The Gazette 1973

CORRESPONDENCE

Knights of Malta,

The Chancellery,

St. John's House,

32 Clyde Road,

Dublin 4.

24th Nov., 1972.

The Secretary,

Incorporated Law Society,

Dublin.

Dear Sir,

I should be very grateful for your assistance in the

matter set out below.

In 1965 this Association received a promise from an

anonymous donor (conveyed through the International

Commission of this Order against Leprosy) for the

payment of the sum of £2,000 to endow the training

of two Sisters of the Medical Missionaries of Mary, for

service in a leprosy settlement in Africa.

The first payment of £1,000 was made to us through

the medium of an Irish Solicitor sometime between

June and November, 1965, and was passed on by us to

the Mother General of the Medical Missionaries of

Mary, Lourdes Hospital, Drogheda. This covered the

training of one Sister.

Subsequently the second Sister was trained and the

Medical Missionaries now ask us to pay the second

instalment of their costs, in fact amounting to £1,155.

Unfortunately we have no record of the firm of

Solicitors who made us the first payment and are

anxious to get in touch with them so that the second

instalment promised might be paid.

I am advised that a notice in your Journal which is

read by all Solicitors in Ireland, might render this

possible.

In short would you be good enough to insert a

notice in your Journal to reach the eyes of the Solicitor

in question, requesting that he should either:

(a) identify the original donor to ourselves, or

(b) get in touch with his client, the donor, with a

view to obtaining payment of the second instal-

ment as promised.

Yours faithfully,

Pierce Synnott, K.M., C.B.,

Chancellor

ESTATE DUTY ACCOUNTABI L ITY

M. K. O'Connor, Esq.,

Assistant Secretary Revenue,

Estate Duty Office,

St. Stephen's Green,

Dublin 2.

11 September 1972

Dear Mr. O'Connor,

Section 8(4) of the Finance Act 1894 enacted that

where property passes on the death of a deceased and

his executor is not accountable for the estate duty in

respect of such property every person to whom such

property so passes for any beneficial interest in posses-

sion and also to the extent of the property actually

received or disposed of by him every . . . other person

to whom any interest in the property so passing or the

management thereof is at any time vested . . . in posses-

sion by alienation or other derivative title shall be

accountable for estate duty on the property.

Section 32 of the Finance Act 1971 amended Section

8(4) of the Finance Act 1894 by deletion of the words

"and his executor is not accountable for the estate duty

in respect of such property". It appears that the inten-

tion of the amendment was to bring effectively within

the tax net property over which the deceased had a

general power of appointment and which might not

come into the possession of the trustees. In such cases as

the law stood it was thought that the trustees of the

property so appointed would not be accountable for

the estate duty because the executor, although not in

possession of the property was so accountable.

It appears that

the effect of the amendment made

by Section 32 of the Finance Act 1971 in Section

8(4) of the Finance Act 1894 is that on every sale of

property by personal representatives the purchaser is

put on enquiry as to payment of death duties and this

includes sale of leasehold properties in which such

enquiries have never arisen in the past. This is an

extremely serious consequence of the amendment and it

is thought that it was not the intention of the Act. If

on every sale of leasehold property the purchaser must

apply for a certificate of discharge of death duties there

would be an accumulation of work in youur office, addi-

tional work in solicitors' offices and accumulation of

arrears and delay in the closing of sales.

The Council view this matter with the greatest

concern and I was directed to take it up with you and

to ask you to receive a deputation from the Council to

discuss it. The Council take the view that the Act should

be amended at the next opportunity and in the mean-

time an administrative direction should be issued which

will avoid the necessity of applying for certificates of

discharge from death duties on sales of leasehold pro-

perty by personal representatives in the course of the

administration.

The Council also take the view that having regard to

the effect of recent legislation, whereby all real and

leasehold property now vests in the personal representa-

tives, sales of all such property by the personal repre-

sentative in the course of the administration should not

require investigation by the purchaser of the death duty

position. Liability for duty should attach to the

purchase money and the personal representative should

be solely accountable. This would merely be a logical

extension of the previous position as it affected lease-

hold property.

The Council would be obliged to hear from you on

this matter at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Eric A. Plunkett.

Office of The Revenue Commissioners,

Estate Duty Branch,

72-76 St. Stephen's Green, S.,

30th October 1972.

E. A. Plunkett, Esq.,

Secretary,

Dear Sir,

I regret that it has taken me so long to reply to your