Revenue refuse to incorporate Mick Wallace public statement into worldview.

seedyso

Hi

Revenue it seems are prevented from incorporating Mick Wallace's public statement into their official worldview, and they can thus be said, and I harbour no desire to be insulting;.. but they can be said to be delusional. (They fit the dictionary definition perfectly, and it is generally considered negative to be delusional)

What I mean is that if Revenue were asked to answer the question as to how or why Mick filed a false VAT return they would say 'client confidentiality';... if they could actually be forced to answer they would say 'clerical error or similar';... whereas we all know, including Revenue staff personally, that Mick has stated that he deliberately and criminally falsified his VAT return.

Mick's word, in this instance, is good enough for me. Revenue's position is intolerable.


Natural justice would demand some punishment or sanction for Mick, yet none is forthcoming.

I'd accept that Revenue may be prevented by legislation from using Mick's public statement against him, but are they prevented from having an opinion? They refuse to comment on the matter, despite it being a matter of huge public importance. They refuse to say they are unhappy with the public perception that they are incompetent; or corrupt. (That is the public perception)

What is the correct form of protest against this?

Is it acceptable not to pay tax in these circumstances? (The circumstances being that our tax collector is either incompetent or corrupt)

I'd be interested in a reasoned debate.





PS.
I was banned from Ask About Money just this morning for asking this question, by the supposed consumer advocate and all round nice guy Brendan B. His reason?..

your posts so far have been letting off steam so I have deleted them'

Shane732

seedyso wrote: »

Hi

Revenue it seems are prevented from incorporating Mick Wallace's public statement into their official worldview, and they can thus be said, and I harbour no desire to be insulting;.. but they can be said to be delusional. (They fit the dictionary definition perfectly, and it is generally considered negative to be delusional)

What I mean is that if Revenue were asked to answer the question as to how or why Mick filed a false VAT return they would say 'client confidentiality';... if they could actually be forced to answer they would say 'clerical error or similar';... whereas we all know, including Revenue staff personally, that Mick has stated that he deliberately and criminally falsified his VAT return.

Mick's word, in this instance, is good enough for me. Revenue's position is intolerable.


Natural justice would demand some punishment or sanction for Mick, yet none is forthcoming.

I'd accept that Revenue may be prevented by legislation from using Mick's public statement against him, but are they prevented from having an opinion? They refuse to comment on the matter, despite it being a matter of huge public importance. They refuse to say they are unhappy with the public perception that they are incompetent; or corrupt. (That is the public perception)

What is the correct form of protest against this?

Is it acceptable not to pay tax in these circumstances? (The circumstances being that our tax collector is either incompetent or corrupt)

I'd be interested in a reasoned debate.





PS.
I was banned from Ask About Money just this morning for asking this question, by the supposed consumer advocate and all round nice guy Brendan B. His reason?..

I'm not going to ban you, rather just close the thread.

Please don't post in this forum unless you have a legitimate tax question. Furthermore it you attempt to open another needless thread in this forum I will ban you permanently.