Decision
Mr X and The Office of the Revenue Commissioners (Revenue)
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162194-Q1C9Y6
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-162194-Q1C9Y6
Published on
Whether Revenue was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing the applicant’s request for records relating to a VAT refund for a specific invoice, on the ground that the records sought do not exist or cannot be found
14 January 2026
On 12 June 2025, the applicant sought access to all information held by Revenue regarding an invoice issued by Coillte in 2013 (a copy of which he attached to his request) for VAT refunds to unregistered farmers.
On 11 July 2025, Revenue refused the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act on the basis that no relevant records could be located following a thorough search of its systems. Revenue also stated that a claim under VAT unregistered payments in respect of such an invoice would need to have been made during the period 2013 to 2017, as any claim outside that period would fall outside the 4-year rule, and that documents would have been returned to the claimant without any record being held of the details of such a claim. Revenue said that in the period 2013 to 2017, claims were made on paper and invoices returned to claimants. It stated that its IT department searched for data which would indicate that the provided invoice formed part of a claim for Unregistered VAT during the period in question, but that it did not locate the invoice data in any notes on its system.
On 1 August 2025, the applicant requested an internal review of Revenue’s decision. The applicant said he is in a farm partnership with Coillte and he is entitled to know if VAT was claimed for the invoice he provided. On 26 August 2025, Revenue affirmed its original decision. Revenue said that a further thorough search was conducted but no records were found in relation to the applicant’s request. On 1 September 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of Revenue’s decision. The applicant said he is entitled to know if VAT was claimed for the relevant invoice by a named person or Coillte.
During the course of this review, Revenue provided submissions to this Office with details of the searches it said it had undertaken to locate the records sought, details of which were provided to the applicant who was invited to make his own submissions, which he duly did.
I have now completed my review in accordance with section 22(2) of the FOI Act. In carrying out my review, I have had regard to the correspondence outlined above and to the submissions made by Revenue and the applicant. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
This review is concerned solely with whether Revenue was justified, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, in refusing access to records sought by the applicant on the ground that no such records could be found after all reasonable steps were undertaken to locate them.
Section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act provides for the refusal of a request where the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken. Our role in a case such as this is to review the decision of the FOI body and to decide whether that decision was justified. This means that I must have regard to the evidence available to the decision maker and the reasoning used by the decision maker in arriving at their decision and also must assess the adequacy of the searches conducted by the FOI body in looking for relevant records. The evidence in “search” cases generally consists of the steps actually taken to search for the records along with miscellaneous and other information about the record management practices of the FOI body, insofar as those practices relate to the records in question.
In its submissions to this Office, Revenue provided details of guidelines, practices, procedures and arrangements in relation to the storage, filing, archiving, retention and destruction of the type of records sought in this request. In its submissions, Revenue stated that, at the time of the applicant’s original request and presently, all claims are submitted electronically for e-enabled customers. All invoices and claim details are submitted through Revenue Online Services and data is stored electronically. Revenue said that when a customer files a paper return, it is entered onto its systems, the invoice is copied, uploaded and then returned to the customer.
Revenue stated that during the relevant period of the invoice (2013 to 2017), the claim system was fully paper based. Claims were submitted with supporting evidence and details were input into the payments system for issue. It said that paper claims were stored and invoices returned to claimants. Revenue stated that claims were routinely sent to a Revenue storage facility.
For the invoice that the applicant provided, Revenue said that in order for a payment to have issued on such a claim under the Flat-Rate Farmer Refund Order, the claim would need to have been made from 2013-2017. Had a claim been made outside this period, all documents would have been returned to the claimant without any detailed record being maintained. Revenue said that claims in 2013-2017 would have been made on paper and invoices returned to claimants. It said that each VAT submission is recorded in the repayment system and limited details of claims are recorded in the system notes with all supporting documentation returned to the claimant.
Revenue stated that its IT Department undertook a search for data which may indicate if the applicant’s invoice formed part of a claim for Unregistered VAT during 2013-2017 and did not locate the invoice data on any notes on the system. It stated that the IT Department searched using the applicant’s PPSN and name. Revenue said that they searched for the invoice details to see if it was noted in any claim notes in the repayment system. It said that the Unregistered VAT (UVAT) Unit also searched under the name and PPSN on the repayment system. On the off chance that the invoice number was included in any claim after 2018, Revenue said that the UVAT Unit also requested IT to search every invoice number on the system to look for a match but none was found.
Revenue stated that the applicant did not make a claim in the relevant period. It stated that VAT refund claims can only be made by the invoiced party and the name that the applicant referred to in his application to this Office and Coillte are the only other parties identified on the invoice. Revenue said that no claim was made by the named person and that Coillte are VAT registered and so cannot claim under the UVAT scheme. It said that the UVAT Unit checked the repayment systems using the specific VAT number on the invoice and there is no record of Coillte on this under the applicant’s name or VAT number.
The Investigating Officer asked if all relevant individuals were consulted in the search for records. Revenue responded by saying that all appropriate staff were consulted, including UVAT Unit, Divisional Office, the Revenue Service Desk and the storage facilities. Revenue stated that searches were carried out under the applicant's name and spouse’s name and their PPSNs and that no claims were found under these or the other parties mentioned on the invoice that would cover the VAT amount on the invoice. Revenue said that it does not believe that the requested records ever existed in its records. It said that invoice-level data is not generally held by Revenue and that the invoice data was not held by the UVAT Unit in relation to claims.
In terms of the farm partnership the applicant mentioned, Revenue said that no partnership number was provided and so this was considered outside the scope of the original request. Revenue said that the UVAT Unit may be able to conduct further searches for records if a tax partnership number exists.
Revenue concluded its submissions by stating that it cannot find details relating to an invoice for UVAT claims prior to 2019 when the online system was introduced. It said that if the applicant believes that the refund was made to a VAT-registered entity, even if it were to occur today, no invoice details would be received, recorded, or retained by Revenue.
The Investigating Officer provided the applicant with a summary of Revenue’s submissions and gave him the opportunity to respond with submissions of his own, which he duly did. The applicant stated that he is of the belief that that the named person on the invoice or Coillte claimed VAT on behalf of the farm partnership as they never released records to him to claim same. He said he fails to understand why this invoice exists with VAT if not to claim VAT. The applicant contends that a record of the payment should be on Revenue’s systems.
It is important to note that the FOI Act does not require absolute certainty as to the existence or location of records, as situations can arise where records are lost or simply cannot be found. What the FOI Act requires is that the public body concerned takes all reasonable steps to locate relevant records. Furthermore, it is open to this Office to find that an FOI body has satisfied the requirements of section 15(1)(a), even where records that an applicant believes ought to exist, or are known to have existed in the past, have not been located. We do not generally expect FOI bodies to carry out extensive or indefinite general searches for records simply because an applicant asserts that records sought ought to exist or did exist.
The role of this Office is not to determine what records should exist, or to adjudicate on how FOI bodies perform their functions generally, nor to act as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism with respect to actions taken by FOI bodies, or by any other parties. Our role is confined to reviewing the decision taken by the FOI body on the applicant’s request for records.
Having considered the submissions of both Revenue and the applicant, I am satisfied that Revenue has taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the existence of the requested records. It provided details of the steps it took to search for the records based on the information available to it, details of which were provided to the applicant. Having regard to the information before this Office, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that Revenue has taken all reasonable steps to locate the records sought by the applicant and that it has adequately explained why no relevant records exist or can be found. Accordingly, I find that Revenue was justified in refusing access to the records sought by the applicant under section 15(1)(a) of the Act on the basis that the records do not exist or cannot be found all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
Finally, as noted above Revenue said that it may be able to search for records relating to a tax partnership number if one exists. If the applicant has details of a tax partnership number, or indeed any other relevant information which may assist Revenue in conducting further searches, it is open to him to make a fresh request to Revenue with any such details, if he wishes to do so.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm Revenue’s decision to refuse the applicant’s request under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, on the ground that the records sought do not exist or cannot be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
Section 24 of the FOI Act sets out detailed provisions for an appeal to the High Court by a party to a review, or any other person affected by the decision. In summary, such an appeal, normally on a point of law, must be initiated not later than four weeks after notice of the decision was given to the person bringing the appeal.
___________________
Richard Crowley
Investigator