Gerald Nash (Louth, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

62. To ask the Minister for Finance the amount of money that has been obtained in terms of the Revenue Commissioners' audit and investigation programmes in the years 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10120/14]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Revenue Commissioners have supplied the following Tables showing details of their compliance programmes for the years 2010 to 2013.  I am advised that the Revenue Commissioners normally report their compliance performance in terms of compliance yield.  Yield includes tax, interest and penalties paid, together with amounts which are the subject of enforcement action. Amounts sent to enforcement are actively pursued, including by way of the Sheriff, Judgements and Judgement Mortgages.

The Commissioners have advised me that these figures, year-on-year, are not directly comparable due to a re-labelling of compliance interventions and the continuing evolution of their compliance programmes to reflect changes in the economy and the efficient use of resources. Not all Revenue interventions take the form of formal audits or investigations and in accordance with their risk-based approach cases are selected for intervention based on the presence of various risk indicators. Each Revenue intervention is intended to be in the form which is most efficient in terms of time and resources, and which imposes the least cost on the taxpayer, whilst addressing the perceived risk and consequently Revenue carries out Risk Management Interventions, which take the form of Aspect Queries and Profile Interviews.

Revenue's objective in case working is to ensure that each case (taxpayer or business) is fully compliant with their legal obligations in relation to the keeping of proper books and records, the timely and accurate submission of required declarations and the prompt payment of tax and duty liabilities.  This approach ensures that, as far as possible, the self-assessment system operates effectively and minimises instances of fraud or mistake.   

The selection of cases in which to intervene is a critical step in Revenue's compliance programme and case selection derives from a variety of sources.  In addition to specific projects like the shadow economy project, Revenue also uses extensive third party data, good citizens' reports and other intelligence to drive its compliance interventions.  In the past two years, Revenue has also been using advanced analytics to help it identify indicators of fraud or error from taxpayer's filings and they are regarded as a leading tax administration in the deployment of these technologies.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the results from all the various projects undertaken by Revenue are reflected in the general audit and compliance results from audits, assurance checks, and other risk management interventions which are published in Revenue's Annual Report.  The high level of success in securing settlements is a reflection of the targeted approach used by Revenue which is to focus its compliance resources on the areas of greatest risk. An associated strategy is to minimise the number of contacts with compliant taxpayers. I am confident that the Revenue Commissioners have a very clear focus to target and confront those who do not comply, as set out in their Statement of Strategy.