The Ombudsman has criticised the Revenue Commissioners for their behaviour in dealing with three carers refused tax reliefs for the transport of disabled close family members.
Revenue action "fell far short of any acceptable standard of dealing properly, fairly and impartially with its clients", Mr Kevin Murphy said.
Revenue officials made "explicit threats" about the possibility of legal action, vehicle seizure and the imposition of penalties for false declarations "where a right of appeal had yet to be exercised".
The Ombudsman's report, published yesterday, also said Revenue "failed to provide full and accurate information to enable the applicants to pursue their entitlements".
Mr Murphy recommended that each of the three complainants be regarded as eligible for reliefs. Total payments were more than £16,000.
He also recommended an urgent review of the Revenue Commissioners' administrative procedures and documentation, as well as in informing applicants of the results of their cases.
He called for a review of other cases where applicants where refused the reliefs.
The Revenue Commissioners accepted the Ombudsman's recommendations and said repayments of VRT and VAT of some £16,000 had already been made in the three cases. Additional payments for fuel and road tax were being arranged.
It said the recommendations about procedures and documentation had either been implemented or were in the process of implementation.
It added that it had always been conscious of the need for a "balanced and sympathetic approach" in the administration of the scheme, and this was reflected in the increasing number of cases where relief was granted: from 780 in 1997 to 1,689 last year.
The report, Passengers with Disabilities, deals with the complaints of three carers responsible for the transport of close family members suffering from a disability.
According to the report, "the Revenue Commissioners refused the relief because, in their view, the regulations required that the applicant had to reside with the passenger with disabilities, and the three applicants in question did not meet this fundamental prerequisite for eligibility under the scheme".
The report found that residency was not a fundamental requirement of the scheme and Revenue "had discretion to waive the residency requirement in exceptional circumstances and had already done so in another case".
