Revenue Sherriff seizure

thlint

I am looking for advice.
I run a small 4 person company where we had problems with making returns and paying the tax due in Jan - May of 2012. We received 2 warrants, based on estimates raised by the revenue, from the sheriff in total for 11000 by May 2012. In June I calculated that the actual tax due was in excess of the warrants ( about 23,000) . I was unable to complete an on-line return so we sent cheques to the revenue for the full amount (23,400 in June 2012)with a typed letter showing that the payments were for the periods that the warrants covered.
In September 2012 the sheriff enforced the warrants for the 11,000 and seized a vehicle.
The advice I am looking for is can the revenue and sheriff proceed with a seizure when they have funds far in excess of the amounts they are seeking. I have received zero help or assistance from the revenue . I refused to pay the sheriff the 1,700 fees as i thought the seizure was illegal and the vehicle was sold .
Has anybody any suggestions on my next steps.

srsly78

Sounds like you just skipped your annual return, that won't work out well. Expect a full audit and penalties etc now.

Did you actually try ringing your local tax office?

rugbyman

THLINT
I have had dealings with the sherriff and find them ok. I heard a sherriff from Donegal I think on the radio and found him reasonable.
you say you found that your earlier reckonings were wrong and told the revenue this . this seems strange(did you make the error?) did they accept this without a word?

you did not say when after you recalculated the amount ,you sent the money ,like in June or early september?

If you paid this amount thinking this called off the sherriff I think you were wrong.

in my few dealings with the revenue i found there is someone on the end of a phone who deals with your case. their name may well be on your letters

I would be interested ,as an aside, whether you feel the sherriff got a fair price for your vehicle.

Finally , and I have done it most of my life, banging your head against a wall is not a great idea.

Regards Rugbyman

thlint

srsly78 wrote: »

Sounds like you just skipped your annual return, that won't work out well. Expect a full audit and penalties etc now.

Did you actually try ringing your local tax office?

The annual returns are up to date and filed on time ( and refunds due from the revenue have been paid ) and have been for many years . This was for 2 bimonthly periods at the beginning of last year. Should the revenue use the sheriff to enforce the submission of returns where the estimated tax on their demands have been paid.
To my mind this is the revenue going wild and becoming Judge jury and executioner which is the way they would like it, but the law suggests something different.
I have written to the tax office and they have suggested to contact the sheriff and their colleagues in the collector general ( in other words piss off we do not care ). My accountant is unwilling to tackle the revenue as he says he has to work with them every day - he is willing to tackle the sheriff but I think the sheriff acted within the law on valid warrant as far as he could see. The fault lies with the revenue for not offsetting the payments. Obviously if the returns had been submitted this would not have happened but there are different penalties for non submission of returns as opposed to non payment of tax due.

Corkbah

correct me if I'm wrong but - once the warrants are issued by the sheriff, its not a revenue issue, so you have to send payments to the sheriff - not revenue.

this would be the reason why the sheriff executed the warrants and seized the vehicle, you made no contact with them (I assume).

if you think about it like this - revenue are doing the calculations and sending demand letters, if you dont pay revenue pass on the debt to the sheriff who is the "enforcer" and has extra powers to seize.

thlint

rugbyman wrote: »

THLINT
I have had dealings with the sherriff and find them ok. I heard a sherriff from Donegal I think on the radio and found him reasonable.
you say you found that your earlier reckonings were wrong and told the revenue this . this seems strange(did you make the error?) did they accept this without a word?

you did not say when after you recalculated the amount ,you sent the money ,like in June or early september?

If you paid this amount thinking this called off the sherriff I think you were wrong.

in my few dealings with the revenue i found there is someone on the end of a phone who deals with your case. their name may well be on your letters

I would be interested ,as an aside, whether you feel the sherriff got a fair price for your vehicle.

Finally , and I have done it most of my life, banging your head against a wall is not a great idea.

Regards Rugbyman

Yes I thought the sheriff got a reasonable price considering it was a forced sale. My garage suggested a price of 3000 the auction got 1700 + vat.
Since the tax was paid I did not expect the bailiff to call I had heard nothing from them since the money was paid 2 months previously and assumed that the matter was closed in relation to the warrants. It was a surprise when they arrived and I phoned the tax office In Dundalk and Ennis the sheriff my accountant and my solicitor but there was no stopping them.
Thanks for advice about beating your head off a wall (at some point I will stop) but if nobody does it apartheid , the iron curtain etc would never happen and we all know what power does eventually if left unchecked.

thlint

Corkbah wrote: »

correct me if I'm wrong but - once the warrants are issued by the sheriff, its not a revenue issue, so you have to send payments to the sheriff - not revenue.

this would be the reason why the sheriff executed the warrants and seized the vehicle, you made no contact with them (I assume).

if you think about it like this - revenue are doing the calculations and sending demand letters, if you dont pay revenue pass on the debt to the sheriff who is the "enforcer" and has extra powers to seize.

Yes you should deal directly with the sheriff -- but according to the revenue guidelines they should inform the sheriff that the amounts have been paid and withdraw the warrants or contact the taxpayer when they pay and send the money back and tell them to deal directly with the sheriff . The revenue cashed the cheques but did not withdraw the warrants. On the morning of the seizure as far as the revenue were concerned we owed them about 21,000 euros ( warrant was for 11,000) but they had cash payments in excess of 32,000 on our account which they would not setoff against the liabilities. This is why I do not believe the sheriff was wrong he was only actting on instructions and was relying on the revenue to inform him if the amounts had been paid .

Corkbah

thlint wrote: »

Yes you should deal directly with the sheriff -- but according to the revenue guidelines they should inform the sheriff that the amounts have been paid and withdraw the warrants or contact the taxpayer when they pay and send the money back and tell them to deal directly with the sheriff . The revenue cashed the cheques but did not withdraw the warrants. On the morning of the seizure as far as the revenue were concerned we owed them about 21,000 euros ( warrant was for 11,000) but they had cash payments in excess of 32,000 on our account which they would not setoff against the liabilities. This is why I do not believe the sheriff was wrong he was only actting on instructions and was relying on the revenue to inform him if the amounts had been paid .

but thats my point ... once the sheriff is engaged you are supposed to deal with the sheriff and not revenue - so the payments should have been to the sheriff and not to revenue....its not really revenues decision to offset the monies received with the outstanding warrant you should have paid that 11,000 to the sheriff instead of giving it to revenue.

treat the sheriff as a debt collector and revenue as a creditor - if the debt is passed from the creditor to a debt collector why would you pay the creditor and not the debt collector.

dbran

Hi

The revenue want the returns to be filed. If the returns are not filed they will raise an estimate of the liability and persue you as if it is the actual amount. This is to stop people delaying payment by not filing a return. Even though you have given them money they will still persue you until the return is filed.

Therefore you need to file the outstanding returns with the revenue. Make sure that the cheque that you sent for €23000 has been allocated to your vat number. Also make sure the amount collected by the sheriff is allocated to your VAT number. Once this is done you should be able to get the resulting refund.

Once a liability goes to the sheriff you must deal with the sheriff alone. It is out of the revenues hands.

Best regards

dbran

thlint

dbran wrote: »

Hi

The revenue want the returns to be filed. If the returns are not filed they will raise an estimate of the liability and persue you as if it is the actual amount. This is to stop people delaying payment by not filing a return. Even though you have given them money they will still persue you until the return is filed.

Therefore you need to file the outstanding returns with the revenue. Make sure that the cheque that you sent for €23000 has been allocated to your vat number. Also make sure the amount collected by the sheriff is allocated to your VAT number. Once this is done you should be able to get the resulting refund.

Once a liability goes to the sheriff you must deal with the sheriff alone. It is out of the revenues hands.

Best regards

dbran

I now know you can deal with the sheriff directly, but I still feel it is wrong that when an estimate is raised and paid that they continue with the seizure. Even when the estimate was raised there was a large amount of withholding tax with the revenue. I have no problem with dealing with the returns issue as there were particular circumstances as to why I could not make the returns on ROS and I sent letter explaining what the payment was for. I also rang the caseworker several times explaining that I could not use ROS and to send paper returns. ( I have now got authorisation to submit paper returns) . I expected if the estimates were paid and the returns were not correctly filed that a court case would ensue where my situation could be explained as the revenue did not want to hear. (but they prefer to use force)

As an aside section 960L (finance act 2012) allows the revenue to call in the sheriff but section 960G (or H) says that there is an order in which payments are to be set off against liabilities including where enforcement is happening and the revenue revenue refused to do any offset. Their own guidelines cover the situation where a payment is made directly and it suggests that they should inform the sheriff. So I have difficulty accepting that it is out of their hands as they appear to work hand in hand. The day before the seizure the sheriff rang the caseworker for final permission to make the seizure
A bailiff arriving at your house to seize goods early in the morning is a very unpleasant experience especially when is demanding 11,000 in cash which you have already paid and I did not have. in retrospect I would have been better to keep the money under the bed for the bailiffs visit. I doubt if I gave him a return he would have gone away. In my opinion it is raw intimidation of tax payers and part of the effort to close small companies.
I have got any refunds that were due but that is not the issue it is the callous approach of the revenue to taxpayers .

thlint

Corkbah wrote: »

but thats my point ... once the sheriff is engaged you are supposed to deal with the sheriff and not revenue - so the payments should have been to the sheriff and not to revenue....its not really revenues decision to offset the monies received with the outstanding warrant you should have paid that 11,000 to the sheriff instead of giving it to revenue.

treat the sheriff as a debt collector and revenue as a creditor - if the debt is passed from the creditor to a debt collector why would you pay the creditor and not the debt collector.

I do not hold the sheriff at fault -- but the revenue have the power to stop the seizure if they receive a payment and they simply did not. The sheriff did checked the day before and the revenue told them to go ahead.
Payment made directly to Revenue
The taxpayer makes payment directly to this office after a warrant has been referred to Sheriff. The Sheriff must be advised of the payment when the warrant is being withdrawn. [Subject to Sheriff Fees – Paragraph 14]

Corkbah

thlint wrote: »

I do not hold the sheriff at fault -- but the revenue have the power to stop the seizure if they receive a payment and they simply did not. The sheriff did checked the day before and the revenue told them to go ahead.
Payment made directly to Revenue
The taxpayer makes payment directly to this office after a warrant has been referred to Sheriff. The Sheriff must be advised of the payment when the warrant is being withdrawn. [Subject to Sheriff Fees – Paragraph 14]

but if you read the warrant is will say that you must deal directly with the sheriff and not with revenue.

I agree with you but its simply a case of revenue don't want to deal with it after they have passed it to the sheriff - which is why you would have excess in your revenue account and they wouldn't say anything to the sheriff.