‘Apple gets deals, farmers get court battles’ – TD McGuinness decries Revenue’s double standards

As reported by the Farming Independent last week, the case centred on Kilkenny farmer Dermot Tobin, who transferred his farm business to a company, and was audited by Revenue over a Single Payment Scheme (SPS) subsidy, which he had not included in his personal tax return but instead declared as company income. Although initially cleared by the Tax Appeals Commission, Revenue challenged the decision in the High Court and won, with the court allowing a tax assessment outside the standard four-year limit.

In the Dáil last week, Fianna Fáil TD John McGuinness expressed strong criticism over the treatment of Mr Tobin, highlighting the financial strain placed on his family as they were forced to defend themselves in court.

"This farmer and his family were dragged through the courts to defend a position that Revenue, in essence, wanted to test," McGuinness said.

He contrasted Tobin's experience with how large corporations like Apple are treated by Revenue, stating, "It's unfair that individuals like Tobin, who complied in good faith, are left at the mercy of Revenue's power to revisit past years without clear-cut protections."

McGuinness further argued that Tobin deserved more recognition for enduring the legal battle caused by Revenue's actions.

ICMSA president Denis Drennan expressed similar concerns, and argued that the ruling could leave farmers vulnerable to never-ending audits.

"Most taxpayers, including farmers, would reasonably expect that once Revenue accepts a payment, the matter should be closed after a defined period," he said.

He questioned the practicality of requiring farmers to retain financial records for over a decade, calling the approach "unworkable and deeply unfair."

Drennan emphasised that four years is ample time for Revenue to detect errors, adding: "If they can't do their work in that period, the taxpayer should not be punished."

The Law Society raised broader concerns about the fairness of Ireland's tax system.

In its pre-Budget submission, it argued that the High Court ruling undermines safeguards meant to protect taxpayers from indefinite scrutiny. It warned that the current approach grants Revenue excessive latitude, even in cases where no fraud or negligence is involved. "The ruling blurs the line between honest mistakes and deliberate wrongdoing, subjecting ordinary taxpayers to potentially massive surprise assessments years after the fact," the society said.