Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

223. To ask the Minister for Finance the appeals process open to a person who has gone through all stages of mediation with the Revenue Commissioners and revenue sheriffs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26874/17]

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

224. To ask the Minister for Finance the amount paid to Revenue sheriffs by persons that decided to purchase back assets that were the subject of a warrant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26875/17]

Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

225. To ask the Minister for Finance the number of warrants issued for the collection of debts owed to the Revenue Commissioners by Revenue sheriffs in the past five years and to date in 2017, by county; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26879/17]

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 223 to 225, inclusive, together.

Revenue only refers outstanding tax liabilities to its enforcement agents, including Sheriffs, as a last resort. Before any such action is taken Revenue makes every effort to engage with the taxpayer and where possible will agree a mutually acceptable payment arrangement as an alternative. Revenue’s ongoing commitment in this regard is clearly evidenced by the 10,886 phased payment arrangements that were agreed in 2016 in respect of €103m of debt.

In regard to Question 26874, where a tax debt is referred to a Sheriff, the taxpayer is entitled to expect all engagement to be conducted in accordance with the Sheriffs’ Code of Practice. Where the taxpayer feels that this has not happened he/she is entitled to request a review by the Joint Steering Committee (JSC), which is also provided for in the Sheriffs’ Code of Practice. The JSC includes a representative from the Department for Justice and Equality (Chair), a representative from Revenue and representatives from the Sheriffs’ Association.

If the taxpayer is still dissatisfied at the end of JSC process he/she is fully entitled to have the issue heard before the Courts. It is important to note that Sheriffs are officers of the Court and as such are not accountable to Revenue for their debt collection activities. They are however governed by the general law, which applies to the collection of civil debts and are answerable before the Courts for any breach of these laws.

In regard to Question 26875, Sheriffs only seize goods in a very small number of cases. In such circumstances the taxpayer is provided with a full inventory of the goods seized and is allowed a further period of time to engage with the Sheriff before the items are sold. The items are returned to the taxpayer if the tax debt is subsequently paid or if an acceptable payment arrangement is agreed. Where the items are sold, the Sheriff provides the taxpayer with a full account of the proceeds of the sale including details on costs and the actual amount paid to Revenue. Revenue does not hold data in relation to seizure activity by the Sheriffs and is not aware of instances where a defaulting taxpayer ‘purchases back assets’ seized by the Sheriff in the manner suggested by the Deputy.

The following table provides a county breakdown of the number of warrants issued by Revenue to the Sheriffs for the years 2012 to 2017 (year to date) as requested by the Deputy in Question 26879.

Sheriff Warrants 2012 to January-April 2017