264 / 336
behaviour of Parliament and the Executive over 50
years, our Supreme Court has always taken a conserva-
tive view and as narrow a view as possible of its con-
struction rights. It is likely that in a section like this you
are now starting another process—one can thank God
one has the Constitution—where the Courts will do
what the Supreme Court of the USA did and exercise
its wider rights as the Judiciary and ultimately interpret
its place in the Constitution as it is meant to be in
principle as the guardian of the rights of both State and
individual.
This section and particularly this amendment touches
an absolutely vital point. Instead of helping law en-
forcement, instead of avoiding legal action, instead of
bringing about harmony and preventing tax evasion,
you may very well produce a situation where very re-
strictive elements may be introduced that may restrict
this House as well as the Executive. I hope our
Judges take note of their power. Sooner or later a
case will be brought and I am glad our Supreme Court
has a mind of its own, as we saw in some recent cases.
As sure as I am here, a case will arise where new
principles will be developed and the Minister and his
successors Will rue the day that this approach was
taken. I thank the Lord we have a Constitution and
our Supreme Court to protect principles from amoral
attitudes on ministerial benches.
Mr. R. Ryan: I can be as moral as the rest. Perhaps
it is because of the moral stand this Government have
taken against tax evasion that they i i a ve come in for
so much abuse.
I shall not endeavour to defend what was wrong by
quoting another wrong because two wrongs do not
make a .right- However, I should like to draw the
attention of Deputy de Valera and others to section
176 of the Income Tax Act, 1967. That section incor-
porated sections from the Acts of 1918, 1958 and 1963.
The 1967 Act was a codifying measure and Deputy de
Valera was an active and useful member of the com-
mittee that prepared that Act for the House.
Section 176 of the 1967 Act does not contain any
savers whatever in regard to solicitors' privilege. There
are savers in the 1974 Act. I wrote in special provisions
which limited the information that could be sought
from solicitors and, to that extent, I identified the
privilege and respected the need to retain it.
There is no question there of saying the solicitor
would only give the name and address of persons to
whom money is given. The full value of the money
had to be given. It was an anti-avoidance measure to
ensure that the Revenue Commissioners obtained parti-
culars of income or money that people received in
respect of activities within the State.
Section 59 of the 1974 measure provides that where
money is transferred abroad for the purpose of tax
evasion or for the purpose of avoiding liability to tax,
the name and address of the transferor or transferee
be given. It is not a terrible departure from section 176
of the 1967 Act, from section 66 of the 1958 Act or
Part III of the 1963 Act except that I provide for
limitation to the information that can be sought from
solicitors.
Words mentioned in the confessional box and the
relationship between doctor and patient have been
mentioned in the course of this debate. A certain par-
allel has been drawn between the criminal law and the
tax law. There are many aspects of the tax law that do
not conform to the criminal law. For instance, under
criminal law every person is deemed innocent until
proved guilty but under the tax law everyone is not
deemed to be without income until the Revenue Com-
missioners are in a position to prove he has an income.
If that were a principle of tax law the Revenue Com-
missioners could not issue assessment notices in advance
of information received. They would have to wait until
they got information and I am sure every Member
would be honest and pragmatic enough to admit the
tax law would be wholly unworkable if that principle
were introduced.
We are simply providing the Revenue Commissioners
with the weapon necessary to collect the tax that the
Legislature, in its wisdom or otherwise, says should be
paid.
Mr. Colley: The Minister is breaching the seal of the
confessional in that section.
'
Mr. R. Ryan: I am not aware that anyone has
suggested the confessional box is used for the purpose
of transferring money abroad with the intention of
avoiding tax liability.
Major de Valera: The Minister has made some
interesting points and, for the second time, I have to
thank him for giving me my most cogent argument.
The section he has accused me of voting for states
. . every person in whatever capacity . ..". It says
nothing about solicitors or clients. It is for the Courts
to interpret what the content is. The only intent of
Parliament that is taken cognisance of is the Court's
interpretation how far it goes. Otherwise we would not
have the provisions of this section.
If the Minister is to stand on this section it should
be enough for him to do so on his own argument and
that he would not need to bring in a specific section to
try to capture lawyers and so on. "Every person"" should
be sufficient. The Courts would be careful to distinguish
such socially and legally important principles in the
relationship between solicitors and clients. Thé Minister
had to go specifically after the solicitor-client relation-
' ship to try to enforce his line of approach here.
In relation to this section, why not have it tested?
Sooner or later it will be tested by the Supreme Court.
It is a good thing that what we say in Parliament will
not be evidence of intent or of the slightest use in the
Courts.
I should like the Minister to take all this in the spirit
in which it is given. I do not think he or the authorities
concerned can complain about our anxiety to assist the
Revenue Commissioners in the use of their functions.
Deputy Colley, as a predecessor of the Minister, cannot
but share his concern to get after tax evasion. How-
ever, I do not think this will be of much use in
getting after evaders. I would ask t he Minister to
restore fully the privilege I tried to trace earlier and
I suggest there should be a trial before a morass
is created in this area because I have a feeling that
sooner or later some cases will come before the Courts
and there might be very peculiar results. I say
that this is a step towards initiating a situation
which I should not like to see develop, namely, that
. 2 5 8