The Gazette 1975

should lay down clearly for the Courts what the Legis-

lature wants and not depend unduly on decisions,

particularly decisions by foreign Courts, on texts which

are slightly different from the texts of this Bill. The

Minister knows that a slight difference can make all

the difference in the interpretation. I believe it is far

preferable that we should lay down in the legislation

we enact sufficient to indicate without any doubt , that

we want to ensure that the powers being given to the

Revenue Commissioners are exercised reasonably, that

the specific powers as in this case to investigate certain

transactions, are exercised in such a way as is reason-

ably necessary for the purpose of carrying out the duties

of the Revenue Commissioners under this legisation.

I see no valid objection from the Minister's point of

view to this House spelling out clearly that what we

want is to give these powers to the Revenue Commis-

sioners but to make it clear that we are not giving

absolute power to them. We want to say: "You may

investigate anything which you reasonably need to

investigate to carry out the duties laid on you by these

sections".

Mr. R. Ryan:

I cannot add to what I have already

said other than that I have now checked the wording

of the 1936 British Act and find it is on all fours with

the wording to which Deputy Colley takes exception,

that is that it requires the opinion of the Board of In-

land Revenue and it would relate to matters which an

inspector thought it proper that they should investigate.

Ruairi Brugha:

It seems there is a distinction be-

tween "in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners

or of such officer as the Revenue Commissioners may

appoint it is proper they should investigate" and what

is proposed in the amendment. It is, of course, a matter

of interpretation and lawyers interpret things differ-

ently. It seems to be pretty broad. The opinion of the

Board of the Revenue Commissioners may be one thing

and the opinion of any officer could be something else.

It would seem better if the Minister were to require the

Commissioners to spell out what they would think nec-

essary. Here, there is a distinction between anything

that one might think and Deputy Colley's amendment

what may be reasonably thought to be—may reasonab-

ly require information. It is a matter of legal interpre-

tation but is is important that the Minister should 'be

reasonable at all times.

Mr. Colley:

The

Minister

has

made

his mind that he will not accept the amend-

ment no matter what arguments are put forward

and he had his mind so made up before he came

in. That being so, there is not much point in prolong-

ing the debate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Colley:

I move amendment No. 20.

In page 18, to insert a new section before section 34

as follows:

"34—Section 59 (4) of the Finance Act, 1974 is here-

by amended by the deletion of all words after 'busin-

ess' to the end of the subsection and the substitution

of 'nor on a solicitor, barrister or accountant acting in

his professional capacity to give any particulars what-

ever concerning qny advice given by him to, or any-

thing done by him on behalf of, a client'."

This also is an amendment which was put down to

the Bill last year and which was not reached. It is an

amendment to section 59 (4) of the Finance Act, 1974.

The effect of the amendment would be that subsection

(4) would read as follows:

Nothing in this section shall impose on any bank

the obligation to furnish any particulars of any ordin-

ary banking transactions between the bank and a cus-

tomer carried out in the ordinary course of banking

business, nor on a solicitor, barrister or accountant act-

ing in his professional capacity to give any particulars

whatever concerning any advice by him on behalf of a

client.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the

relationship between a solicitor, a barrister or an

accountant and the client should not be interfered with

in any way; the relationship between a solicitor and

client is a matter that has received special legal recog-

nition for many centuries. The Minister may say the

information that may be sought from a solicitor, for

instance in circumstances such as are envisaged her,

is limited and certainly it is limited in a certain way.

There are two points: first, such information can be

obtained by the Revenue Commissioners in other ways

and, secondly, what would be lost if one were to inter-

fere with the relationship of a solicitor and client, would

far outweigh anything that could be gained by this

section if it is amended..

The effect of interfering with that relationship is not

merely what is done in the section. If it is done in this

section it is only a matter of time until it is pushed

further and further and such a relationship ceases to

exist or to have any special meaning, particularly in

law. The consequences are that a person will find he

cannot consult with his solicitor for advice in regard

to certain courses of action because even consulting

for advice without taking action ultimately could be

something on which the solicitor would be obliged to

report.

Th e development of this kind of law may appear in

the short term to benefit the Revenue Commissioners

but,

fact, it is doing

the

exact opposite

the

people

whom

these

sections

are

de-

signed to get after are of the belief that consulting

their bank, solicitor, accountant, or a barrister through

their solicitor, will mean that information concerning

their activities will be given to the Revenue Commis-

sioners by these people, naturally they will not consult

them. Any possible advantage that might have been

envisaged disappears because such people will ensure

that the activities they engage in will be unknown to

their solicitor or their hank.

There is a grave danger here. There are a number of

trusts which have been set up in this country, whose

sole purpose is to ensure that the tax to be derived

is paid to the Irish Revenue Commissioners and not to

foreign Revenue Commissioners. That is their sole pur-

pose and yet the effect of a proposal before the House

will be that they will be closed down and the revenue

will go to other countries. What may appear to be

something that will aid the Revenue Commissioners

may do a great deal more damage than any benefit

that might accrue.

.216