Decision
Mr. X & Office of the Revenue Commissioners
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-157297-N8F7X7
Published on
From Office of the Information Commissioner (OIC)
Case number: OIC-157297-N8F7X7
Published on
Whether Revenue was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to certain additional statistical information of the number of requests received each year from 2017 to 2024 other than the information already released on the basis that no further relevant records exist
26 June 2025
The applicant in this case considers the details published by Revenue each year in its Annual Reports of the number of FOI requests received to be incorrect. In a request dated 7 January 2025, he sought access to:
“a copy of the record of FOI requests made each year from 2017 to 2024 inclusive, as distinct from the received figure published in Revenue’s Annual Reports, in hardcopy format, to include the following in particular :
• The number of FOI requests made
• The number of FOI requests made and deemed as received
• The number of FOI requests made but deemed as not-received
• The reasons why FOI requests made but deemed as not-received were so deemed
• The number of FOI requests made but deemed as not-received related to each such reasons
In this regard, s.17(4) of the FOI Act may be relevant .”
In a decision dated 28 January 2025, Revenue provided a table of information, created pursuant to section 17(4) of the Act of the number of requests received each year. The table indicated that the number of requests made and deemed as received was the same as the number made and that no requests were made but deemed as not received. It also indicated that the final two parts of the request did not, therefore, apply. In a letter dated 11 February 2025, the applicant sought an internal review of that decision. In a letter dated 6 March 2025, Revenue affirmed the original decision on the basis that the decision maker was satisfied all relevant information had been released to the applicant in full. In a letter dated 6 March 2025, the applicant applied to this Office for a review of Revenue’s decision, having considered his request to have been deemed refused as he had not received an internal review decision on/before 5 March 2025. The applicant alleged that Revenue perverted the words he had used in his FOI request by “falsely, dishonestly and misleadingly misquoting ” the words he had used in his request.
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 between the applicant and Revenue as outlined above, and to the correspondence between this Office and both parties on the matter. I have also had regard to the contents of the record released to the applicant. I have decided to conclude this review by way of a formal, binding decision.
Following acceptance of his application for review, this Office’s Investigating Officer sought clarification from the applicant as to precisely what he wanted us to review. In his response of 14 April 2025, he said his request sought the number of requests made to Revenue as opposed to the number Revenue deemed received. He included certain information in support of his view that Revenue had received significantly more requests than it had deemed received. In essence, the applicant’s argument is that the information provided by Revenue in its decision of 28 January 2025 is incorrect.
It is important to note at this stage that while the purpose of the FOI Act is to enable members of the public to obtain access to information held by public bodies, the mechanism for doing so is by accessing records held by those bodies. In other words, a person wishing to obtain information from a public body must make a request for records that contain the information sought. Requests for information, as opposed to requests for records, are not valid requests under the Act, except to the extent that a request for information can reasonably be inferred to be a request for a record containing the information sought. Furthermore, the Act does not require public bodies to create records if none exist, apart from a specific requirement, under section 17(4), to extract records or existing information held on electronic devices. If the body does not hold a record containing the information sought and cannot search for and extract the electronically held records by taking reasonable steps, then that is the end of the matter.
Revenue said the search for records in this case was carried out under Section 17(4) of the FOI Act. It said the information sought was contained in statistical reports which had been compiled at various stages during the timeframe specified in the FOI request. It said searches were conducted across several records, the relevant data was extracted, and a new record was created for the purposes of responding to the FOI request. Its position is that the information sought was provided and no further relevant records exist. The applicant’s position is that the information released is not the information he sought. In essence, the question arising in this review is whether Revenue holds further records that contain the information the applicant believes to exist. 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.
Accordingly, this review is concerned solely with whether Revenue was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the Act, to records containing the information the applicant sought other than the record already released, on the basis that no further records relating to the request exist.
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.
Chronology of Submissions :
In light of the number of submissions made in this case, I consider it appropriate to set out the chronology and details of the submissions made by both parties.
The applicant said Revenue should have “Input the request details on any IT request tracking system ” as per the Department of Public Expenditure, National Delivery, and Reform’s Central Policy Unit FOI Processing Manual. He said Revenue’s Tax and Duty Manual (TDM) Part 37-00-36F outlines its “IT request tracking system .” He said that in a previous OIC review - Case OIC-150867 – the request was remitted back to Revenue on 18 December 2024. He said Revenue deemed the remitted request as received on 19 December 2024 on which date the IT request tracking system assigned the request the reference FOI/3181/2024. He said this extrapolates to 3,300 requests for the full year 2024, as distinct from the 271 requests it “unilaterally ‘deemed’ as received in 2024 ”. He said the Department of Social Protection (DSP) “actually received 2,468 requests in 2023, compared to the 242 Revenue ‘deemed’ received in 2023, despite being comparable public bodies in size, and function .” He said his FOI request sought the number of FOI requests made to Revenue, which he estimates to be over 3,000 per annum, as distinct from the number Revenue ‘deemed’ received, which he estimates to be over 3,000 per annum.
The applicant said Revenue routinely publishes its Tax and Duty Manuals on its website but claims TDM Part 37-00-36F is exempt from or not required to be published under the FOI Act. He said this Office should request an unrestricted copy of this record or else it would prejudice the review. He said material evidence of this TDM being used to track FOI requests is evident from the fact that a specified CRMS code assigned to a previous FOI request he made to Revenue is the same as that assigned as the FOI code for another of his requests. He said that, put another way, FOI requests are scanned upon receipt to Revenue’s IT system, then categorised as an FOI request and assigned a CRMS code, notification of which is withheld until the FOI request is “deemed ” received. He said any related correspondence is linked to the initial CRMS code, regardless of whether it is received/issued before/after it is “deemed ” received. He said the number of requests received is the number of CRMS cases initiated under the FOI category. This is his key argument for the discrepancy between numbers reported as received and numbers actually received.
In his supplementary submission of 17 April 2025, the applicant set out his calculations of the number of requests he believes Revenue to have received each year, based on codes assigned to his requests. The basis of his calculations is that the code number assigned represents the number of requests received in the relevant year up to that date and that an extrapolation of that number over the course of a full year gives an indication of the likely number of requests received in the year. For example, a request he made that Revenue received on 27 March 2024 (88 days into the year) was assigned the code number 808. Dividing the code number (808) by the number of days that had passed in 2024 (88) and multiplying by 365 for a full year, he estimated the number of requests received in 2024 to be 3,390.
Revenue said the information sought was contained in a number of records held on electronic devices. It said the data requested was contained in statistical reports which had been compiled at various stages during the timeframe specified in the FOI request. It said statistics are collated by Revenue on a weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual basis and reported in the Board Report, the Corporate Services Division Management Information Report, the Chairman’s Report and the Annual Report. It said the statistics are double checked and cross referenced by management to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the data sources. It said searches were conducted across several records, the relevant data was extracted, and a new record was created for the purposes of responding to the FOI request.
Revenue added that it has a dedicated Freedom of Information Unit which is responsible for the central recording, processing and monitoring of requests. It said the majority of FOI requests are received by email through Revenue’s publicly available FOI email address. It said requests can also be sent by post directly to the FOI Unit and, occasionally, FOI requests are submitted directly to a local tax office or through “My Enquires .” It said all staff have been informed, and are constantly reminded, to send any FOI requests to the FOI Unit immediately when they are received.
Revenue said all correspondence received by the FOI Unit is recorded and general queries are added to an Excel sheet which logs the number of general queries received each week. It said all postal correspondence and responses are scanned and saved directly to Revenue’s file management system called NASC. It also said emails are maintained in the dedicated FOI Inbox. It said all FOI requests are recorded and stored on two file management systems (CRMS and NASC) irrespective of whether they are received in soft copy format or by post. It said CRMS is its corporate records management system which automatically generates a reference number for each request. Further details on CRMS are set out below. It said NASC is its SharePoint system where a dedicated request folder is created using the CRMS reference number. It said all documentation is saved to both systems, including, but not limited to, the original request, any subsequent correspondence, and supporting materials. It said that on completion of the request, decision letters and schedules are added to both systems under their respective CRMS reference number.
Revenue said requests are also logged on a spreadsheet tracker, which includes the following details:
• FOI CRMS Ref number
• Date request was received
• Requester name
• Request type
• Summary of request
• Divisions the request was circulated to
• Due dates: Fees, drafts and issue by dates.
It said that, on completion, of the request, the following information is recorded on this tracker:
• Decision Maker
• Sections of FOI applied to the decision (where applicable)
• Date the request was completed/issued
Revenue said a central task list on Microsoft Outlook is also maintained by the FOI Unit, which records the FOI CRMS reference number, the requester, a brief summary of the request and the due dates. It said the FOI Unit also keeps FOI statistics which are collated on a weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual basis. It said FOI reports are provided to the Board and senior management on a weekly basis which details every FOI request received for the previous week and how they were dealt with. It said reports are reviewed by the FOI Unit management team, ensuring accuracy of the information recorded and detailed oversight of every request and email received and both trackers and Board reports are reviewed and monitored by the FOI Unit on a daily basis.
Revenue said prior to the introduction of its new file management system, hard copies of FOI requests were also maintained, which are stored in a locked filing cabinet in a Revenue office or transferred to Revenue’s file storage facility in Dublin Castle. It said all FOI requests are retained, and no FOI records have been disposed of to date and no FOI records or FOI statistical reports have been destroyed during the time period covered by the request.
Revenue said there is no Tax and Duty Manual relevant to how it handles FOI requests. Instead, it said it has regard for the processes, procedures and practices set out by the Central Policy Unit on its website.
Revenue said it receives multiple requests on a daily basis in a variety of formats for personal and non-personal records, data, information and amendments. It said that when the request is made under the FOI Act and has complied with section 12(1), it records the FOI request as having been made. Revenue said it understands that what the applicant calls FOI requests that are made to have the same meaning as that set out in section 12 of the FOI Act. It said regard was also had to the CPU guidance that FOI bodies should check that the request comes within the Scope of the FOI Act by reference to the requirements of section 12(1) of the FOI Act. It said it understands that what the applicant calls FOI requests that are deemed by Revenue as received/ not-received to be the ordinary and plain meaning of the words “received/ not-received ”, i.e. "To accept delivery of (something sent, esp. A letter); to be a recipient of " (Oxford English Dictionary). It said it follows up with all requesters in relation to requests received and is not aware of any instances where an FOI request was made but was not deemed as received.
Revenue said its Corporate Records Management System (CRMS) contains Revenue’s files and records, including FOI files. It said that when a new FOI request is made to Revenue, it is set up in CRMS and is automatically assigned the next consecutive reference number by the system. It said the reference number is in the format CRMS/reference/year and the CRMS reference number assigned to the FOI request becomes the FOI reference number. For example, the reference number 118/2025 was automatically assigned by the CRMS system and became the FOI reference number. Revenue said the CRMS contains files and records other than FOI and that the reference number does not indicate the number of FOI requests made to date in that year, but rather the next number for all files allocated a CRMS reference.
Revenue said that when it received the FOI request under review here, it conducted searches of the following areas:
• FOI file management systems
• CRMS and NASC
• FOI email inbox
• Other email addresses
• G drive
• FOI excel spreadsheet trackers
• FOI Board Reports
• FOI statistics spreadsheets.
• General queries/correspondence files
• Postal correspondence
Revenue said spreadsheets were filtered to include timelines, request types and further details within the scope of the request. It said these were then compared to Board Reports and file management systems and correspondence received by email to ensure all parameters were covered and the accuracy of the information provided to the applicant.
Revenue said all the current individuals in the FOI Unit were consulted and their records searched. It said searches were conducted on the FOI inbox which is the central email address for FOI requests which is published on the Revenue website. Revenue said searches were also conducted on a shared internal Unit inbox for correspondence between the FOI Unit and Revenue staff relating to FOI requests. It said each individual also searched their own work email inboxes for any records that may not have been sent to the group inboxes. It said a manual search was also conducted of FOI requests received by post in the FOI Unit. In addition, Revenue said searches were conducted of CRMS, NASC and the G Drive.
Revenue said the omission of certain text included in the applicant’s original request was an oversight by the FOI Decision Maker due to human error and is very much regretted. It said the Decision Maker, Internal Reviewer and record holders had regard for the full text of the FOI request in order to understand the request and conducted searches to identify and locate the records relating to the applicant’s request.
Following receipt of Revenue’s submissions of 7 May 2025, the Investigating Officer notified the applicant of the details of same. While he informed the applicant of his view that Revenue’s decision should be affirmed, he invited the applicant to make further submissions.
In his response, the applicant alleged that the Investigating Officer failed to investigate the matter properly. He argued that the invitation to submit supporting, material evidence of his claim that Revenue under-reports the number of FOI requests made to it each year was unfair, unreasonable, biased and prejudiced. He said Revenue holds most, if not all, such evidence, and did not provide any material evidence with its own submission. He said the investigating officer grounded his preliminary decision on Revenue’s unsubstantiated narrative.
He said the Investigating Officer should request:
1) An unrestricted copy of Revenue’s TDM Part 37-00-36F
2) A copy of Revenue’s own internal FOI Procedures Manual
3) A copy of the FOI part of Revenue’s Active Intervention Management (AIM) system
4) A list of the 3,181 or more FOI specific CRMS items received in 2024 to identify the nature of each of the missing 2,910 FOI specific CRMS references highlighted below
He said that Revenue’s Annual Report for 2024 says it received 4.1 million items of correspondence, most of which would have been input to its iC system, automatically allocated a master number, manually categorised, given a category specific CRMS number, else linked to an existing one. He said each FOI request would have been given a new FOI specific CRMS number. He also argued that a previous FOI request of his had not been appropriately processed by Revenue when it found that the request did not meet the criteria of section 12(1) of the FOI Act as a valid request and where the Commissioner found that Revenue had erred and annulled its decision. That request, the applicant stated, would have been given an earlier FOI specified CRMS number upon receipt of the original request, which he said would constitute an example of a request made but never deemed to have been received. He said Revenue assumed his motives and misinterpreted the scope of his request by making reference to section 12(1) of the Act and that it tried to cover up the fact that a fully formed record of every FOI request received already exists on its AIM system (or undated equivalent) on the date it received his FOI request by misrepresenting his words and his suggestion that section 17(4) may be relevant to adequately respond to his request.
He reiterated the allegation that Revenue has kept about 3,000 FOI requests “off the books ” every year, which amounts to about 24,000 omissions for relevant time period.
In response to a request by the Investigating Officer for clarification of Revenue’s statement that there is no Tax and Duty Manual relevant to how Revenue handles FOI requests, Revenue said Tax and Duty Manuals (TDM) contain the rules, guidelines, procedures, and practices covering a whole range of Revenue activities. It said that the part referenced by the applicant (TDM Part 37-00-36F) is part of the TDM series related to MyEnquiries, which is a system for managing tax-related enquiries. It said TDM Part 37-00-36F deals specifically with “Routing of Enquiries and Working of Enquiries in iC: Instructions for Revenue Staff ,” and provides internal guidance for Revenue staff on how to handle and process enquiries within the Integrated Contacts (iC) system, an internal Revenue IT system which is linked to MyEnquiries.
Revenue said the only reference to FOI in TDM Part 37-00-36F is a brief statement on the title page: “The following material is either exempt from or not required to be published under the Freedom of Information Act 2014 .” Revenue said this statement is a common feature in TDMs and the reference to FOI in TDM 37-00-36F is incidental, referring only to the content within the manual itself being exempt from or not required to be published under FOI. Revenue said that, on this basis, it confirmed that the content of TDM 37-00-36F is not related to the matters at issue in this review.
It is relevant to note here that this Office previously conducted a review (Case OIC-150867) involving both parties concerning a request the applicant made that was not processed by Revenue as it considered that the request did not meet the requirements of section 12(1)(b) of the FOI Act. That section provides that a request must contain sufficient particulars to enable the FOI body to identify the record sought by the taking of reasonable steps. This Office annulled Revenue's deemed refusal and remitted the request back to it for a fresh decision as we found that the request did, indeed, comply with the requirements of section 12(1)(b). The Investigating Officer sought further clarification on the matter from Revenue. He noted that in Case OIC-150867, a Revenue CRMS/FOI reference number appeared to have been generated on foot of this Office's decision. He queried whether this meant that the original request was an example of an FOI request being considered by Revenue as not an FOI request and whether it might support the applicant's assertion that there are other such instances of FOI requests made to Revenue that are not processed as such.
In its response, Revenue said that Case OIC-150867 was treated as one request. It said the case had not originally been assigned a CRMS reference number pending receipt of further information from the requester and, following receipt of the OIC decision, the original request was set up and assigned the next consecutive CRMS reference number. Revenue said that once assigned a CRMS reference number, it was captured by Revenue’s internal reporting systems. It went on to say that this case was included in the record created under section 17(4) of the FOI Act which was released to the requester in the original decision.
It said it does not track the number of invalid requests made to it. It said that in order to identify all such FOI requests, a very broad ranging and detailed search of a number of electronic systems and paper files would need to be carried out. It said extensive searches would need to be conducted of the FOI inbox over an extended period of time and would also require a manual search of all correspondence to the FOI Unit during the period in question. It said searches would also need to be conducted of correspondence received through MyEnquiries as well as postal correspondence received in local Revenue offices throughout the country. It said it is not reasonable to carry out such a wide ranging search in order to compile the information sought.
Revenue added that AIM stands for Active Intervention Management and is an internal IT system for handling debt management case-working tasks. AIM transitioned to the new Debt Management System (DMS) in March 2019 and is no longer used for managing debt management cases. It said the AIM system was never used for recording or managing FOI requests and has no relevance to this OIC appeal case.
I wish to clarify at the outset that the Investigating Officer made no such preliminary decision as alleged by the applicant. Rather, he sought to inform the applicant of his recommendation he proposed to make on foot of the evidence available to him to that point and also offered the applicant a further opportunity to make further submissions. I also wish to categorically state that the Investigating Officer did not in any way prejudice the applicant’s appeal by offering him the opportunity to provide evidence in support of his application for review. The applicant’s request implied an unsubstantiated claim that Revenue underreports the number of FOI requests made to it each year by roughly 3,000 requests. It was entirely appropriate that the Investigating Officer would seek to offer the applicant an opportunity to provide evidence in support of his assertions. It is part of the normal review process that both parties to a review are invited to make submissions in support of their position for information that is relevant to the review.
With respect to the TDM section the applicant believes to be relevant to uncovering the true number of FOI requests made to Revenue, I am satisfied that Revenue has adequately explained why this is not relevant to this review. Revenue’s position is that this section of the TDM relates to instructions for routing certain queries through the MyEnquiries system. While Revenue said that, occasionally, FOI requests are submitted directly to a local tax office or through “My Enquires ”, the majority are received by the dedicated FOI Unit email address. In any event, requests received by other sections of Revenue are directed by that department to the FOI Unit, which records correspondence and FOI request in the manner described above. As noted above, Revenue said all staff are informed and reminded to send any FOI requests to the FOI Unit immediately when they are received. This, in effect, amounts to an instruction for staff with respect to the routing of certain FOI related correspondence and I am satisfied that Revenue has adequately explained why this section of the TDM is not relevant to this review. Revenue’s explanation of how it uses the CRMS to allocate unique reference numbers also appears to comply with the guidance for FOI Bodies issued by the CPU that it should track FOI requests with an IT system.
On the matter of the substantive issues arising in this review, it is apparent from the applicant’s request that he believes that Revenue receives substantially more requests each year than it reports in its Annual Reports. In support of that belief, he is relying on his understanding of how Revenue’s CRMS system generates and allocates FOI reference numbers and also on the manner in which it handled a previous request he made that was the subject of review in Case OIC-150867.
The applicant’s assertion that Revenue substantially under-reports the number of FOI requests received each year by several thousand is based on an assumption that Revenue’s CRMS system assigns sequential reference numbers only to FOI requests. Having regard to the explanation Revenue provided of the manner in which the system allocates reference numbers, I am satisfied that the applicant’s assumption is incorrect. I am satisfied that Revenue has adequately explained how an FOI request is allocated a reference number and why that unique reference number does not correspond to the total number of FOI requests made to Revenue.
Moreover, the distinction the applicant seeks to draw between the number of requests Revenue receives each year and the number it deems to have been received each year appears to be based on his experience of how Revenue dealt with his request in Case OIC-150867. In other words, he appears to be of the view that Revenue receives many requests that it does not deem to be requests. He appears to be of the view that Revenue’s CRMS system assigns a reference number to those cases, regardless of whether or not they are ultimately regarded as valid requests by Revenue, and that Revenue should be in a position to provide such details.
Revenue’s submission suggests that this is incorrect. It says that when a new FOI request is made to Revenue it is set up in CRMS, at which stage it is automatically assigned the next consecutive reference number by the system. A request that is not deemed to be valid is not set up on the CRMS with a reference number. Revenue says that it does not track cases that it does not deem to be valid requests and that in order to identify all such FOI requests, a very broad ranging and detailed search of a number of electronic systems and paper files would need to be carried out. Having regard to Revenue’ s submissions, I am satisfied that it does not hold a record that contains the information the applicant is seeking, other than the record already released. I am also satisfied that the steps Revenue has described as being required to determine how many requests it may have received that it did not deem to have been received (i.e. invalid requests) would clearly go beyond the requirements of section 17(4).
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 it has determined that no further relevant records containing the information sought exist. Accordingly, I find that Revenue was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to any further records relating to the applicant’s request, on the ground that no such records exist or can be found after all reasonable steps to ascertain their whereabouts have been taken.
Having carried out a review under section 22(2) of the FOI Act, I hereby affirm Revenue’s decision. I find that Revenue was justified in refusing access, under section 15(1)(a) of the FOI Act, to further records containing the information sought on the basis that no further records exist.
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.
Stephen Rafferty
Senior Investigator