The Gazette 1975

FINANCE BILL, 1975 : COMMITTEE STAGE (RESUMED)

Continued from page 184

Mr. R. Ryan

As I indicated last night, I am sat-

isfied both from rulings of Irish Courts and rulings of

Courts elsewhere, that the legal position is that this

power may only be used by the Revenue Commission-

ers i

a reasonable way. If they act unreasonably the

Courts will condemn their action. If they use the power

to acquire information they may use it only to the

extent necessary to obtain the information for the pur-

pose of stopping tax avoidance. If they extend it be-

yond that then the Courts will block the action they

want to take.

Th e wording of the 1974 Act ensures that the Rev-

enue Commissioners will act reasonably and it is not,

therefore, necessary to dress up the words in what

Deputy Colley regards as softer and milder language

in order to ensure that the power is exercised in a

reasonable way. The amendment achieves nothing that

the statute and the interpretation of the statute by the

Court achieves.

Mr.Colley:

will tell the Minister the kind of people

I know who are concerned. They are those who are con-

cerned with the rights and protection of citizens and

they are not prepared to say that unlimited powers

may be given to the Revenue Commissioners to enable

the Revenue Commissioners to deal adequately, in their

view, with people who are avoiding tax liability by

acting within the law.

The Minister should be under no illusions about

this. If one is prepared to grant unreasonable powers

to the Revenue Commissioners—for instance, to get

after the most blatant avoiders of tax—then it is only

a short step until exactly the same powers will apply

against all citizens, whether or not they are trying to

avoid tax.

Mr. R. Ryan

I believe all taxpayers should receive

equal treatment under the law in so far as it is possible

to ensure that. The overwhelming mass of people are

affected by section 178 of the 1967 Income Tax Act,

under which all details of an employee's income must

be furnished by an employer to the Revenue Com-

missioners. It is as simple as that. It must be done.

Section 59 of the 1974 Act says that the Revenue

Commissioners may by notice in writing require a per-

son to furnish the information which they think nec-

essary for the purpose of preventing the avoidance by

individuals of tax liability by transfer of assets. If the

Legislature in its wisdom considers it necessary that

employees do not avoid their tax liability and imposes

on their employers the obligation of revealing full de-

tails of the employee's incomes, surely it is not un-

reasonable to require people who have information

about the transfer of assets abroad for the purpose of

tax avoidance to be under a similar obligation?

Mr. Colley:

Section 178 sets out precisely the infor-

niation that can be sought. This section does not.

Surely the Minister can see the difference be-

tween a section which sets out precisely the in-

formation which the Revenue Commissioners can seek

and, on the other hand, a section like this which says

they can seek whatever information is necessary?

There is an enormous difference.

Mr. R. Ryan:

I would like to point out to Deputy

Colley that section 59 (3) séts out the information which

the Revenue Commissioners may obtain. They cannot

go beyond what this section gives them power to do.

He says his only objective is to ensure that the Revenue

Commissioners act reasonably I am saying that under

the law they cannot but act reasonably. If they depart

from that the Courts can condemn them for it. If we

were to replace the words "think necessary" by the

words "may reasonably require" the same test would

be applied by the Courts. It would be no more and no

less than that.

Of course, from time immemorial, since tax was first

imposed, there has been a battle of wits going on be-

tween taxpayers and tax collectors. If that battle is won

by a person who is liable to tax, then the burden on

other taxpayers becomes so much greater. If the Leg-

islature accepts its obligation to maintain equity, if it

accepts it has an obligation to spread the load evenly,

then it must strengthen the hands of the Revenue

Commissioners to prevent tax avoidance.

Major de Valera:

The Minister never misses a

chance of trying to knock one section with the plea that

the employee or the poor ordinary taxpayer will be

caught anyway. I want to leave that kind of specious,

political approach out of the matter as we are on the

Committee Stage of a serious Bill.

What would a judge ask for it he had to deal with

this? The protagonists in this have legal experience.

What are the judicial interpretations in this? The Min-

ister has only mentioned one. There have been cases

and there have been interpretations. What is the rele-

vant state of the law from the point of view of inter-

pretation in regard to this matter? Those Bills are com-

ing so fast that it takes a lot of time to pursue such a

point. The question of interpretation may cause trouble

for all those Finance Bills which are before the House.

I, like many others of the community, was too prone

to adopt the point of view that the Revenue Commis-

sioners were unrealistic publicans and tax gatherers in

the gospel sense and that they should be anathema

and defrauded and defeated at all points because they

were grabbers. I was appointed by the House to the

Committee that reviewed the various Finance Acts and

then I realised the truth—that we had in this organ-

isation a very responsible and fair-minded organisation

which did its duty to the State, carried out its respon-

sibility and respected the rights of the citizens as best

and as fully as it could. I am able to make this state-

.191