Section 119(1) of the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010 lists certain specific matters which may be appealed to the Tax Appeals Commission, including the refusal by the Revenue Commissioners to approve a VAT refund application by a foreign trader under Section 101 of the Act.
Section 101(9) sets out the actions which must be taken by the Revenue Commissioners on receipt of such a refund application. In line with EU VAT law, with which Irish VAT law must comply, this provision requires the Revenue Commissioners to approve or reject such an application within 4 months of receiving it. It is within this context that section 119(3) provides that a failure by Revenue to decide on a Section 101 refund application within that timeframe is to be treated as a refusal of an application, and thus, can be appealed to the Tax Appeals Commission.
Section 119(1) of the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010 also allows a taxpayer aggrieved by a determination of the Revenue Commissioners in relation to a claim for repayment of VAT to lodge an appeal with the Tax Appeals Commission.
While the legislation does not specify a timeline for Revenue to make a decision on a domestic VAT repayment claim, I am informed by Revenue that, for the 2024 period to date, 87% of domestic VAT refunds are processed within 10 days, 92% within 1 month and 97% within 4 months. This processing time data highlights the importance Revenue attaches to dealing swiftly with refund claims. A low percentage of repayment claims take longer to complete, due to matters such as a compliance intervention being carried out on the claim, or a lack of taxpayer compliance.
Where a taxpayer is aggrieved by how their case is being managed by Revenue, they can make a complaint and request a review under Revenue’s Complaint and Review Procedures, details of which are outlined in “Revenue Complaint and Review Procedures Leaflet – CS4”, which is available on the Revenue website. These procedures allow for both independent internal and external review of a complaint.
Having regard to the various arrangements described above, the legislative provision suggested by the Deputy is not considered necessary.