224 / 336
Deputy would not wish to put the integrity of the
solicitors' profession in doubt by suggesting that they
should facilitate tax evasion.
Mr. Colley: Can the Minister not visualise a situa-
tion in which they are advising them as to what the law
is and how to comply with it?
Mr. R. Ryan: Yes, I have said that it is the duty
of a solicitor to tell the client what the law is and that
any action which he intends to take which is against
the law is against the law.
Mr. Colley: Or is not against the law, if it is not.
Mr. R. Ryan: Yes. That is a solicitor's professional
duty and that is what he is trained to do. Deputy
Colley used the word "accountant". The word "accoun-
tant" like the word "engineer" covers a multitude of
activities. "Solicitor" is defined by law. They are the
only profession to be statutorily defined as gentlemen.
It has been said that was necessary or it would not be
accepted. "Barrister" is also clearly defined by law.
"Accountant" is not defined by law and if one includes
accountants should one debar tax consultants, tax
practitioners, some of whom may not have an accoun-
tancy qualification of any kind? The word "accoun-
tant" could be extended to book keepers just as
"engineer" is a title sometimes assumed by mechanics.
It is much too loose a term to use in a statute apart
from other reasons why it should not be included at all.
The law does not recognise that the same degree of
confidentiality exists between accountants and their
clients. The legal profession have a privileged position
because it is the privilege of the clients which is being
protected. That cannot be extended to activities which
involve tax evasion and we could not contemplate ex-
tending to the accountancy profession a privilege which
does not apply to the legal profession nor could we
entertain at this stage or in a Finance Act the ques-
tion of what should be the appropriate area of confiden-
tiality existing between accountants and their clients.
If there is to be legislation to counter tax avoidance
by means of transfer of assets abroad, the Revenue
Commissioners must be empowered to seek information
to enable them to establish whether an avoidance opera-
tion has taken place. That is axiomatic. I trust nobody
in the House would challenge that.
As I said, the information which the Revenue Com-
missioners will seek under section 59 ought to coine
from the taxpayer himself. If he employs an accoun-
tant or an agent to look after his tax affairs and to deal
with the Revenue Commissioners on his behalf, there is
no reason why the information, which in the ordinary
way would be sought from the taxpayer, should not be
sought from and given by his agent. There is no ques-
tion of the accountant or the agent being required or
expected to give the information without the tax-
payer's knowledge. If the Revenue Commissioners seek
information about tax avoidance operations from an
accountant or agent, the accountant or agent will
undoubtedly so notify the taxpayer and inform him
that there is a legal obligation on him to furnish the
information requested.
If a taxpayer sets out to plan a tax avoidance device
it would be expected that, in the course of the planning
operation, his accountant or agent would advise him
that the Revenue Commissioners were likely to look for
information about the operation. In the light of the
purpose of the legislation, it is difficult to see why the
Legislature should set up any barriers or obstacles to the
implementation of the legislation by authorising a tax-
payer's agent to withhold information or to refuse to
give information in relation to avoidance operations.
For these reasons I cannot accept the Deputy's
amendment which would simply open the door to
avoidance and evasion a year after we took action to
close the door. The undesirable possibilities which
Deputy Colley has illustrated here have not materialised
in Britain in 39 years. I do not expect them to mater-
ialise here. Considerable benefits have accrued to the
Exchequer and consequently to the general body of
taxpayers, because loopholes which facilitated avoid-
ance by transfer of assets abroad were closed and be-
cause the information net had a smaller mesh and was
cast further. That is what this section in the 1974 Act
achieved. It ensures a better supply of information.
No person who is not liable to tax has anything to
fear from the powers given to the Revenue Commis-
sioners to collect information. The only person who may
be disappointed if the sources of information to the
Revenue Commissioners are improved are people who
have a liability to pay tax and who avoid it by with-
holding information which they have a clear statutory
obligation to give and, indeed, a moral obligation as
well. Democracy has long since asserted that every
person should pay his fair share of tax. Democracy re-
quires that the Legislature will provide the means
whereby the Revenue Commissioners can ensure that
everyone pays a fair share of tax. If we failed to give
them that means we would be engaging in a sham and,
quite frankly, I am not prepared to do that.
Mr. Colley: The Minister said this amendment
would open the door to avoidance and evasion. Evasion
is always illegal and nothing in this section or this
amendment affects in any way the position in relation
to tax evasion. In regard to tax avoidance, when I was
proposing this amendment I mentioned that I believed
that the information which is being sought here from
solicitors is available to the Revenue Commissioners
anyway from other sources. Of course, it is perfectly
obvious that, in order to be in a position to put a
question about a particular taxpayer to a particular
solicitor, the Revenue Commissioners must have some-
thing to go on. They can put the question to the tax-
payer and, if he gives false information, he leaves him-
self wide open to very serious penalties.
I indicated that I was not particularly tied to the
wording of the amendment. I am conscious of the diffi-
culties in regard to the definition of "accountants". The
Minister is welcome to any point he wishes to make
on that. What the Minister is glossing over very care-
fully is the fact that this section as a whole, without
this amendment or something on these lines, is taking
away existing rights, existing privilege in the legal
sense. He spoke as though it were granting such. Of
course, it is not doing any such thing and the Minister
knows that as well as anybody else.
For very good, sound, historical and legal reasons, the
relationship of a solicitor and client has a special posi-
tion in law. It is true, of course, as the Minister says,
that a lawyer has no privilege himself beyond the
.218