227 / 336
shyster lawyer, a person who will not comply with the
will of the Legislature in this instance. A number of
companies will probably start business because they see
a profitable venture in being tax advisers. They may
even be outside the country, where clients could go to
consult them. Those companies would be authorities on
particular tax systems throughout the world.
I believe as earnestly as the Minister does that people
should pay their just taxes but I think it is wrong to
state that a person is morally wrong if he seeks ways
and means of avoiding tax payments. A lot of the big
taxpayers wish that the tax system was as simple for
them as it is for the PAYE people who get their wages
after tax has been deducted and have no worries, about
income tax later on. It is important to stress here that
it is not immoral for anyone to seek advice on tax
avoidance. The Minister should give further serious
consideration to the situation in which he is putting
lawyers. They are honest for the most part. We have
the good and the bad in every profession but in the
main lawyers serve their clients well and they should be
encouraged to do so by not divulging what is primarily
a matter between the lawyer and his client.
Ruairi Brugha: On reading subsection (4) of section
59 of the 1974 Act it seems that the Minister is requir-
ing professional organisations or people to provide in-
formation.
If the Minister requires this, I believe that organisa-
tion will cease to carry out the function. It is correct
that the Commissioners have the power to require any
person to disclose information regarding tax evasion but
the argument here is whether it is right for the Minister
to give the power to require professional people to dis-
close information. Deputy Colley's argument is that
that is what is required here. Professional people have to
retain the confidence of their clients. How can a solici-
tor who has traditionally acted on behalf of his client
continue to do that if he also must act on behalf of the
State? There is a conflict here which has not been
resolved by the Minister. He is acknowledging loop-
holes have to be closed and that he is justified in trying
to do that from year to year as his predecessor did
but he seems to be admitting also in his argument that
in order to close the loopholes he is requiring people in
a professional capacity to disclose information which
is traditionally confidential. If the Minister is not
doing that, I do not see any fundamental argument
against Deputy Colley's amendment.
The power is with the Revenue Commissioners at any
time to direct an individual or the responsible officer of
any corporation to disclose the information they want.
Does the Minister not see a difference between a respon-
sible officer or a person who is engaged in activities
which the Revenue Commissioners wish to bring to an
end and the person who is employed in a professional
capacity, a solicitor, accountant or barrister, to advise
an organisation, company or an individual?
Mr. Colley: Earlier I suggested to the Minister that
he should not equate evasion with avoidance but he
went on to explain that that is precisely what it does.
Mr. R. Ryan: I said it was very difficult in some
forms to differentiate between evasion and avoidance.
Mr. Colley: I put it to the Minister that that is a
most dangerous doctrine and he should disabuse him-
self of it quickly. If we reached the stage where we do
not distinguish between evasion and avoidance, in parti-
cular if the Minister for Finance does not, we will have
reached a stage where somebody vested with authority
by the people is trying to say that something which is a
breach of the law is in exactly in the same category as
something which is not. If the Minister thinks this is
highfaluting theorising I will give him air» example
which I hope will bring home to him that it is more
than that. The Minister recently indicated his inten-
tion of taking the EEC Regional Fund and using it in
the Exchequer. The Minister may be within the letter
of the EEC Directive in doing that but clearly he is in
breach of the spirit. I suggest to the Minister that that
is a perfect analogy of the Minister engaging in avoid-
ance, not evasion.
If the Minister's theory is to be accepted, he should
be treated as being in breach of the EEC Directive be-
cause he is engaging in evasion. I hope that example
brings home to the Minister the dangers of the doctrine
he is advancing; that it is the same whether one breaks
the law or not if, in the view of the Minister for Fin-
ance, the things one is doing are equally reprehensible.
It is true that some avoidance activities are reprehen-
sible. Nevertheless, to try to say that they are to be
regarded and treated in the same way as matters which
are in breach of the law is a most dangerous doctrine.
I want to put it that if this section did not exist the
Revenue Commissioners could not, and would not, seek
information from solicitors, for example, which they
now seek and obtain under this section. If that state-
ment is true, then this section is not a restatement of
the law. As I said earlier, it is an encroachment on the
existing privilege, a privilege which is one of the client,
not of the solicitor.
Logically, should the privilege not be abolished
rather than enable people who are guilty of crimes to
be more easily and conveniently convicted by the State?
In fact, taking what appears to be the Minister's point
of view, the existence of this privilege is unjustified
socially in so far as it is a hindrance to the prosecution
of offences and in some cases, may indeed assist people
in avoiding liability for their offences. That is the logic
of what the Minister is saying. The Minister, by train-
ing, a lawyer, knows just how important is that privilege
to the rights of the citizen and the maintenance of
democracy. It extends to a far wider field than this Bill
or any matter to do with the collection of taxes and the
avoidance or even the evasion of taxes. It is a much
more fundamental matter than that.
It is one thing if the Minister says : "Look, what is
being done here is of minor importance", but if he tries
' to justify what is being done on the grounds that every-
body has an obligation to assist in tackling avoidance
of tax, then we are getting into much deeper water al-
together. When the Minister adds to that some forms of
avoidance which in his view are exactly the same as
evasion and are to be treated similarly, then the matter
becomes more serious. The implications of the Minis-
ter's thinking are extremely disturbing. This seems to
me to represent a total disregard of the rights of
citizens. One cannot justify ignoring the rights of
citizens by saying: "Look, we are dealing with people
who are avoiding liability." We are dealing with people
.221