Paul Kehoe
Question:95 Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Finance if he will respond to a query (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5468/09]
View answerThursday, 12 February 2009
Questions (98)
Written answers
My reply of 27 January to the Deputy sets out the position that a person carrying on a business that includes the erection of buildings or the development of land is required to operate RCT on making payments to subcontractors.
At all times Revenue officials are obliged to act in a fair and impartial manner, consistent with the instructions issued from time to time. Most taxpayers operate in compliance with the legislation, and, for Revenue to subsequently set aside the legislation where it was not operated, in whatever circumstances, would discriminate against compliant taxpayers, and could undermine the RCT system. Revenue's interpretation of how the system of RCT should operate has been consistent. Over time, some contractors began to make mistakes in the handling of RCT — in particular, an important Revenue form (Form RCT 47) creating an audit trail between principal contractors and sub-contractors began to fall into disuse in a minority of cases.
I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the eBrief No. 10/2007 and subsequent reminders was a response to this situation. In effect, having re-examined the operation of RCT, Revenue gave anyone who was not operating the system correctly a chance to sort out their RCT. Indeed, in the case instanced by the Deputy, it appears from the tax settlement details supplied that a measure of relief from the tax was given.
Most affected contractors took advantage of the eBrief. Where someone failed to correct their handling of the tax, Revenue has no choice (in fairness to all taxpayers) but to operate the tax according to the legislation. Given these circumstances, it is clear that the re-examination of RCT by Revenue, sought by the Deputy, has already taken place.