Farmers who are not registered for VAT will not be able to claim this tax back on slurry storage bags under the Targeted Agricultural Modernisation Schemes (TAMS), the Department of Finance has confirmed.
This follows comments from the chairperson of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine Jackie Cahill, who called for all farmers to be able to claim back VAT on this item.
Fianna Fáil TD Cahill had slammed the view of Revenue that slurry bags were movable infrastructure, which he described as “utter nonsense”.
“Anyone who would see a slurry bag that is put into operation would know that it is not possible to move it,” Cahill said.
However, the Department of Finance has confirmed the stance of Revenue.
A spokesperson for the department told Agriland today (Tuesday, May 16): “While it is understood that the size and capacity of the bags can be very large, and that the ground may need to be prepared in advance to ensure they are contained, the position remains that it is not considered a building.
“The bag remains a piece of agricultural equipment and not any form of a farm building,” the spokesperson added.
“Revenue will continue to monitor new and innovative products as they develope but is satisfied that slurry storage bags fall outside the scope of the VAT refund order of 2012.”
This refund order, the Department of Finance spokesperson said, only permits unregistered farmers to claim a VAT refund for agricultural buildings, and that it is not possible to provide for a VAT refund for agricultural equipment for those farmers.
“It remains open for any farmer who feels disadvantaged by the flat-rate scheme to register for VAT,” the spokesperson added.
Tipperary TD Cahill had expressed his frustration with this approach due to the government’s ongoing strategy to encourage farmers to engage in climate and biodiversity actions.
“In an era where we are trying to increase slurry capacity on farms, to put this extra cost on farmers is not acceptable. In most cases slurry bags are put on small farms,” he had said.
“It’s a very efficient, cost-effective way of increasing slurry capacity,” Cahill had added.