that demand is great. It could, however, be better.

There are significant improvements in the system. The meeting is adjourned sine die.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.32 p.m. sine die.
Top
Share