Farmer must pay 'off the scale' €364,513 tax bill after losing battle with Revenue
The farmer’s evidence was found to be vague, extremely general in nature and contradictory.
A retired farmer has been left with an “off the scale” €364,513 income tax and Vat bill after losing a tax battle with the Revenue Commissioners.
This follows the Tax Appeals Commission upholding Revenue Commissioner assessments against the retired farmer.
In 2013, 2014 and 2015, the farmer declared a combined income of €493,443 but the commission found lodgements to his accounts during that time totalled €1.99m.
Revenue raised the combined income tax and Vat assessments of €401,709 made up of €154,427 in Vat and €247,282 in income tax in 2018 and 2019 for the 2013 to 2015 period.
Revenue issued the assessments after concluding the farmer had understated his income for certain years, and had sold agricultural products, including silage wrap, on which he had not charged Vat.
At the hearing, the farmer told the Tax Appeals Commission he appealed the Revenue assessments as “they were off the scale altogether”.
He said: “No one knew what they were about.” He said he kept suckler cows and families have to live off that.
“It’s unheard of even to audit a man in that situation.”
The farmer had three different explanations for the difference between his declared income and lodgements to his accounts.
The first explanation was his only income was from the sale of cattle, with a small amount of fertiliser contract work in 2015.
The second explanation was that he allowed his bank account to be used by two individuals as a “facilitation arrangement”, from which he obtained no pecuniary benefit and the third explanation was that he was a bulk buyer and distributor of agricultural supplies for other farmers.
However, appeal commissioner Simon Noone found none of the three explanations provided "explained the very significant difference between his declared income and the lodgements to his accounts”.
Upholding the amended Revenue assessment of €364,513, Mr Noone said he was satisfied the farmer failed to explain the substantial discrepancy between his declared income, and the transactions into and out of his accounts.
Mr Noone said he did not accept the farmer’s explanation of his involvement in the purchase and sale of wrap. He said the farmer had not disclosed two bank accounts held by him and had not cooperated with the Revenue investigation.
Mr Noone said Revenue had contacted nine farmers who said the appellant had supplied wrap and other agricultural supplies to them.
Five of them provided receipts/invoices given to them by the farmer and the appellant had previously told Revenue he did not provide receipts/invoices.
The farmer was not able to complete his evidence due to ill-health but Mr Noone said even taking his examination in chief at its height, he has not met the burden of proof upon him.
Mr Noone said he found the farmer’s evidence to be vague, extremely general in nature and contradictory.
He added there was no engagement by the farmer with the substance of the allegations against him.
