Skip to main content
Normal View

Tax Collection

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 15 April 2014

Tuesday, 15 April 2014

Questions (188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193)

Catherine Murphy

Question:

188. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if he will introduce a mandatory practice for agents of the Revenue sheriff whereby copies of an individual's statutory rights are provided to them when they have equipment or assets seized as is the practice in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17668/14]

View answer

Catherine Murphy

Question:

189. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to any instances where data obtained by the Revenue sheriff on seized equipment was destroyed in a manner inconsistent with data protection legislation; if so, if he will list all such instances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17669/14]

View answer

Catherine Murphy

Question:

190. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance the way the Revenue sheriff ensures that data it may obtain through the seizure of equipment is retained in accordance with data protection legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17670/14]

View answer

Catherine Murphy

Question:

191. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if instances where data that is contained on equipment and other items seized by the Revenue sheriff, and then retained and-or sold by same, is in compliance with the Data Protection Acts and the EU Directive 95/46/EC; his views on whether amending legislation is required to ensure that data protection legislation is fully adhered to by the Revenue sheriff in the execution of its functions under the Enforcement of Court Orders 1926 and other Acts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17671/14]

View answer

Catherine Murphy

Question:

192. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance the number of complaints under the Revenue sheriff's code of practice that have been initiated in each of the past ten years and to date in 2014; the outcome of each such complaint; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17672/14]

View answer

Catherine Murphy

Question:

193. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether the current complaints procedure under the Revenue sheriff's code of practice provides an appeals process that is fair and independent and in line with modern best practice in other countries; his views on whether the lack of a third party adjudicator in the appeals process undermines the fairness of appeals; if he intends to move amending legislation to ensure that provisions of the 1927 Act under which the Revenue Sheriff operates are modernised; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17673/14]

View answer

Written answers

I propose to take Questions Nos. 188 to 193, inclusive, together.

The Revenue Commissioners are charged with responsibility for collection and recovery of a wide range of taxes and duties. I know that Revenue has a strong focus on making sure that everyone complies with their tax and duty responsibilities by paying the right amount and on time. Revenue expects businesses to continue, notwithstanding the difficult economic circumstances in which they are now operating, to maintain a clear focus and organise their financial affairs to ensure that tax debts are paid as they fall due. However, Revenue is also conscious that the difficult economic and financial climate can impact negatively on businesses being timely compliant. For that reason, Revenue has actively encouraged businesses experiencing particular payment difficulties to work proactively with it when such difficulties start to arise to find an agreed way through the difficulties and quickly restore voluntary timely compliance.

As I have advised the Deputy in reply to previous questions on this issue, I am informed by Revenue that Sheriffs are officers of the Court, holding office under Section 12 of the Court Officers Act, 1945. Their debt collection activities are generally covered by the Enforcement of Court Orders Act, 1926, as amended and the execution of Revenue certificates is specifically provided for in Section 960L of the Taxes Consolidated Act 1997, as amended. When acting in execution of tax certificates, Sheriffs are governed by the general law, which applies to the collection of civil debts of all kinds, and not by the provisions of the Tax Acts. They are not accountable to Revenue as regards the methods and techniques of enforcement but are answerable before the courts for any breach of the civil debt collection law.

The Deputy is aware from previous replies that the Sheriffs have in place a Code of Practice, available from any Sheriff or on Revenue's website, which sets out how they will engage with taxpayers. The Code, which is designed to provide an opportunity to taxpayers to resolve disputes without the necessity to initiate Court proceedings, sets out the process whereby a taxpayer may make a complaint to the Sheriff and how it will be handled. Because the Sheriffs operate independent of Revenue, data is not available to the Commissioners to respond to the Deputy's query in relation to the number of complaints, and the outcome of any such complaints, that were made against the Sheriffs in the last ten years.

The Code also provides for a Joint Standing Committee (JSC), which includes a representative of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as Chair, a representative of the Revenue Commissioners and representatives of the Sheriffs Association to undertake a review of a complaint, where the taxpayer remains dissatisfied with the Sheriff's response to his/her complaint. Such reviews are undertaken by means of an examination of all relevant documentation and correspondence relating to the taxpayer's complaint and the sheriff's response. A total of four complaints have been reviewed by the (JSC) since the introduction of the Sheriffs Code of Practice in 2005. There were a range of issues involved in these four complaints and each taxpayer was notified of the findings of the JSC. The low numbers of complainants that have sought a review of their complaint by the JSC would suggest that there is not a widespread problem in regard to this issue, particularly in the context of an average of in excess of 30,000 certificates issued annually by Revenue to Sheriffs over the last three years.

I want to stress at this point that making a complaint under the Code should not in any way be taken as a diminution or a substitution for a taxpayer's common law rights, which are not impacted upon by availing of the process. In regard to Questions 17669, 17670 and 17671, while the issues raised are primarily for my colleague the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to answer, I am informed that Sheriffs are subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Acts 1988 and 2003. I am also informed that the Minister has already replied to the Deputy on these issues in previous questions.

Finally, I have no plans to propose changes in relation to the provision of the Finance Acts governing tax debt collection and enforcement available to Revenue, as I am satisfied that these are appropriate to the safeguarding of the collection of taxes on behalf of the Exchequer. I am also satisfied that the procedures Revenue has in place with regard to the use of the legislation are appropriate and strike the right balance in terms of fairness between the majority of taxpayers who pay their taxes on a timely basis and those who fail to do so.

Top
Share