262 / 336
Dail Eireann
FINANCE BILL 1975—COMMITTEE STAGE
23 APRIL 1975
Part III
Mr. R. Ryan: We are dealing with tax evasion, an
illegal activity. Under the 1974 Act a person who has
the benefit of assets which are transferred abroad is
obliged to pay tax on them; prior to that, he had not,
although it would appear that in any other country
that I have had a look at, the Legislature has en-
deavoured long since to tax income from assets which
were placed outside the domestic jurisdiction. However,
for some reason we went from decade to decade allow-
ing people to place their money abroad to avoid paying
tax here, but since last year they could do that no longer
without committing a breach of the law. They would
be evading tax. At present any person who now fails
to disclose his right to the benefit flowing from assets
placed abroad commits an offence.
The obligation on solicitors is to furnish names and
addresses. If the people liable to pay the tax, if the
people who have transferred assets abroad, discharge
their obligations in the first instance by making the
proper returns, there will be no question of having to
obtain names and addresses from anybody else. If they
break the law and if other people have the information
which would identify them, I cannot see that there is
anything reprehensible or anti-liberal about it. There is
no infringement of anybody's rights.
A person who transfers assets abroad and fails to
disclose is guilty of evasion.
Mr. Colley: Yes, but there are many who transfer
their money abroad and do not fail to disclose.
Mr. R. Ryan: And in such cases the Revenue Com-
missioners would not be chasing anybody else for the ,
information. It is only when they have reason to believe
the information is not being disclosed that they will
avail of this power. Nobody has any reason to fear if
they are complying with the law. If they are not com-
plying with the law, all we say is that the law should
not afford them privileges and protection which are
not available to others.
It was suggested that I was saying something radical
I would like to quote from an editorial in
The Times
of 1st April, 1938, which states as follows :
A noble defender of the ethics of tax avoidance
comes forward today in the person of the Provost of
Eton. No one will attribute to Lord Hugh Cecil an
insensitive conscience, but when he writes that if the
tax-avoider "acts openly" and above board, and
clearly conforms to the law, I can see no reason why
he should not do anything the law allows in order
to lighten the load of taxes. Law in England is the
will of the people as expressed in Parliament; it is
also the rules of conduct enforced by the Courts. The
two senses should coincide, but in practice they often
diverge because Parliament has failed to express itself
with sufficient accuracy or completeness. The oppor-
tunity for legal tax evasion proceeds solely from this
divergence.
There are some areas which so closely resemble evasion
as not to deserve the impassioned moral defence that
sometimes is advanced in their favour. The fact that
many of these practices are not defensible is recognised
by the accountancy and legal professions themselves.
From time to time they suggest ways of avoiding tax,
but they accompany their advice with a warning that a
person who engages in a particular practice may well
find the Legislature taking a different view of the
legitimacy of the practice in which they are advised to
engage.
It was suggested today that there was a line that
could be very clearly drawn between evasion and
avoidance. I have said I cannot share the tremendous
moral indignation that some people tend to express at
any criticism of tax avoidance.
The Courts are the judges of the law as Parliament
has recorded it, but if Members of Parliament exper-
ience cases where people are frustrating the wishes of
the Legislature, then they have a right, indeed I would
consider it a duty, to bring it to the notice of Parlia-
ment in order that the necessary amendments should
be made in the law.
Mr. Colley: But not to treat them as if they had
broken the law before that is done.
Mr. R. Ryan: No, I have not said that. What I am
saying is that they are not deserving of the tremendous
moral benediction that some people would seek to give
them, to make it something that is noble and beyond
criticism. When one sees the wishes of the Legislature
being frustrated, as a legislator, one must take steps to
correct the situation and when one is giving power, as
the Dail and Seanad gave last year, to tax the profits
on assets that are sent abroad, one must give power also
to the Revenue Commissioners to enforce that law.
Major de Valera: I am appalled that a Minister who,
like two of his colleagues in this House, should appre-
ciate the importance of what is involved, would take
the casual, the amoral and the pragmatic attitude he
has taken in this matter. The Minister can hardly fail
to appreciate the point I am making. Therefore, in
technical terms I must attribute to him, malice afore-
thought. By a peculiar coincidence the people engaged
in this debate so far are members of the legal pro-
fession, two of whom are practising. As a barrister, I
am a member of the other aspect of the profession
although I have not practised for many years. There-
fore, I should be absolved from any suspicion that I
. 2 5 6