Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE JUSTICE MINISTER has said that the Government needs to consider potential impacts to publishing the quarterly tax defaulter list, following a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights last month.
A ruling by the European Court last month found that publishing names and addresses of tax defaulters was “unjustified”, following a case taken by a Hungarian businessman against the Hungarian Government.
This ruling potentially impacts on the ability of Revenue to publish their quarterly tax defaulters list, which has been ongoing since 1983.
Justice Minister Simon Harris said that he believed there needed to be “detailed consideration” around the ruling and that he wanted to see the naming and shaming of tax defaulters continued.
“I think it definitely needs detailed consideration,” Harris said.
“My gut on this is that the naming of defaulters in Ireland has always been a tool used by Revenue and indeed it was introduced by the Fine Gael-led government as an effective and important tool.
I’d like to see it continue.
“If you don’t pay your taxes here in the country, I think it’s important that the community that you live in and which you benefit from public services, that people are aware of that.”
Harris added that the Government will have to receive legal advice on how best to proceed.
In the case, the Hungarian businessman – who remained anonymous – argued that the publication of his name and address was an “infringement of his right to respect for private life”.
The businessman also argued that the real purpose of the defaulters list was for “shaming and public humiliation”, in particular focusing in on the media attention that surrounded the lists.
“This public shaming list was a modern form of pillory, was extremely humiliating and caused huge distress,” he argued.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
They haven’t given as much consideration to vrt being illegal.
@James Groden: we are very selective here to European rulings. Comes down to the coffers every time.
@James Groden: Its not, EU has ruled on it “The EU has commented that although VRT is legal it is totally contrary to the spirit ” only part that was illegal was having to pay the full whack even if it was only for sometime. Government now refunds some of the VRT on export of a car.
@Sean Partidge: Explain please we like to know.
Amazing tds are rarely on it considering scandal after scandal
This government only like rules that apply to others,
@David Mercedes: Explain.
Why shouldn’t they be on a published defaulters list? I mean the solution is fairly simple. Don’t default and hey presto your name, address, occupation, what you defaulted on and how much you have to pay not on the list! In one sense it’s a great deterrent.
@Thomas Meaney: That may sound fair and reasonable enough but for many people finding themselves in difficulty with revenue there is a lot more to the story than them deciding not to pay.
Some people with small businesses that fail in to unexpected ill health can find themselves in trouble quite quickly if they are the principal book keepers.
Also family business where there is perhaps a marriage breakup can cause revenue issues to be overlooked as people try to initially resolve day to day finances.
The revenue are quite approachable in times of difficulty but you will eventually end up on the wrong side if you just can not pay come a certain date. I also believe the penalties attached to debts are grossly unfair and if such a system was imposed by financial institutions there would be uproar.
The judges are fearful of being published.
This has ramifications for media publishing names and other details from cannabis possession cases as I look at it. Maybe one of the media might weigh in with an opinion?
Harris should pay the men women and children born in the institutions for illegitimate.
Not sure what to say but here goes anyway. A few years ago I got letter from Revenue stating I was due a refund of €600. A good while later I noticed that I had not gotten the refund. Emailed them, then got another letter declaring I actually OWED them €1,800. No explanation given re. the discrepancy. I paid up pretty quickly but often wondered how this could have happened and no reasonable explanation offered. For me the unspoken implication was “Shut up and pay up” and I did. We’re the plebs I suppose & they are the masters, who knows?
Food safety authority don’t release the names of restaurant with rodents but it’s ok to name and shame revenue defaulters
Criminals convicted in court are named, what is the difference?
have your say