Gormley to close every SME in the country (motor tax)

Macha

steve9859 wrote: »

So Taconnol, I am NOT a tax evader, and resent the attitude of people like you who clearly do not understand the situation.

I resent accusations that I don't understand the situation. And I don't recall saying you were a tax evader.

Macha

Welease wrote: »

What has changed is...

When I go down to renew my motor tax, I will not be allowed to tax it as a commercial vehicle anymore.. despite being forced previously to register the vehicle as commercial and to have both commercial tax and insurance by DOT/Revenue when I brought the vehicle into the country.

If I was not supposed to tax it as a commercial, then why did the DOT/Revenue previously only allow me to tax it as commercial.. And how is this not a change?

Can you point to the Dept of Environment communication that details this change? This is not what has been detailed in today's communcation.

Scofflaw

Welease wrote: »

What has changed is...

When I go down to renew my motor tax, I will not be allowed to tax it as a commercial vehicle anymore.. despite being forced previously to register the vehicle as commercial and to have both commercial tax and insurance by DOT/Revenue when I brought the vehicle into the country.

If I was not supposed to tax it as a commercial, then why did the DOT/Revenue previously only allow me to tax it as commercial.. And how is this not a change?

It makes no difference. the RF111B form for existing renewals does not change and is still renewed automatically by the tax office. No further declarations are required - the original decalaration that the vehicle is used for commercial puposes (but not necessarily exclusively so) still applies. This is consistent with the press release today which specifically refers to NEW applications. And as far as I am concerned it will continue to apply until i get a letter delivered to me from the authorities saying otherwise. So in the meantime, there is absolutely no problem in continuing to use a commercial jeep for personal use when required. I renewed today, with no questions, and was told that this is the case. Is only the form for NEW tax (111A) that requires the additional declaration.

There appears to be some confusion? And the press release appears to state the second case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

A Country Voice

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Exactly, this is the real world remember :-) Gormley and the rest of those idiots can dictate all they want from up there in the pale. We'll just get on with life in the real world in the stixs, trying to make ends meet.
So they'll want a number on their form in the tax office next time, ok a number they shall get. The public SERVANT behind the counter will then stamp the form and give me my tax disc and the job is done. I dont think anyone should be getting over-worried about this latest episode from those dopes in Leinster House. :-)

Welease

steve9859 wrote: »

It makes no difference. the RF111B form for existing renewals does not change and is still renewed automatically by the tax office. No further declarations are required - the original decalaration that the vehicle is used for commercial puposes (but not necessarily exclusively so) still applies. This is consistent with the press release today which specifically refers to NEW applications. And as far as I am concerned it will continue to apply until i get a letter delivered to me from the authorities saying otherwise. So in the meantime, there is absolutely no problem in continuing to use a commercial jeep for personal use when required. I renewed today, with no questions, and was told that this is the case. Is only the form for NEW tax (111A) that requires the additional declaration.

So Taconnol, I am NOT a tax evader, and resent the attitude of people like you who clearly do not understand the situation.

Thats interesting.. Which tax office?

People in the motor's forum are reporting the opposite with Kildare and WestMeath.. all renewals have been forced across onto private rates..

Welease

Scofflaw wrote: »

There appears to be some confusion? And the press release appears to state the second case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It does, and on the motor's forum (is it ok to quote from across there?) people have been in contact with various tax office and been given a different answer.. The main thread in fact was started by someone who was refused renewal on commercial rates.

One example.. (of many)

PaddyBloggit wrote: »

I rang the tax office and all renewals will have to sign declarations.

Owners of vehicles currently taxed for commercial purposes face no additional requirements regarding forms or declarations.

means that we're ok until next renewal. We do nothing now.Earlier in the thread somebdy rang the Dept. of the Env. and they said the same.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67650184&postcount=466

I'm beginning to think that the message is so vague, that different tax offices have come up with different interpretations, hence the mayhem today..

shoegirl

Its typical south Dublin ignorance. Yes there are dozens of yummie mummies living in Foxrock driving these montrosities around unecessarily and masquerading them as "commercial" vehicles. But there are also lots of farmers and other workers who make a little personal use of commercial vehicles rather than buy additional vehicles for personal use. There is a local farmer just outside Swords who comes shopping in the village every Saturday in his tractor!

Its extremely difficult to assess on paper whether or not a vehicle kept in a private residence is or is not a bona fide business vehicle or merely being registered as such for tax reduction. Then again, lots of people (PAYE workers) get their landlines, mobile phones, internet charges paid by work and some are allowed bring home PCs and use them for their own use - its obvious most of these will ultimately be mainly used for personal use so why single out vehicle owners?

Surely however it does serve the green agenda better if business vehicles on duty to a staff member be used in place of a second vehicle? By not allowing people secondary use, it means more cars which hardly serves the green agenda in any meaningful way.

amacca

Scofflaw wrote: »

There appears to be some confusion? And the press release appears to state the second case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

second case being

it makes no difference. the RF111B form for existing renewals does not change and is still renewed automatically by the tax office. No further declarations are required - the original decalaration that the vehicle is used for commercial puposes (but not necessarily exclusively so) still applies. This is consistent with the press release today which specifically refers to NEW applications. And as far as I am concerned it will continue to apply until i get a letter delivered to me from the authorities saying otherwise. So in the meantime, there is absolutely no problem in continuing to use a commercial jeep for personal use when required. I renewed today, with no questions, and was told that this is the case. Is only the form for NEW tax (111A) that requires the additional declaration.


.........................that's a bit of a game changer for me at any rate....


so if you've already got something taxed commercially you're through the net and changes only apply to anything newly registered?

will this not actually act to push up the value of currently registered (no questions asked bud:)) commercial vehicles..the exact opposite of what I thought would happen earlier

will they become the road going equivalent of the pre63 house?

seems like a bad system too.....my understanding was definitely that every commercial vehicle operator would have to sign the statement + provide rrn upon next renewal?

As Ive said before do they actually know what they are doing themselves given the level of confusion....conflicting reports and the fact that different councils are adopting different stances on this (if motoring thread anything to go by).......

could it be that hard to think through consequences of a proposal..decide if its worth going ahead with or not and if it is co-ordinate it properly and inform people and those that will enact/enforce it clearly so everbody is singing from the same hymn sheet...........wtf......I know more effective organised 14 yr olds

donkey balls

if the motor tax office decides to tax a jeep/car van as a private vehicle i take it that the vehicle wont have to do the yearly DOE and instead will do a NCT test.

Welease

donkey balls wrote: »

if the motor tax office decides to tax a jeep/car van as a private vehicle i take it that the vehicle wont have to do the yearly DOE and instead will do a NCT test.

Clarity doesn't exist their either

From the other forum thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67640550&postcount=358

hellboy99 wrote: »

This is from the Tax office:

. If taxed private the vehicle needs NCT
. If taxed commerical the vechicle needs DOE

This from the DOE:

. Whether the vehicle is taxed private or commercial you need DOE

This from the NRA:

. In relation to toll charges whether the vehicle is taxed private or commerical you pay €3.40

I believe in a later post he rang for an NCT, and they said they don;t know anythign about it

found it

hellboy99 wrote: »

Just off the phone to the NCT, they know nothing about it

amacca

Welease wrote: »

Clarity doesn't exist their either

From the other forum thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67640550&postcount=358

Originally Posted by hellboy99

This is from the Tax office:

. If taxed private the vehicle needs NCT
. If taxed commerical the vechicle needs DOE

This from the DOE:

. Whether the vehicle is taxed private or commercial you need DOE

This from the NRA:

. In relation to toll charges whether the vehicle is taxed private or commerical you pay €3.40


I believe in a later post he rang for an NCT, and they said they don;t know anythign about it

Why am I utterly unsurprised by the above?

Muppets one and all......Oh for a good dictatorship.....I promise I would be a benevolent and wise dictator and even if absolute power corrupts absolutely...admit it, at this stage you'd be tempted......ill go after quangos first .... the revolution will not be televised etc

donkey balls

only in this banana country of ours would you come across such crap:mad: i heard the other goon Ryan on the last word saying that the green party have actually lowered the cost of motor tax.
thats for people who have bought a new car, well Minister Ryan i would like to point out that those of us who are lucky to have a job on a reduced salary/working week.
dont have the luxary of splashing out on a new car as we dont know wether we will have a job next week and have neg equity house mortcage to pay you smiley moran.:mad:

the_syco

sellerbarry wrote: »

Would this apply to those (poor) taxi men too?;)

As it has been said before: paint the taxi's a sickly yellow colour, so we know that they're taxis, and they won't be able to do so so easily.

KELTICKNIGHTT

for existing users of commericals,theres no change or new forms too fill,new commericals have too fill out new forms too get it on commerical tax rate
o tes,the green party wont get in again after this and other stupid discisions

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/MotorTax/News/MainBody,23856,en.htm

here has been no change in motor tax regime for commercial vehicles.
24/08/10
The Department earlier this month issued a circular on the rules and regulations regarding motor tax for commercial vehicles, following an increase in the number of vehicles switching from private motor tax classes to commercial vehicle classes.
Owners of vehicles currently taxed for commercial purposes face no additional requirements regarding forms or declarations.
The RF 111A Goods Declaration, which requires applicants to make a declaration the vehicle will be used for commercial purposes, has always been a requirement when first taxing a small commercial vehicle. One change has been made to Form RF 111A - it now requires an applicant who is applying for a vehicle to be taxed at the goods rate to provide a Revenue registration identity number. This is to help ensure that the appropriate rate of tax is paid.
Circulars on a variety of areas from planning to councils are issued on a regular basis by the department, and this circular was in no way out of the ordinary.
Ends
24.8.2010

Press Office
Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government
Custom House
Dublin 1
01-8882638

dan_d

taconnol wrote: »

As has already been discussed ad nauseum, the money has to come from somewhere.

I'd rather it come from people who are currently evading tax first, to be perfectly honest. We're all "under considerable financial pressure" and I don't see why some people should avoid tax while others get hit with the full amount of motor tax. Zero sympathy.

Em - that's absolutely fine, but I would think there are far better ways to make a more complete killing than this obscure idea.

How about reforming the social welfare system??And no, I'm not launching into a tirade about reducing payments etc, which I do think has to be done, but simply reforming the entire system to push out those who are long term scroungers. There are plenty of ways and means of doing that,w which would be a far more lucrative exercise. This particular tax measure is going to bring a negligible amount of money, let's face it, for the amount of effort involved. And while you all happily talk about the Foxrock 4x4s, there are those who have commercial vans for their job and use it the odd time for family business. What's the big deal?

I just think this whole thing is completely ridiculous. Does anybody in there think in straight, joined up lines, or are they all only capable of getting from option A to option B by going via C and D?

P. Breathnach

dan_d wrote: »

Em - that's absolutely fine, but I would think there are far better ways to make a more complete killing than this obscure idea....

That's whataboutery.

If people have been cheating on their motor tax, it's not a valid defence to say that other people have been cheating on other things. On the other hand, if they have not been cheating, they have nothing to worry about.

Welease

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

for existing users of commericals,theres no change or new forms too fill,new commericals have too fill out new forms too get it on commerical tax rate
o tes,the green party wont get in again after this and other stupid discisions

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/MotorTax/News/MainBody,23856,en.htm

here has been no change in motor tax regime for commercial vehicles.
24/08/10
The Department earlier this month issued a circular on the rules and regulations regarding motor tax for commercial vehicles, following an increase in the number of vehicles switching from private motor tax classes to commercial vehicle classes.
Owners of vehicles currently taxed for commercial purposes face no additional requirements regarding forms or declarations.
The RF 111A Goods Declaration, which requires applicants to make a declaration the vehicle will be used for commercial purposes, has always been a requirement when first taxing a small commercial vehicle. One change has been made to Form RF 111A - it now requires an applicant who is applying for a vehicle to be taxed at the goods rate to provide a Revenue registration identity number. This is to help ensure that the appropriate rate of tax is paid.
Circulars on a variety of areas from planning to councils are issued on a regular basis by the department, and this circular was in no way out of the ordinary.
Ends
24.8.2010

Press Office
Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government
Custom House
Dublin 1
01-8882638

Thats the political answer

Right to sort this out, I rang Kildare CoCo Tax Office this morning and spoke to a very nice lady who explained the full situation.

All renewals will be required to sign the modified form and provide an RRI.. So if you are not a registered business you will be unable to renew your commercial tax.

Why is this not considered a change (in the political answer )?, becuase that has always been the process, BUT they stopped requesting the forms/garda signoff several years ago.. So the process didn't change, but the implementation/enforcement has changed.

gsxr1

shoegirl wrote: »

Its typical south Dublin ignorance. Yes there are dozens of yummie mummies living in Foxrock driving these montrosities around unecessarily and masquerading them as "commercial" vehicles. But there are also lots of farmers and other workers who make a little personal use of commercial vehicles rather than buy additional vehicles for personal use. There is a local farmer just outside Swords who comes shopping in the village every Saturday in his tractor!

Its extremely difficult to assess on paper whether or not a vehicle kept in a private residence is or is not a bona fide business vehicle or merely being registered as such for tax reduction. Then again, lots of people (PAYE workers) get their landlines, mobile phones, internet charges paid by work and some are allowed bring home PCs and use them for their own use - its obvious most of these will ultimately be mainly used for personal use so why single out vehicle owners?

Surely however it does serve the green agenda better if business vehicles on duty to a staff member be used in place of a second vehicle? By not allowing people secondary use, it means more cars which hardly serves the green agenda in any meaningful way.

My good friend and a farmer put his jeep through DOE in the past.

I dont think the Yummy Mummys are the offenders though (although is does appear so from the amount of jeeps on the road).

To put a jeep through DOE as a commercial vehicle . The rear seats must be taken out and the holes and brackets on the jeep must be welded to prevent the rear seat from ever going back in.

Welease

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's whataboutery.

If people have been cheating on their motor tax, it's not a valid defence to say that other people have been cheating on other things. On the other hand, if they have not been cheating, they have nothing to worry about.

Not stricly true

There are those of us who had their vehicles classified by DOT as commercial because of configurations (Crew Cab) and paid the taxes as directed by DOT/Revenue.

My conversation with Kildare Tax Office cleared this up this morning, (although they had to go and seek advice). The DOT should be not forcing Crew Cabs to be registered as Commercial, and I am now incorrectly taxed and could be liable for a fine through no fault of my own (which they admit). The process is correct for 99% of people (and a lot of people do abuse it), but there are certain vehicles which are being forced down an illegal route by bad process within the DOT.

I was told to either come in renew my tax as private today and get my vehicle reclassified as private... or risk being caught and fined..

Tora Bora

This will become the transport mode of choice for a lot of us in this economy in the not too distant future.



Of course, Messers Gormless aand Ryan, will figure out a way to tax same.

Belching donkey = methane gas to the atmosphere = Need to tax it:cool:

T

gandalf

I can just see the Garda now after he pulls you over.

"Is that a freight Donkey or is it just for personal pleasure?"

KELTICKNIGHTT

Welease wrote: »

Thats the political answer

Right to sort this out, I rang Kildare CoCo Tax Office this morning and spoke to a very nice lady who explained the full situation.

All renewals will be required to sign the modified form and provide an RRI.. So if you are not a registered business you will be unable to renew your commercial tax.

Why is this not considered a change (in the political answer )?, becuase that has always been the process, BUT they stopped requesting the forms/garda signoff several years ago.. So the process didn't change, but the implementation/enforcement has changed.

i rang limerick motor tax office and was told ,only applies too first time tax of commerical in your name,if your renewing a existing commerical,nothing has changed,same renewal form etc,dont have too give any other info ONLY IF YOU TAXING THAT COMMERICAL FOR FIRST TIME,i asked does same apply too kildare and other areas and was told they all do the same
i use my commerical for work mostly but do use it too go too shop etc

Welease

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

i rang limerick motor tax office and was told ,only applies too first time tax of commerical in your name,if your renewing a existing commerical,nothing has changed,same renewal form etc,dont have too give any other info ONLY IF YOU TAXING THAT COMMERICAL FOR FIRST TIME,i asked does same apply too kildare and other areas and was told they all do the same
i use my commerical for work mostly but do use it too go too shop etc

lol typical ...

Well I'm not driving down to Limerick to renew So looks I pay the new amount in Kildare ..

amacca

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

i rang limerick motor tax office and was told ,only applies too first time tax of commerical in your name,if your renewing a existing commerical,nothing has changed,same renewal form etc,dont have too give any other info ONLY IF YOU TAXING THAT COMMERICAL FOR FIRST TIME,i asked does same apply too kildare and other areas and was told they all do the same

Thats the thing though...limerick office might say that but other offices not singing from the same hymn sheet

it does seem as if it applies to all renewals from now on despite what someone in the limerick office says

as other posters have said or implied...clarity does not seem to exist yet...some offices not following official documentation/press release etc etc

KELTICKNIGHTT

maybe you should get more info from kildare tax office,maybe the person you got didnt give you proper info,and before you say,few people i know rang there local motor tax offices in cork,tipp and clare and limerick,all got same answer

Scofflaw

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

i rang limerick motor tax office and was told ,only applies too first time tax of commerical in your name,if your renewing a existing commerical,nothing has changed,same renewal form etc,dont have too give any other info ONLY IF YOU TAXING THAT COMMERICAL FOR FIRST TIME,i asked does same apply too kildare and other areas and was told they all do the same
i use my commerical for work mostly but do use it too go too shop etc

It does sound increasingly as if Kildare have it wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

amacca

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

maybe you should get more info from kildare tax office,maybe the person you got didnt give you proper info,and before you say,few people i know rang there local motor tax offices in cork,tipp and clare and limerick,all got same answer

Well the fact that those offices are agreeing at least is progress

if it is just first time registration of new vehicles then it changes the situation slightly.

KELTICKNIGHTT

what i notice about these things,is for first 24-38 hours ,theres alot of miss info out there ,mostly the free press put out,and after the dust settles abit,its slightly different version out,was told for now is only first them tax on commerical you have,i asked is there a plan too change too all and was told there has too be a ploicly change by goverment and they dont expect it yet,maybe greens will do that before they end there term in goverment ,who knows,you know the saying getting water from a rock,they trying hard,aint they

P. Breathnach

Welease wrote: »

Not stricly true

There are those of us who had their vehicles classified by DOT as commercial because of configurations (Crew Cab) and paid the taxes as directed by DOT/Revenue.

My conversation with Kildare Tax Office cleared this up this morning, (although they had to go and seek advice). The DOT should be not forcing Crew Cabs to be registered as Commercial, and I am now incorrectly taxed and could be liable for a fine through no fault of my own (which they admit). The process is correct for 99% of people (and a lot of people do abuse it), but there are certain vehicles which are being forced down an illegal route by bad process within the DOT.

I was told to either come in renew my tax as private today and get my vehicle reclassified as private... or risk being caught and fined..

I recognise your argument, and I had a "mental reservation" when I wrote what I did. Yes, I acknowledge that you have been messed about by an apparent misapplication of rules, and you have a right to be annoyed.

But I think that the likelihood of any judge imposing a fine in those circumstances is zero (and the likelihood of any guard asking a judge to fine you is pretty close to zero anyway).

That's why I did not compose a big qualifying clause in my simple summary: I think you have nothing to worry about.

KELTICKNIGHTT

funny thing about this,this will affect new sales of new and second hand commericals which will hurt the country more,its logic which ever way you turn it,specialy when the say a slight improvement in sales,maybe increase scrappage allowance,but dont see that happening

KELTICKNIGHTT

Welease wrote: »

Clarity doesn't exist their either

From the other forum thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67640550&postcount=358



I believe in a later post he rang for an NCT, and they said they don;t know anythign about it

found it

i dont see you affected if kildare have it wrong and i do expect they do unless there reading from different sheet ,i was told the phones has being hopping in last 2 days because of athsi confusion by the powers too be

amacca

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

funny thing about this,this will affect new sales of new and second hand commericals which will hurt the country more,its logic which ever way you turn it,specialy when the say a slight improvement in sales,maybe increase scrappage allowance,but dont see that happening

That was my opinion anyway....cant see how stirring this hornets nest was anything but a bad idea

tax receipts dont seem to gain, motor industry doesnt seem to gain cant see anyone coming out ahead

perhaps environment might gain with less cars on the road but I think thats dubious too

Welease

KELTICKNIGHTT wrote: »

i dont see you affected if kildare have it wrong and i do expect they do unless there reading from different sheet ,i was told the phones has being hopping in last 2 days because of athsi confusion by the powers too be

It will be interesting to see which counties do and don't make the "(non) change", and if we will eventually get some clarity.

From the motors forum it seemed that WestMeath and Kildare do require revenue numbers on renewals.. (they seem to be the only 2 so far)

KELTICKNIGHTT

amacca wrote: »

That was my opinion anyway....cant see how stirring this hornets nest was anything but a bad idea

tax receipts dont seem to gain, motor industry doesnt seem to gain cant see anyone coming out ahead

perhaps environment might gain with less cars on the road but I think thats dubious too

seems a bad timing when the country need badly too come out of recession,i might be heading over seas like i did before but this time wont come back,people outside of ireland dont get it ,small country and costs so much too run,we all know why and what areas,i kinda like idea that you pay your tax when you fill your car or commerical at pumps,you only taxed when you use it,funny doe,dont see all motor tax taken in going on roads,maybe the goverment should try the electric cars them selfs and see,o ,hmm,esb are rising the electric again, opps :-)

MrDarcy

The whole point here I think ought to be, that if this bufoon headed collection of assh*les that we call a government, were concentrating to any real degree on what should really matter at the moment, which is CREATING EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES, then they shouldn't have the time to be dreaming up petty rules such as this, which would appear to benefit no party whatsoever, not the state, not the business owner, not the driver, nobody.

Until this crowd of utter assh*les can come up with some firm and actionable policies in the whole area of enterprise with a view towards getting country back to work, and making AND THEN IMPLEMENTING the tough decisions that are required to reduce the national debt and then running the country in a way that means we pay our way year on year and don't have to borrow all over the place just to turn the lights on, maybe they should stop coming up with silly, outrageous and menacing ideas such as telling people with vans, carvans and jeeps, that they can't drop their kids to school in those vehicles...

P. Breathnach

I have a strong suspicion that there is no intention of targeting business people who sometimes use their work vehicles for family purposes. To me, it looks as if the target is those who choose to declare their family vehicles as business vehicles in order to evade tax.

I heard a representative of the motor industry on radio say that about 2,000 vehicles were redesignated as business vehicles in one year, and about 2,300 the following year, which he dismissed as being an increase of 300. I interpret it as a total of 4,300, and I suspect that quite a few of those redesignations were done for no other purpose than to evade tax. And I further suspect that those random and imprecise data points show just the tip of the iceberg.

I have no idea -- nor, I suspect, does anybody else -- how many vehicles are falsely designated as being business vehicles. I suspect there are very many thousands, possibly well into five figures.

My understanding is that under the tightening-up of the rules, a person who does not have a business will not be allowed designate a vehicle as being for business purposes. I don't see why anybody should get het up about that -- except the owners of mis-declared vehicles, and most of them would be too embarrassed to speak up.

KELTICKNIGHTT

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I have a strong suspicion that there is no intention of targeting business people who sometimes use their work vehicles for family purposes. To me, it looks as if the target is those who choose to declare their family vehicles as business vehicles in order to evade tax.

I heard a representative of the motor industry on radio say that about 2,000 vehicles were redesignated as business vehicles in one year, and about 2,300 the following year, which he dismissed as being an increase of 300. I interpret it as a total of 4,300, and I suspect that quite a few of those redesignations were done for no other purpose than to evade tax. And I further suspect that those random and imprecise data points show just the tip of the iceberg.

I have no idea -- nor, I suspect, does anybody else -- how many vehicles are falsely designated as being business vehicles. I suspect there are very many thousands, possibly well into five figures.

My understanding is that under the tightening-up of the rules, a person who does not have a business will not be allowed designate a vehicle as being for business purposes. I don't see why anybody should get het up about that -- except the owners of mis-declared vehicles, and most of them would be too embarrassed to speak up.

what about trades people who work for a company who need a van or jeep too carry stock or tools,these dont have or need vat numbers,not that clear cut,yes ,i see some people who have nothing too do with having a commerical or trade or skilled job where they need a commerical,some jobs now request you have so or you dont get,there should be a better system too show why they need a commerical but this change in system is bull full stop,seems unless you work in sectors where you know why people use a commerical other wise your guessing as i see from comments on this thread

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KELTICKNIGHTT

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

thats the beauty of living on border counties i guess,not same for rest of us im afraid,between customs,garda check points etc,specialy if your not far from a city,theres other things they might fix before taking more off people,
but tell you one thing for sure and alot of people feel the same,who ever gets into goverment,the greens wont have support from the people,will be some but not as much as last time,they really hurting them selfs for next election

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

KELTICKNIGHTT

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

please dont tell me the green party are naive,they pros from different backgrounds like others,if they dont know what they doing ,they should retire too back benches

MrDarcy

Is there any mention of a protest against this bullsh*t??? If there is please let me know, something peaceful but effective. The farmers are great at ambushing politicians at public speaking events.

KELTICKNIGHTT

MrDarcy wrote: »

Is there any mention of a protest against this bullsh*t??? If there is please let me know, something peaceful but effective. The farmers are great at ambushing politicians at public speaking events.

theres a idea,a protest againist all the bull and also 22b on anglo irish bloody bank etc,the budget going too be interesting,

KELTICKNIGHTT

i spent a decade abroad working ,everything was good,its times like now i wonder why,i dont see things getting better for long time

P. Breathnach

MrDarcy wrote: »

Is there any mention of a protest against this bullsh*t??? ...

Count me in: I'm in favour of protesting against tax evasion.

KELTICKNIGHTT

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Count me in: I'm in favour of protesting against tax evasion.

are you avading tax ,hmm

gsxr1

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That has to be the post of the week!!!!!! HAHAHAHA. so true .

MrDarcy

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Count me in: I'm in favour of protesting against tax evasion.

Do you consider hard working people who happen to use their legimitately taxed van to drop their kids to school, tax evaders???

This whole matter is constitutionally on very shaky ground. For example, if you were to look at the sheer lunacy of what is being proposed, it not just will not work but it cannot work. Say I'm a sales rep working for a company, my employers are legally obliged to deduct BIK (Benefit in Kind), pursuant to the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 as ammended, which requires me to pay for the benefit of having personal/private use of a vehicle that is what we all know as a company car or van.

So the state takes up to 400 Euro a month off me for having the personal use of a vehicle that has been provided by my employer.

But when the time comes to tax that vehicle, my employer is asked by the state to sign a declaration to effect that the vehicle will never be used for anything other than exclusively commercial purposes???

Question No: 1 is why the f*ck is the state happily taking 400 Euro a month off me at source then for what they have determined is a taxable benefit in kind, (this is Revenue's rule, not mine I might add!)?!?!?!?!?

Question No: 2... If the state is telling me that I cannot now use this vehicle for personal use, which includes travellling to and from my residence to my place of work, (because technically I do not start "working" until I arrive at work, travelling to work and travelling home from work is done on personal time and that's why we don't get paid to travel to and from work), does it follow that I have to park my car now at work and buy another car to get to and from work?!?!?

If the answer to question 2 is yes, I have to buy a new car for personal use to get to and from work, great, but can Revenue now stop deducting 400 Euro a month from my salary because as per John Gormley, I am now no longer allowed to use that company vehicle for personal use!

This "rule" by Gormley means that effective immediately, nobody can possibly have a BIK tax liability arising from personal use of a commercially taxed vehicle, because the "Benefit" has effectively been forbidden by Gormley as part of the process of taxing the same vehicle.

So anyone in this situation can now go out and buy a 500 Euro banger to travel to and from work, and can then write to Revenue and say that they no longer are eligible for BIK as they no longer enjoy any benefit in respect of personal use of a work vehicle.

danbohan

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

ogh well , " Up here it's different"

KELTICKNIGHTT

MrDarcy wrote: »

Do you consider hard working people who happen to use their legimitately taxed van to drop their kids to school, tax evaders???

This whole matter is constitutionally on very shaky ground. For example, if you were to look at the sheer lunacy of what is being proposed, it not just will not work but it cannot work. Say I'm a sales rep working for a company, my employers are legally obliged to deduct BIK (Benefit in Kind), pursuant to the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 as ammended, which requires me to pay for the benefit of having personal/private use of a vehicle that is what we all know as a company car or van.

So the state takes up to 400 Euro a month off me for having the personal use of a vehicle that has been provided by my employer.

But when the time comes to tax that vehicle, my employer is asked by the state to sign a declaration to effect that the vehicle will never be used for anything other than exclusively commercial purposes???

Question No: 1 is why the f*ck is the state happily taking 400 Euro a month off me at source then for what they have determined is a taxable benefit in kind, (this is Revenue's rule, not mine I might add!)?!?!?!?!?

Question No: 2... If the state is telling me that I cannot now use this vehicle for personal use, which includes travellling to and from my residence to my place of work, (because technically I do not start "working" until I arrive at work, travelling to work and travelling home from work is done on personal time and that's why we don't get paid to travel to and from work), does it follow that I have to park my car now at work and buy another car to get to and from work?!?!?

If the answer to question 2 is yes, I have to buy a new car for personal use to get to and from work, great, but can Revenue now stop deducting 400 Euro a month from my salary because as per John Gormley, I am now no longer allowed to use that company vehicle for personal use!

This "rule" by Gormley means that effective immediately, nobody can possibly have a BIK tax liability arising from personal use of a commercially taxed vehicle, because the "Benefit" has effectively been forbidden by Gormley as part of the process of taxing the same vehicle.

So anyone in this situation can now go out and buy a 500 Euro banger to travel to and from work, and can then write to Revenue and say that they no longer are eligible for BIK as they no longer enjoy any benefit in respect of personal use of a work vehicle.

i wouldnt pay much heed to what that poster said,