63 / 196
together with a sum of £500 for each dependent child.
I propose that these abatements be increased to £1,500
and £750 respectively. This will mean that where an
estate passes to a widow and there are no dependent
children, no duty will be payable unless the estate is
over £15,300. If there are two dependent children, the
effective exemption limit will be £21,400; if there are
four dependent children, the exemption limit will be
£28,000 and if there are six dependent children, the
exemption limit will be £33,000.
Complaints are often made that wealthy people can
escape their due share of the burden of death duties by
various avoidance measures. I am satisfied that many
of these complaints are well-founded and I propose to
remove some of them by strengthening the death duty
code when the Finance Bill is introduced.
The better-known avoidance devices include the use
of private family companies where the statutory defini-
tions of "companies controlled by the deceased" and of
"relatives" are unduly narrow; the purchase of land
outside the State; the "grant and lease back" of land;
and the concessionary provisions in relation to gifts and
artistic objects. In addition to dealing with these devices,
I propose to revise the provisions for the artificial valu-
ation of agricultural land to ensure that duty will be
payable on the market value if the land is sold within
six years after the death.
The provisions for collection from trustees and bene-
ficiaries will be widened in certain cases and the penalty
provisions for failure to comply with the Estate Duty
Acts will be brought up to date.
These changes are estimated to yield an additional
net sum of £250,000 in the current year and £1 million
in a full year.
Financial Resolution No. 7—Death Duties
Financial Resolution No. 7 moved by the Minister for
Finance in Dáil Eireann on April 28th, as follows:
(1) That in relation to gifts made on or after the 28th
day of April 1971 the exemption of gifts made in
consideration of marriage be limited—
(a) when made by a party to the marriage or a
parent or remoter ancestor of a party to the mar-
riage, to so much of the principal value of the
property comprised in the gift as does not exceed
£5,000, and
(b) when made by any other person,to so much of
the principal value of the property comprised in
the gift as does not exceed £1,000.
(2) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the
public interest that this resolution shall have statutory
effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collec-
tion of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
The effect of this resolution is that estate duty will be
chargeable on so much of a marriage gift made by a
parent or remoter ancestor of a party to the marriage
or by one of the parties on the amount of the gift as
exceeds £5,000. Where the gift is made by any other
person estate duty will be charged on the amount
exceeding £1,000. These provisions will apply where the
gift or transfer is made within five years prior to the
date of death of the donor. The existing statutory
exemption in favour of gifts made more than five years
before the date of death will be continued.
The Council have made representations to the
Revenue Commissioners urging that the proposed
change in the law is contrary to the public interest and
accepted social policy.
Barristers likely to retain silks
Questionnaires have been sent out by the Bar Council
to Britain's 2,600 barristers asking for their views on the
future of the Queen's Counsel system.
A special committee, set up in 1966 to examine the
whole question of "taking Silk", recommended reten-
tion, but a minority report thought it should be abol-
ished.
The matter is to be settled at the Bar Council's
annual meeting in July and, according to a council
spokesman yesterday, there is unlikely to be any major
change.
Taking "Silk" has been criticised as a process sur-
rounded by mystique and recently Lord Hailsham, the
Lord Chancellor, denied that it was a "private honours
list" open to abuse.
A minority of the Bar Council's special committee
believed there was no reason for two distinct ranks of
counsel—Q.C.s and juniors.
Silks, it was claimed, were chosen by the Lord Chan-
cellor's patronage in a manner that was "wholly des-
potic, however benevolent".
When the Bar Council went into the matter in detail,
the majority of its special committee felt there should
be a group of "senior advocates" readily available to
conduct heavy and specialised cases, not being involved
in preliminary proceedings or "run-of-the-mill" cases.
There was no convincing evidence that the two-tier
juniors and Q.C.s system caused hardship to any liti-
gant, and it should be retained.
Any barrister who considers himself sufficiently estab-
lished can apply for appointment as a Silk.
Once he is a Q.C. he cannot appear in court without
a junior counsel and, because of the increased costs of
his services, is likely to be brought in only in cases of
particular complexity or importance.
Silks will take part in the Bar Council questionnaire.
Lord Hailsham last month attempted to clear up mis-
conceptions about the system of selecting Q.C.s.
When this year's thirty-seven new Silks were sworn
in last month he said there came a time in every
successful barrister's career when the drudgery, travel
and late-night reading became too much for his health.
"This is when a barrister ought to take Silk in self-
protection."
The Daily Telegraph
(3rd May 1971)
63