Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 8 October 2013
140. Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Finance if the Revenue Commissioners have legitimate powers to remove funds from the bank accounts of small farmers without their consent following their completion of Revenue form 12s; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41847/13]
View answerFirstly, the Deputy will be aware that the debt collection environment continues to be very challenging for Revenue given the ongoing difficult financial environment. In that regard I am assured that Revenue is very conscious of the challenges that exist for some taxpayers in meeting their tax obligations in a timely manner. Its debt management caseworkers will always seek to work proactively with taxpayers and viable businesses that engage positively to agree mutually satisfactory arrangements to overcome temporary cashflow difficulties in preference to deploying enforcement options. However, where a business or taxpayer fails to meaningfully engage with Revenue, then I am fully supportive of the deployment of the necessary collection and enforcement measures to secure the taxes and duties due to the Exchequer. One of the enforcement powers available to Revenue to ensure timely tax collection is Attachment. This power is covered in legislation under Section 1002 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, as amended. Section 1002 allows Revenue to either directly remove funds from any account held by a financial institution (including credit unions) in the name of a defaulting taxpayer, or, to instruct any third party that owes a debt to the defaulting taxpayer to pay those funds directly to Revenue.
I am informed by Revenue that it never deploys its enforcement powers, including Attachment, without giving the taxpayer every opportunity to engage and agree solutions. Debt management caseworkers always afford a defaulting taxpayer at least one opportunity to agree a mutually satisfactory arrangement before any enforcement activity is commenced. The enforcement process only commences when the caseworker has exhausted all other options to encourage voluntary compliance.
Finally, Revenue is always conscious that the use of Attachment Orders can have adverse consequences for taxpayers and the power is normally only deployed where other enforcement options have failed to secure the outstanding debt. For example, during 2012 Revenue only issued Attachment Orders in less than 3,000 cases out of a total of almost 30,000 cases enforced. I am assured by Revenue that it has strict guidelines in place, including authorisation at a senior level, to ensure Attachment is only used in appropriate circumstances.
