197 / 336
ing a section of the Finance Act, 1974 which was intro-
duced for the purpose of ensuring that, as we were
taking steps to stop tax avoidance by transfer of assets
abroad, we would give the Revenue Commissioners
sufficient powers to ensure compliance with the law.
It would be pointless for Parliament to enact a law
and not give anybody the power to enforce that law.
What we have done is no more than is necessary to
enforce it. I can go back to 1938. I have a whole
brief on the matter here. In fact, I can go back to 1936,
because the section in our 1974 Act is not dissimilar to
what was introduced in Britain in 1936. The wonder is
that we took so long to move against tax avoidance by
the transfer of assets abroad. This is a practice which
is engaged in by such people as have wealth surplus
to their immediate requirements. I saw quite recently
where a journal read by financial people in Dublin
carried large advertisments for a special magazine which
gives people advice as to where they can get the best
return in 37 tax havens in the world. There has to be
a perpetual surveillance by Parliament of actions taken
by people with the intention of frustrating Parliament's
intention. Every Finance Bill, almost without except-
ion, includes provisions to close off loopholes which
have been identified. This perpetual competition is an
aspect of life that will always be with us.
Major de Valera:
It will always be there as long
as there are accountants and lawyers.
Mr. R. Ryan:
As long as they have clients with an
appetite sufficient to try to avaid paying tax. Of course,
at the same time, ndbody is under any obligation to
pay any more tax than the law requires. But, because
of the need to ensure that avoidance and evasion do
not reach unacceptable limits, the Legislature must
strengthen the hands of the Revenue Commissioners.
It could well be that in exercise of the powers under
section 59 of the Finance Act, 1974, the Commissioners
might get information which would not disclose a tax-
able liability. Nevertheless, if they have reason to be-
lieve that assets have been transferred abroad, surely
it is proper that the Revenue Commissioners should
take details of such assets because such assets, if trns-
ferred abroad and yielding an income, are liable to tax.
The Revenue Commissioners must ensure that there is
a proper return in that situation, just as they have to
ensure that there is a proper return of income from
activities or assets within the State. We have said that
there should be no difference between them. I think
that is the correct attitude.
I accept that there is no difference of principle be-
tween us. There is a request that the language be soft-
ened so that it might appear better. But I am saying
that section 59 of the 1974 Finance Act may be used by
the Revenue Commissioners in a reasonable way only.
Before the Legislature agrees to make an amendment
in the 1974 Act we would want to have evidence that
section 59 was being used in a way which was oppres-
sive or burdensome. That evidence does not exist and
case law is against the possibility of the section being
used in an oppressive or burdensome way. I think that
is the best way in which to leave it and not to be in-
troducing language which, because it has not yet been
tested, may cause more complications than we would
wish.
Major de Valera:
I must say the Minister's latter
arguments are more compelling than were his first
ones. In this context I would like to refer to two points
he made. He used the word "burdensome". I agree
that the ordinary honest, straightforward taxpayer has
not any real complaint. It should be borne in mind
that the system is terribly burdensome to all of us.
James Cawley & Co.,
and
Sheerin Wynne & Co.,
wish
to
announce
that
they have merged their firms
and will practise in future
as
Cawley Sheerin Wynne & Co.,
Solicitors
at
2 Hume Street, Dublin 2.
Telephone 763505
Cables Cawlex
Telex 5511
.193