Social Insurance Stamps

roast222

I have a relative who has been working for a family owned business for over 25 years. She has recently checked to see what level of stamps she has and discovered that she had nil and that the employer had not been putting her through the books much to her surprise. She was never given P60's or payslips. What entitlements has she got or is there any way that she can obtain the stamps that should be rightfully hers for years of employment workes? Is there a best course of action in this instance?

toadfly

Is she paying tax?

gerrybbadd

roast222 wrote: »

I have a relative who has been working for a family owned business for over 25 years. She has recently checked to see what level of stamps she has and discovered that she had nil and that the employer had not been putting her through the books much to her surprise. She was never given P60's or payslips. What entitlements has she got or is there any way that she can obtain the stamps that should be rightfully hers for years of employment workes? Is there a best course of action in this instance?

How can she obtain stamps that haven't been paid for her?

She should contact Dept. of Jobs Enterprise and Innovation. Let Social Welfare / Revenue know she worked for all those years too, with nothing paid

roast222

gerrybbadd wrote: »

How can she obtain stamps that haven't been paid for her?

She should contact Dept. of Jobs Enterprise and Innovation. Let Social Welfare / Revenue know she worked for all those years too, with nothing paid

Yes I think this is the best course of action, she had thought she was paying tax but turns out that she wasn't.

gerrybbadd

roast222 wrote: »

Yes I think this is the best course of action, she had thought she was paying tax but turns out that she wasn't.

The problem as far as Revenue would be concerned, would be the stance that, although the employer deducted no tax, it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to ensure they are paying the correct amount. This would have been impossible without P60s and Payslips, but that's not a valid defence in revenue's eyes.

As for the PRSI, i'm not sure of the stance the Social Welfare might take, it may be a more sympathetic approach

roast222

gerrybbadd wrote: »

The problem as far as Revenue would be concerned, would be the stance that, although the employer deducted no tax, it is the responsibility of the taxpayer to ensure they are paying the correct amount. This would have been impossible without P60s and Payslips, but that's not a valid defence in revenue's eyes.

As for the PRSI, i'm not sure of the stance the Social Welfare might take, it may be a more sympathetic approach

So even though the employee was never furnished with a contract, P60's payslips etc and had been told that they were 'on the books' the onus was on the employee to have paid the tax?? That seems very unfair as surely it is the employers job to carry out the necessary weekly deductions and pay over to revenue?? The employee was considering legal action in this instance but this may now be unadvisable due to the liabilities they may incur if they are found liable for the unpaid taxes.

CIARAN_BOYLE

roast222 wrote: »

So even though the employee was never furnished with a contract, P60's payslips etc and had been told that they were 'on the books' the onus was on the employee to have paid the tax?? That seems very unfair as surely it is the employers job to carry out the necessary weekly deductions and pay over to revenue?? The employee was considering legal action in this instance but this may now be unadvisable due to the liabilities they may incur if they are found liable for the unpaid taxes.

Its the employees right to get a payslip and a P60 if they don't get one they are accepting and fully complicit in the employer not having them on the books

gerrybbadd

roast222 wrote: »

So even though the employee was never furnished with a contract, P60's payslips etc and had been told that they were 'on the books' the onus was on the employee to have paid the tax?? That seems very unfair as surely it is the employers job to carry out the necessary weekly deductions and pay over to revenue?? The employee was considering legal action in this instance but this may now be unadvisable due to the liabilities they may incur if they are found liable for the unpaid taxes.

The thing about the PAYE System is, the employer only collects the tax on behalf of the employee, to simply the process. It is still the employee's liabililty, still the employee's earnings that the tax is due on.

I think being told they "were on the books" is no defence if there was never a contract in place. That should have been the first alarm bell really.

newacc2015

I know if your employer accidently underpays your PAYE income tax. The employee is liable to pay for the tax, even though it was the employers mistake. I imagine your relative if they report it to Revenue will have to pay back tax, as the tax was never paid. The employer will be liable for employers PRSI

I imagine your relative will have to pay back taxes

barneystinson

A lot of misinformation on this thread.

The Income Tax (Employments) (Consolidated) Regulations, 2001 are the relevant material to be considered.

Firstly, there is an obligation on an employer to deduct, but IN ANY EVENT TO REMIT, the amount of tax due (ditto PRSI / USC), under Regulation 4:
"Persons who are required to make any deduction or repayment referred to in these Regulations shall, in the case of a deduction (whether or not made), be accountable for the amount of the tax, and liable to pay that amount, to the Revenue Commissioners and shall, in the case of a repayment, be entitled, if it has been made, to be paid it, or given credit for it, by the Revenue Commissioners".


Revenue will normally have recourse firstly to the employer, unless per regulation 28(3):
"If the amount which the employer is liable to remit to the Collector-General under paragraph (1) of this Regulation exceeds the amount actually deducted by the employer from emoluments paid during the relevant income tax month, the Revenue Commissioners, on being satisfied that the employer took reasonable care to comply with the provisions of these Regulations and that the under-deduction was due to an error made in good faith, may direct that the amount of the excess shall be recovered from the employee, and where they so direct, the employer shall not be liable to remit the amount of the excess to the Collector-General."
This covers the normal booboo in payroll operation that might result in someone realising they owe extra money when they go to claim on their Med1 etc... but it clearly doesn't apply in this case.

Likewise, if the OP's relative approaches Revenue to say, look lads I've been had here, it is unlikely they'll apply para. 4 of regulation 28:
"If the amount which the employer is liable to remit to the Collector-General under paragraph (1) of this Regulation exceeds the amount actually deducted by the employer from emoluments paid during the relevant income tax month and the Revenue Commissioners are of the opinion that an employee has received his or her emoluments knowing that the employer has wilfully failed to deduct therefrom the amount of tax which the employer was liable to deduct under these Regulations, the Revenue Commissioners may direct that the amount of the excess shall be recovered from the employee, and where they so direct, the employer shall not be liable to remit the amount of the excess to the Collector-General."
Again note the language used, "may" not "shall", because in the first instance they will be looking for the money from the employer, and will generally only invoke this where they're happy there was a nudge and a wink going on.