Bank account errors cost farmers scheme payments
A farmer’s TAMS investment works were completed in accordance with all specifications. But the Department saw that payment for the investment works issued from a bank account that included the name of the applicant, but which also included the name of their spouse, who was also farming in their own right.
Access to more than one bank account has got some unwary farmers into trouble with the Department of Agriculture and its regulations.
This is clear from the recently published 2025 Annual Report of the Agriculture Appeals Office. Examples of unsuccessful appeals show that two farmers lost TAMS grants, and another missed out on Young Farmer Complementary Income Support, because everything didn’t go through the applicants’ accounts.
A farmer’s TAMS investment works were completed in accordance with all specifications. But the department saw that payment for the investment works issued from a bank account that included the name of the applicant, but which also included the name of their spouse, who was also farming in their own right.
The farm account of the applicant was also the household account used for living expenses. As on many farms, the spouse is named on that account, to facilitate day-to-day management of the household.
The farming operation of the applicant is kept completely separate from the farming operation of their spouse. The spouse maintains a separate bank account for their farming activities, and there is no overlap between the two operations. Separate tax returns are submitted to Revenue.
Read More
But the appeals officer said the terms and conditions are quite clear in specifying that the applicant must be in full ownership of the investment works.
In this case, the spouse has a role in the management of the household. The spouse is a herdowner in their own right, and the terms and conditions make no allowance for this dual role.
Payment for the TAMS investment works cannot issue from a joint account where the second named person is also farming in their own right.
There is also a very specific restriction that the bank account must be in either the name of the sole applicant, or their spouse (if their spouse is not farming in their own right). The farmer’s appeal was disallowed.
Payments from a joint bank account are only allowed where the account is in the name of both parties in a joint herd number, a partnership, or between the applicant and an individual who is not farming.
Another TAMS applicant held the herd number in his own name. The department saw that payment for the investment works issued from a company of which the applicant was a director.
This did not meet the terms and conditions, which require that the applicant holds full ownership of the investment works and pays for the works from their own bank account.
The farmer said that, for convenience at the time, payment was issued from the account of the company of which he was the sole director. The herdowner owns the company and therefore had the facility to make the payment.
However, the appeals officer disallowed the appeal because payment was issued from a third party, and the applicant had not demonstrated full ownership of the investment works.
While there was an obvious connection between the applicant and the company, under company law the applicant is a natural person, while the company is treated as a separate legal ‘person’ distinct from the applicant.
As required, a young farmer in the Complementary Income Support scheme demonstrated managerial control of the holding.
But it was found that the proceeds of some sales of animals did not transact through an account on which the young farmer was named, and the department deemed the young farmer had not demonstrated financial control (which required all transactions to go through an account on which the young farmer is named).
The young farmer said the cheques in question were lodged to the account of the second person named on the herd number, to allow for quick clearance. It had been agreed that one of the cheques would be used to fund the purchase of a farm machine.
There was no “financial control” issue between the young farmer and the other person on the herd number; they work very well together, sharing all responsibilities.
The young farmer submitted that loss of the Complementary Income Support payment, and a penalty equal to that payment, is very severe and disheartening to a young farmer trying to establish oneself.
But the appeal was disallowed, with the appeals officer saying the requirement for financial control is clearly set out in the terms and conditions.
Transactions through an account of the other person on the herd number are not acceptable, as they indicate financial control by that other person.
Some significant transactions did not transact through an account on which the young farmer was named; therefore, the young farmer did not meet the requirements for demonstrating financial control.
