187 / 336
Dail Debates
Finance Bill, 1975—Committee Stage.
April 22 and 23, 1975.
Mr. Colley: I move amendment No. 18:
"34—Section 59 (1) of the Finance Act, 1974 is here-
by amended by the substitution of 'reasonably require'
for 'think necessary'."
This amendment relates to the Finance Act, 1974.
Subsection (1) to which this relates is as follows: —
The Revenue Commissioners may by notice in
writing require any person to furnish them within
such time as they may direct (not being less than
twenty-eight days) with such particulars as they think
necessary for the purposes of section 57, 58 and 60.
My amendment proposed to enable the Revenue
Commissioners to serve a notice in writing requiring
any person to furnish them within such time as they
direct, not being less than 28 days, with such particu-
lars as they reasonably require for the purpose of sec-
tions 57, 58 and 60. The practical effect for many
people of this amendment might be nil but for other
people it could be of extreme importance because the
section as drafted enables the Revenue Commissioners
or any officer they may appoint to seek such infor-
mation as they think, or as he thinks, necessary for
the purposes of the sections I have referred to.
On the face of it, that would appear to apply no
limitation on the particulars which may be sought
other than some connection which, in some cases might
be very tenuous, with the matters dealt with in sections
57, 58 and 60. On the other hand, acceptance of the
amendment would not inhibit the Revenue Commis-
sioners from obtaining any information that would be
required for the purpose of carrying out their work.
There is a significance in the phrase "reasonably re-
quire" as against "think necessary" because the infor-
mation and the particulars sought by the Revenue Com-
missioners must be such as they reasonably require for
the purposes of these other sections there is built in
some criteria whereas the section as drafted has no
such criteria. This means that in a very unreasonable
case where the Revenue Commissioners or an officer
appointed by them acted very unreasonably, it would
be possible for an aggrieved taxpayer to have a remedy
by applying to the Court and establishing that the in-
formation sought was not reasonably required. If it
were reasonably required the taxpayer, by definition,
Would be bound to furnish it but unless this amend-
ment was expected there would appear to be virtually
° o limitation on the information which may be sought.
That is wrong in principle as well as in practice. There-
lore, the Minister should not have any difficulty in
accepting the amendment, an amendment to the same
effect as one tabled to the Bill that was before the
House last year but which was not reached.
Mr. R. Ryan
:
This matter was discussed at some
length in the other House. I pointed out there that the
Revenue Commissioners, like any other arm of the
State, must act reasonably at all times and that if
they fail to act reasonably they are amenable to
the Courts. The mere fact that they can be challenged
in the Courts is ample protection for the citizen.
It might be worthwhile to put on the record of the
House what the British Court said. Incidentally,
1 should observe that the legislation in Britain
deals
with requiring certain certain
people to
make disclosures about the transfer of moneys abroad
for tax avoidance purposes was introduced in 1936. It
is simply providing an absolutely necessary weapon to
counter tax avoidance by the transfer of assets abroad.
Those who endeavour to avoid tax by transferring as-
sets abroad are not simple people; they will go to any
lengths to conceal their activities from the Revenue
Commissioners and if they succeed it is not merely the
ALL IRELAND
ALL PURPOSE PROFESSIONAL
PROPERTY VALUATION SERVICE
Osborne King &Megran
Dublin 760251 Cork 21371
Galway 65261
also at Belfast and London
.183