110 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Finance, further to Parliamentary Question No. 151 of 28 June 2011, if it is recognised that the taxpayer concerned at all stages followed the advice of a tax consultant, that the taxpayer received written confirmation from the Revenue Commissioners indicating that a refund of more than €22,000, that the first instalment was paid, and without any changes in legislation an audit deemed the tax payer to have a liability instead of a refund; that in the past two weeks the tax payer’s house was repossessed by the lending authority for almost the precise amount of unpaid mortgage instalments as that promised by way of refund by the Revenue Commissioners to the tax payer initially; the extent of disappointment to the taxpayer arising from such a process; if given the original indication and promissory correspondence the Revenue Commissioners are in fact obliged to make good the promise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19823/11]

Summary

110 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Finance, further to Parliamentary Question No. 151 of 28 June 2011, if it is recognised that the taxpayer concerned at all stages followed the advice of a tax consultant, that the taxpayer received written confirmation from the Revenue Commissioners indicating that a refund of more than €22,000, that the first instalment was paid, and without any changes in legislation an audit deemed the tax payer to have a liability instead of a refund; that in the past two weeks the tax payer’s house was repossessed by the lending authority for almost the precise amount of unpaid mortgage instalments as that promised by way of refund by the Revenue Commissioners to the tax payer initially; the extent of disappointment to the taxpayer arising from such a process; if given the original indication and promissory correspondence the Revenue Commissioners are in fact obliged to make good the promise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19823/11]

This text is taken from the official record. PoliticalRepo does not editorialize.

Timeline

1. 12 July 2011

   Tax Collection

   110 Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Finance, further to Parliamentary Question No. 151 of 28 June 2011, if it is recognised that the taxpayer concerned at all stages followed the advice of a tax consultant, that the taxpayer received written confirmation from the Revenue Commissioners indicating that a refund of more than €22,000, that the first instalment was paid, and without any changes in legislation an audit deemed the tax payer to have a liability instead of a refund; that in the past two weeks the tax payer’s house was repossessed by the lending authority for almost the precise amount of unpaid mortgage instalments as that promised by way of refund by the Revenue Commissioners to the tax payer initially; the extent of disappointment to the taxpayer arising from such a process; if given the original indication and promissory correspondence the Revenue Commissioners are in fact obliged to make good the promise; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19823/11]

   Source: written

Votes

No vote records are attached yet.

Versions

No version snapshots stored. Document URLs remain at the source.

Documents

1 official file

• Tax Collection

  xml · EN · 12 July 2011

  ViewDownloadOpen at official source

Sponsors

• Durkan, Bernard J. · Asking member
• Minister for Finance · Minister for Finance · Addressed to

Related records

No cross-record relationships stored yet.