I propose to take Questions Nos. 292 to 294, inclusive, together.
Vehicle Registration Tax was introduced by the Finance Act 1992 as amended. Section 132(1) of the Finance Act 1992 provides that with effect from the 1st January 1993, a duty of excise, to be called vehicle registration tax shall be charged, levied and paid at whichever of the rates specified in subsection (3) is appropriate on
(a) the registration of the vehicle and
(b) a declaration under section 131(3).
Any person who is the subject of a decision by the Revenue Commissioners in relation to the liability to vehicle registration tax or the repayment of vehicle registration tax may appeal to the Commissioners against that decision under section 145(3)(d) of the Finance Act 2001 and to the Appeal Commissioners under section 146 of the Finance Act 2001.
Details of the appeal process in relation to VRT appeals is set out in Section 6 of the Vehicle Registration Tax Manual.
In relation to “disputed penalties”, I take it this refers to compromise sums paid for local release of vehicles following seizure of a vehicle as liable to forfeiture.
I am advised that Officers of the Revenue Commissioners have a statutory power under section 141 of the Finance Act 2001 to seize a vehicle as liable to forfeiture where there has been a breach of VRT legislation. Where goods have been seized as liable to forfeiture, Part 2 of the Finance Act 2001 sets out the procedures that apply as a consequence of seizure, such as, service of a notice of seizure by the Revenue officer, lodging notice of claim by the owner and condemnation proceedings in the Court.
Revenue has a statutory discretion to restore goods that have been seized as liable to forfeiture under section 144(2) of the Finance Act 2001 as amended. Revenue Officers can offer release terms to the owner in respect of vehicles that have been seized. In this regard, paragraph 5.8 of Section 5, Enforcement of the Vehicle Registration Tax Manual sets out detailed administrative guidelines that have been published by the Revenue Commissioners in relation to the process of restoration of seized vehicles. Paragraph 5.8.1 sets out the terms for local release of seized vehicles. The options for local release are set out in paragraph 5.8.2. Option 1 allows for release subject to registration of the vehicle in the State and payment of a compromise sum. Option 2 provides for removal of the vehicle from the State and payment of a compromise sum.
The scale of compromise sums is set out in paragraph 5.8.4. It is stated that these should only be departed from in exceptional cases, such as where genuine individual hardship has been established. Approval for this departure is needed from the local manager or from Revenue’s National Prosecutions and Seizures Office (NPSO), where appropriate.
Paragraph 5.8.6 states that a form of undertaking VRT20A is signed by the person acknowledging that the vehicle is being released on compromised terms as indicated in the form and undertaking to register and pay the VRT or remove the vehicle from the State within the specified time.
Notwithstanding having agreed to the release terms, in some instances a person may request a review by Revenue of the compromise sum already paid for the release of the vehicle. Any petition made by a person subsequent to the release of the vehicle is dealt with by a manager at local level. If the person is not satisfied with the outcome of this local review, he/she is informed that the petition can be reviewed by the NPSO. In such cases, the NPSO will request a complete file on the seizure and release terms from the seizing station. Additional information may be requested from the officers concerned and/or the person whose vehicle was seized. A review is conducted, and the petitioner is written to advising of the outcome of their petition. This review is entirely independent of the seizing station.
The process of local release in relation to vehicles seized for VRT breaches described above provides a comprehensive framework for settling restoration in a manner that is acceptable to Revenue and to the owner of the vehicle.
I will not comment on legal advice furnished to the Revenue Commissioners in any particular instance or generally.
The number of warnings issued, detentions, vehicles seized for VRT related offences, the number of cases where a compromise sum was paid, the total value of compromise sums paid, the number of petitions received and granted by the NPSO for the period January 2023 to end June 2023, is set out in the table below. I am informed by Revenue that these monthly numbers may fluctuate as Revenue’s systems are updated in respect of each case. The data is based on information extracted from Revenue systems on 17 July 2023:
|
2023
|
WARNINGS
|
DETENTIONS (s.140 FA 2001)
|
SEIZURES (s.141 FA 2001)
|
RELEASES ON PAYMENT OF ‘COMPROMISE PENALTY’ (s.144(2) FA 2001)
|
TOTAL VALUE OF COMPROMISE PENALTIES
|
PETITIONS RECEIVED
|
PETITIONS GRANTED
|
|
January
|
22
|
4
|
93
|
91
|
€51,993
|
1
|
0
|
|
February
|
24
|
5
|
82
|
82
|
€50,557
|
0
|
0
|
|
March
|
12
|
3
|
81
|
78
|
€65,304
|
0
|
0
|
|
April
|
42
|
6
|
107
|
104
|
€77,283
|
1
|
0
|
|
May
|
18
|
6
|
80
|
73
|
€61,162
|
2
|
0
|
|
June
|
11
|
4
|
94
|
90
|
€83,715
|
0
|
0
|
