Paul Kehoe (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 182: To ask the Minister for Finance if, as a result of the publication over the weekend of the fact that the Revenue Commissioners failed to tax travel benefits awarded to their staff, he will confirm that this meant that the employer, in this case the Revenue Commissioners, carried the responsibility for tax that should rightfully have been deducted from its employees; if he will further confirm that this situation does not arise in relation to other Departments or county councils, where staff have the option to travel on visits directly from their home instead of travelling from their place of work; the investigations that have taken place in order to satisfy him that the figures produced by the Revenue Commissioners represent the true figures and that there are not other perks that are not being taxed within his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33310/08]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy raises a number of distinct questions and, for ease of reference, I will address each separately.

Firstly, I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that, as regards the fiduciary taxes (i.e. taxes collected by a third party on behalf of the State) such as VAT, PAYE, etc, the person responsible for accounting for each such fiduciary tax is the person who has a statutory obligation to both deduct and remit same. In this instance, the Revenue Commissioners, as employer has that obligation and has accounted for, and paid, the tax that should have been deducted under the PAYE system, together with interest and penalties.

Secondly, the Deputy refers to matters pertaining in Government Departments and county councils as regards staff having the option to travel on visits directly from their home instead of travelling from their place of work. I am informed by my officials and by the Revenue Commissioners that the long standing practice in this regard is that where an office holder or employee, in the performance of the duties of his/her office or employment, begins an official business journey directly from home or returns directly to home, then the expenses of travel and subsistence that may be reimbursed without deduction of tax are the lesser of those incurred on the journey between

(a) home and the temporary work location; or

(b) the normal place of work and the temporary work location.

This position remains unchanged. Thirdly, I am assured by the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners that she is satisfied that the investigations in her office established the full extent of taxable benefits, and that procedures have been put in place to prevent any recurrence.

As regards my Department, all remuneration is subject to tax where appropriate, in the normal way through the PAYE system.

In addition, I am informed by the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners that Revenue officials made presentations to the Heads of Finance of Government Departments and the Finance Officers of Local Authorities during this year with the specific view of reminding them of their tax compliance responsibilities and that a range of compliance checks will be carried out on such bodies in 2009.

Regarding the Deputies final remark, it is important to point out that the Revenue staff affected by the BIK settlement worked in IT and Customs areas of the organisation. Furthermore, when Revenue staff visit businesses either in the private or public sectors to carry out an audit, they do so in accordance with the published Code of Practice for Revenue Auditors. This Code recognises that mistakes happen and provides for a range of penalties depending on the circumstances and the nature of the default. Revenue as employer was treated in exactly the same manner as any other employer in similar circumstances.