220 / 336
Dail Eireann
FINANCE BILL 1975—COMMITTEE STAGE
23 APRIL 1975
Part II
Mr. Colley:
I move amendment No. 19.
In page 18, to insert a new section before section
34 as follows:
"34—Section 59 (2) (b) of the Finance Act, 1974 is
hereby amended by the substitution of 'with respect
to which the Revenue Commissioners or of such officer
as the Revenue Commissioners may appoint may reas-
onably require information' for 'which in the opinion
of the Revenue Commissioners or of such officer as the
Revenue Commissioners may appoint it is proper that
they should investigate'."
There is a considerable similarity between this
amendment rnd
No.
18 but there is also a
difference. Like the previous amendment it was
tabled last year but was not discussed because of the
guillotine motion used to terminate the debate on the
1974 Act. Section 59, subsection (2) (b) of the 1974 Act
reads:
As to transactions which in the opinion of the Rev-
enue Commissioners ma.y appoint it is proper that they
investigate for the purpose of sections . .
My amendment proposes to delete the words "which
in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners or of
such officer as the Revenue Commissioners may ap-
point it is proper that should investigate" and to sub-
stitute for that "with respect to which the Revenue
Commissioners or such officer as the Revenue Commis-
sioners may appoint may reasonably require informat-
ion." This is slightly different from the last one in that
in this case the section refers to that which in the opin-
ion of the Revenue Commissioners or an officer of
theirs, it is proper that should investigate, whereas the
amendment proposes words to the effect "with respect
to which they may reasonably require information."
The object here is to try to provide a basis on which
the Courts may act in the case of an aggrieved tax-
payer.
If the amendment is accepted any officer of the Rev-
enue Commissioners who, perhaps for reasons of ex-
cessive zeal or otherwise, may be tempted to go beyond
what is proper, would find that he must consider how
the Courts would interpret his action. I suggest that
he would be less inclined to be concerned with the
question of whether the Courts would interfere with
his activities under the section as drafted than he would
if this amendment were accepted. There is no restrict-
ion involved on the legitimate activities of the Revenue
Commissioners in their pursuance of the various sect-
ions. All I am proposing is the laying down-of some
criteria to which the Courts could have regard in judg-
ing the activities of the Revenue Commissioners in
their investigations in cases where taxpayers might
complain of their activities and believe that they had
gone beyond what was reasonably required for the ex-
ecution of their duties.
I assume the Minister would agree that the Revenue
Commissioners should not go and and are not entitled
legally to go beyond what is reasonably required for
the execution of their duties. Therefore we ought to
set that out clearly.
Mr. R. Ryan:
The question is that of the reason-
ableness of the actions of the Revenue Commissioners.
The constraints or the propriety of any investigation
are set out in the 1974 Act. The Revenue Commis-
sioners may not investigate anything other than that
for which they are given power in sections 57 to 60
of the 1974 Act.
If a person to whom notice is addressed considers
himself aggrieved, that the Revenue Commissioners
are overstepping their power, he can challenge the
propriety of any such notice. Section 59 of the 1974
Act contains a safeguard to ensure the confidentiality
of the relationship between solicitor and client. There
is even a limit on the amount of information which
the Revenue Commissioners may obtain from a soli-
citor, who is confined to giving the name and address
of a client, of a transferee of the person concerned, of
a body corporate involved, of a settlor or of some per-
son resident or domiciled outside the State to whom
assets are trejisferred for tax avoidance purposes. The
wording of section 59 is taken from the statute of an-
other country and has been well and truly tried for 39
years. Obviously there is merit in using language
which has stood the test of time.
There are slight variations in wording. Language
used by parliamentary draftsmen must change from
generation
to
generation.
There
is
this
con-
tinuing change
in the use of words but,
in
effect, the wording we have used here is that which
has stood the test of time and which achieves what
Deputy Colley attempted to achieve in the amendment.
Mr. Colley:
This amendment relates to transactions
which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners or
an officer they may appoint, it is proper that they
should investigate. It is not confined to investigation of
activities by solicitors.
The point made by Deputy de Valera on the pre-
vious amendment probably has some validity, and the
Minister accepts that also: that it is possible that the
amendment might result in a more favourable interpre-
tation by the Courts for the Revenue Commissioners.
What I am concerned with is that the Legislature
.215