The Gazette 1993

GAZETTE

JULY/AUGUST 1993

N E W S

Special General Meeting Votes to Discontinue

Opposition to Part VII, Finance Act

At the Special General Meeting to consider Part VII of the Finance Act, 1992 were l-r:

William Devine, Solicitor, Hanby Wallace; Gerard Doherty, Law Society Council; Elma

Lynch, Law Society Council, and Michael D. Murphy, Solicitor.

A Special General Meeting, attended by

100 members of the profession on 17

June, 1993, adopted a resolution stating

that in the light of assurances received

about solicitor/client confidentiality

from the Revenue Commissioners and

other concessions, there was no basis for

continuing to oppose the reporting

requirements of Part VII of the Finance

Act, 1992.

Discussions with Revenue

The meeting heard a detailed

presentation from the Chairman of the

Taxation Committee, Frank Daly, on

lengthy discussions with the Revenue

Commissioners which had commenced

following the Special General Meeting

in June, 1992 when the profession had

resolved to oppose the reporting

provisions of the legislation. A very firm

stand had been taken against

encroachment by the Revenue Commiss-

ioners on solicitor/client confidentiality

and the Society had stated its opposition

to this aspect of the legislation very

publicly, he said. Following meetings

with the Revenue Commissioners,

categoric assurances about confidenti-

ality had been received, followed by the

publication of a statement of practice

which stated "the Revenue Com-

missioners accept within the bounds of

professional relationships the principle

of client confidentiality." Frank Daly

also pointed out that the statement of

practice had provided that one would not

| have to give information about on whose

behalf a payment had been made,

but

only to whom

it had been made.

Furthermore, in the statement of practice

the Revenue raised the reporting

threshold to £3,000. Frank Daly said he

thought these developments represented

substantial concessions to the profession.

Having obtained these assurances, the

Taxation Committee of the Society then

engaged in a series of meetings and

extensive correspondence with the

Revenue Commissioners aimed at

alleviating the administrative burden

involved in complying with the

legislation. He outlined a series of

additional concessions which had been

obtained during these negotiations,

among them: a minimum level of £100

below which payments would not have

to be recorded, waiver of reporting

requirements in respect of apportion-

ment of rents, a waiver in connection

with certain sensitive "matrimonial-

type" type payments, a later starting

date in respect of keeping records by

solicitors, a threshold of £500 for the

reporting of ground rent collections, and

tax allowances in respect of expenditure

on software packages installed for the

purposes of complying with the

legislation.

Frank Daly then went on to outline the

advice that had been sought from Senior

Counsel concerning confidentiality of

solicitor/client communications. The

view of Counsel had been unanimous

that the disclosure obligations imposed

by the legislation were not incompatible

with any provisions of the Constitution;

| solicitor/client confidentiality was based

on contract and must yield to statute.

! Concluding his address, Frank Daly said

that he felt that the battle on Part VII of

the Finance Act was over and that the

profession had made substantial

i progress through its negotiations with

the Revenue Commissioners. In his

view, the climate of opinion had

changed in this country; there was no

public sympathy anymore for tax

evaders or for people who failed to

comply with their tax duties. Any

further refusal by the profession to

comply with the Act would be pilloried

in the press, radio and TV, the

profession would be attacked in the

Dail, and ultimately, members of the

profession might be prosecuted for non

compliance.

Seconding the motion, Emest

Margetson, said the Taxation

Committee, had put a tremendous effort

into negotiations on the legislation and

had obtained many very valuable

concessions. He queried what the

alternative to compliance would be.

Would it be wise to expend the

resources of the Society and the

profession on a legal challenge to the

| legislation, or in supporting individual

solicitors prosecuted for non-

compliance if, in the light of opinion

received from Counsel, the chances of

success would be slim?

! The meeting was then opened to the

floor. A representative on behalf of the

Midland Bar Association expressed

satisfaction with the efforts of the Law

Society but dissatisfaction with the

increasingly bureaucratic workload

which the solicitors' profession had to

, undertake on behalf of the Revenue

Commissioners. Speakers from the

207