Back tax

Will they still be driving the car? A bigger issue might be that there insurance may no longer be valid if they are not the registered owner of the car. Get them to check their policy.

Seems to me like this advice is often given to people to evade tax. What the op is doing is fraudulent. Sorry to be on the HH here, but it seems they just didn't pay their car tax for a period of time, while still having insurance and use of the car. In my view, that's wrong. If they were not using the car, it should have been declared OTR. Maybe tell your parents to pay their tax rather than finding fraudulent ways to evade it.

They need to update the system to close this loophole. If backtax is owed, it should not carry to the new owner, but if the old owner suddenly becomes the owner again within a 6-12 month period, the backtax should then become due again.

goz83 wrote: »

Seems to me like this advice is often given to people to evade tax. What the op is doing is fraudulent. Sorry to be on the HH here, but it seems they just didn't pay their car tax for a period of time, while still having insurance and use of the car. In my view, that's wrong. If they were not using the car, it should have been declared OTR. Maybe tell your parents to pay their tax rather than finding fraudulent ways to evade it.

They need to update the system to close this loophole. If backtax is owed, it should not carry to the new owner, but if the old owner suddenly becomes the owner again within a 6-12 month period, the backtax should then become due again.

Its actually not evasion or fraud at all. The law is worded in such a way that arrears are only technically owed at the point where they are to be paid (I dont have the SI to hand but it was posted on here before). The loophole that allows for these arrears to be avoided is perfectly legal; it might not be morally right to exploit it, but its not breaking any law that I can see to change ownership of a car and then change it back again. Tax avoidance perhaps rather than tax evasion.

goz83 wrote: »

I would have to respectfully disagree and say that it is fraud. While the system is wide open enough that it is not detected, does not mean that it is not fraud, which, very simply is defined as "acting with, or having the intent to deceive". The OP is clearly behaving in an intentionally deceitful way, in order to help his parents evade tax. Granted, there is no law to stop people from transferring ownership of a car to one person and then back to themselves. But that's why I suggested the loophole needs to be closed. Otherwise, we are just back to the old days of not taxing the car for a few months, filling out a form and getting away with it, no penalty at all. Tax evasion in my opinion.

There is no deceit involved. Its not fraud. The system is there; they are simply exploiting it to their advantage.

Its not tax evasion; the way the law is worded is such that tax is not technically owed until the point at which it is paid. Its not like normal tax, say income tax, where the bill never goes away. If a car is in arrears with tax and the owner never attempts to pay tax on it then technically speaking the arrears are not owed. The owner can, of course, be prosecuted for driving without tax, but that is a seperate matter. Its why a car that is legitimately sold, written off or scrapped with expired tax does not incur a tax bill for the arrears for the owner.

Im not saying that it is morally right, and I fully agree that it is a loophole that needs to be closed. However, as it stands, it is just that - a loophole.

djimi wrote: »

There is no deceit involved. Its not fraud. The system is there; they are simply exploiting it to their advantage.

Its not tax evasion; the way the law is worded is such that tax is not technically owed until the point at which it is paid. Its not like normal tax, say income tax, where the bill never goes away. If a car is in arrears with tax and the owner never attempts to pay tax on it then technically speaking the arrears are not owed. The owner can, of course, be prosecuted for driving without tax, but that is a seperate matter. Its why a car that is legitimately sold, written off or scrapped with expired tax does not incur a tax bill for the arrears for the owner.

Im not saying that it is morally right, and I fully agree that it is a loophole that needs to be closed. However, as it stands, it is just that - a loophole.

Don't get me wrong, I see what you're saying and strictly speaking, in the words of the law, I know it constitutes not fraud, but rather exploitation. I just think that the law needs a bit of catching up to do. And even though the law does not see it as fraud (due to the wording at present), I see it as black and white fraudulent behaviour.

Im not trying to interpret any law. You can park a car on your driveway, untaxed and not declared off the road, for as long as you want, and you will not ever get a bill for outstanding tax, or a summons to court. If you sell/scrap said car, any arrears that would have been due should tax have been paid will disappear. This is the loophole that is being exploited currently.

djimi wrote: »

Im not trying to interpret any law. You can park a car on your driveway, untaxed and not declared off the road, for as long as you want, and you will not ever get a bill for outstanding tax, or a summons to court. If you sell/scrap said car, any arrears that would have been due should tax have been paid will disappear. This is the loophole that is being exploited currently.

If the car is sold in a normal manner then that is fine. What the op is speaking about is a construction to avoid paying tax. This is different!
I would expect the insurance company might have a few questions too. If they sensed an attempt to defraud Revenue for such a small sum they might well refuse insurance.

djimi wrote: »

How? Its a car that is passing from one owner to another.



Im not sure that insurance can be refused for something like that, however the car not being registered in the name of the policy holder may well present an issue.

The purpose of the "sale" is to avoid paying the outstanding tax while effectively retaining the car.
Nobody likes paying tax but unfortunately it is a fact of life.

With regard to insurance refusal, they can refuse or they could set an inordinately high premium.
Do you not think they would view the individuals as high risk in behaving dishonestly wrt a claim, if they are prepared to engage in this dishonest behaviour. I am not taking a high moral ground here I just think the risks involved are to great and the most sensible solution is to pay what is owed.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

...and you obviously have loads of instances where people have had convictions for fraud :rolleyes:.

It's not Fraud. It's simply your opinion, which believe it or not has no legal standing.

Op if your parent's policy has much the same wording as described by Djimi why not transfer ownership into the other parents name for the purposes of keeping the car insured.

The post you quoted, i said "fraudulent behaviour", so i had corrected what i was saying. And yes, I know of a number of people who were convicted for fraud. I reported some of them, but it was not motor related. Your sarcasm was most helpful, thanks.


I would also suspect that the OP would not be informing, or have his parents inform the insurer of the change of ownership of the vehicle. This,
I believe is fraud, because a change in the insured details has taken place without the insurer being notified.

Cerco wrote: »

The purpose of the "sale" is to avoid paying the outstanding tax while effectively retaining the car.
Nobody likes paying tax but unfortunately it is a fact of life.

And in doing so they are not breaking any law. Hence the loophole.

Cerco wrote: »

With regard to insurance refusal, they can refuse or they could set an inordinately high premium.
Do you not think they would view the individuals as high risk in behaving dishonestly wrt a claim, if they are prepared to engage in this dishonest behaviour. I am not taking a high moral ground here I just think the risks involved are to great and the most sensible solution is to pay what is owed.

I think that the only way that insurance will concern themselves is if, in the event of a claim, they discover that the policy holder is not the registered owner of the car.

If the policy holder were to be convicted of a legal offence then that would also concern them. They will not be convicted of anything however for transferring ownership of a car for this purpose.

I vote that these threads go the same way as the fog light threads - instant lock.
This subject has been done to death at this stage.
Moral or not you can avoid tax arrears by switching ownership.
Personally, I'd prefer the Gardaí spend their time catching fraudsters swindling vulnerable people out of their life savings than some skinflint trying to avoid 6 months tax on an 1.6 avensis.

goz83 wrote: »

I would have to respectfully disagree and say that it is fraud.

The post I quoted from said 'fraudulent' not 'fraudulent behaviour'.
That phrase was used by yourself in a post that was posted 1 minute prior to mine (obvious to anyone that I was typing as you were posting)
Above is another post where your stance seems quite firm.


As for people with fraud convictions, I was of course referring to convictions for fraud in relation to changing car ownership to negate arrears.
As you obviously cannot name anybody with a conviction for fraud in relation to the matter discussed here perhaps any sarcasm was well founded.

In fact, you later decided that this is not fraud, but exploitation. Does this indicate that you are now making up the legislation in this country as you go along ???

Accept it....it's not Fraud. Simple as that. We can only comply with the law as it stands.
At present there is absolutely nothing wrong with somebody transferring ownership of a vehicle in order to negate any arrears.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

The post I quoted from said 'fraudulent' not 'fraudulent behaviour'.

Correct. I made a mistake when I was responding to the quote. But "fraudulent behaviour" was clearly implied in the relevant post.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

That phrase was used by yourself in a post that was posted 1 minute prior to mine (obvious to anyone that I was typing as you were posting)
Above is another post where your stance seems quite firm.

It was 2 minutes according to the record

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

As for people with fraud convictions, I was of course referring to convictions for fraud in relation to changing car ownership to negate arrears.
As you obviously cannot name anybody with a conviction for fraud in relation to the matter discussed here perhaps any sarcasm was well founded.

You made no distinction as to what type of fraud you were referring to. I answered the question and then made the distinction myself. The sarcasm was not well founded. It was just ignorant and attempted to undermine what I was saying, even though I had not yet engaged with you on this thread.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

In fact, you later decided that this is not fraud, but exploitation. Does this indicate that you are now making up the legislation in this country as you go along ???

In fact, you are wrong and it shows that you are just picking meanings that suit your argument. I specifically said
[QUOTE/]Don't get me wrong, I see what you're saying and strictly speaking, in the words of the law, I know it constitutes not fraud, but rather exploitation. I just think that the law needs a bit of catching up to do. And even though the law does not see it as fraud (due to the wording at present), I see it as black and white fraudulent behaviour.[/QUOTE]
So, there is no indication of me making up anything, but I do have my opinion as to what is fraudulent, even if the law has no penalty for the type of fraud mentioned in the op.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Accept it....it's not Fraud. Simple as that. We can only comply with the law as it stands.
At present there is absolutely nothing wrong with somebody transferring ownership of a vehicle in order to negate any arrears.

No. It is fraud. Just not the type of fraud with a legal ramification yet. We can do more than comply with the law. We can try live honestly and not encourage people to do dishonest things, just because it's not illegal. There is nothing legally wrong with what the OP is doing and your attitude is indicative that you have, or would do the same.

More interestingly to my mind - if the value of the car exceeds 3k, revenue can pursue you for 33% of the value as gift tax - might prove entertaining! http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/cat/gift-inheritance.html

Paddy