• You are here:
• Home /
• Archived /
• Ombudsman publishes investigation report on the refusal by Revenue Commissioners to grant tax relief on vehicles adapted for the transport of passenge

Ombudsman publishes investigation report on the refusal by Revenue Commissioners to grant tax relief on vehicles adapted for the transport of passenge

Ombudsman publishes investigation report on the refusal by Revenue Commissioners to grant tax relief on vehicles adapted for the transport of passengers with disabilities

The Ombudsman, Kevin Murphy, has today (30 August 2001) published a report entitled Passengers with Disabilities. This is a report to the Oireachtas which details how three carers, responsible for the transport of close family members suffering from a qualifying disability, were refused the tax reliefs available under the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1994. The Revenue Commissioners refused the relief because, in their view, the Regulations required that the applicant had to reside with the passenger with disabilities and the three applicants in question did not meet this fundamental prerequisite for eligibility under the scheme.

In the course of the Ombudsman's investigation it emerged that

• residency was not a fundamental requirement of the scheme. In fact, the Revenue Commissioners had discretion to waive the residency requirement in exceptional circumstances and had already done so in another case;
• the residency requirement was deemed by Revenue to have been met in another case where the passenger and applicant were not resident in the same household;
• the residency requirement was also deemed to have been met in other cases where the passenger with disabilities was being cared for in a residential nursing home;
• the scheme actually allows passengers with disabilities to qualify for tax relief without having to meet a residency requirement if they purchase the vehicle themselves. In the cases which were the subject of the investigation each of the disabled passengers could have purchased the vehicles themselves and qualified for the relief without any material change in their circumstances.

The investigation also brought to light serious issues relating to the general administration of the scheme and the treatment of the applicants by the Revenue Commissioners. These included the making of explicit threats as to the possibility of legal proceedings, vehicle seizure and the imposition of penalties for false declarations where a right of appeal had yet to exercised. In this connection, the Ombudsman found that Revenue's actions fell far short of any acceptable standard of dealing properly, fairly and impartially with its clients. Furthermore, by insisting that the residency requirement was a fundamental requirement for eligibility under the scheme and by failing to make the applicants aware of the type of circumstances where the residency requirement could be waived, the Revenue Commissioners failed to provide full and accurate information to enable the applicants to pursue their entitlements.

Kevin Murphy recommended that each of the three complainants should be regarded by Revenue as eligible for the tax reliefs available and applied for under the Regulations. The effect of this recommendation was that Vehicle Registration Tax, amounting to �5949, which had been recouped from one of the carers would be repaid and his application for the other tax reliefs available would be processed for payment. In the case of the two other carers the tax reliefs applied for under the Regulations would also be processed for payment. Total payments to the three complainants are expected to exceed �16,000.

Kevin Murphy also recommended that Revenue should carry out a review of other cases where applicants were refused the reliefs available under the Regulations on grounds which were similar to those applicable in the cases investigated. He asked that Revenue report back to him within six months on progress in regard to implementing this recommendation

In addition, Mr Murphy recommended that documentation relating to the scheme should be reviewed with a view to giving more information to potential applicants, in particular, with regard to the waiver of the residency requirement, an outline of acceptable exceptional circumstances where a waiver has been granted in the past and of the appeal procedures available. He also asked that that this information be included in the Revenue Commissioners' Section 16 Freedom of Information Manual.

Finally, Mr Murphy recommended that administrative procedures and documentation used in the processing of applications and informing applicants of the result of their applications be urgently reviewed and amended where necessary to reflect good administrative practice and the Revenue Commissioners' own Charter of Rights for Taxpayers

The Revenue Commissioners accepted the Ombudsman's recommendations in full.

The full text of the Report is available, in pdf.. and html formats.