• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2004

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2004

Chapter 3 - Office of the Revenue Commissioners - Dispute Over Bogus Non-Resident Account

Office of the Revenue Commissioners

Dispute Over Bogus Non-Resident Account

I received a complaint from an individual who claimed that he had been identified falsely to the Revenue Commissioners (the Revenue) as the holder of a bogus non-resident account. The complainant claimed that he had confirmed to the Revenue that he did not have such an account and he was concerned that his identity had been confused with that of another account holder of the same name. He was also concerned that the matter was not being cleared up speedily and in the meantime his reputation and livelihood were threatened. He complained to me that the Revenue had refused to reveal the identity of the naming institution to him, denying him the opportunity to pursue the matter independently.

The complainant had been identified as the holder of a bogus non-resident account by a financial institution, in response to investigations by the Revenue Commissioners into the use of bogus non-resident accounts and specifically, in the course of initiatives aimed at identifying and recovering tax liabilities or ‘underlying tax’, which related to funds deposited in these accounts. In this phase of the investigation institutions were obliged, in accordance with High Court Orders, to supply to the Revenue the names and addresses of certain classes of taxpayers who may have been involved in tax evasion. One of the conditions of the High Court Orders was that customers should be advised in advance of the financial institution’s intentions to report the name in order to give the customer an opportunity to correct any errors. In this case, the complainant asserted that he had never received any such notification. In the absence of notification he was not in a position to identify or approach the institution to clear his name.

When I examined the case, the Revenue argued initially that they would be obliged to invoke additional statutory powers to enable them to revert to the naming institution in order to have its identity conveyed to the complainant, and that this would take some time to effect. However, following further investigations into the case the institution in question admitted that the complainant’s name had been forwarded in error to the Revenue. The Revenue subsequently informed the complainant that he had no liability in the matter. However, the complainant continued to assert his right to know the identity of the naming institution and I argued that the complainant should not be forced to institute legal action for this purpose, if other remedies were available to him. Arising from further communications with the Revenue, and in the context that the matter had been referred to my Office, the institution was persuaded to identify itself to the complainant. The complainant was satisfied that this would enable him to seek redress from the institution concerned.

Back to contents