Previous Page  215 / 346 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 215 / 346 Next Page
Page Background

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND

GAZETTE

Vol. 77 No. 8.

October 1983

In this issue . . .

Comment

207

Right to Jury Trial in Cases of Contempt 209 Practice Notes 217 Legal Offices Mixed Football 219

Masters and Apprentices

221

Rights of Children and the discretion

of the Courts under Section 117 of

the Succession Act, 1965

223

Society Staff Retirements

231

Correspondence 233 Professional Information 234

Comment .

. . . A Foolish Tax

Executive Editor:

Editorial Board:

Advertising:

Mary Buckley

Charles R. M. Meredith. Chairman

John F. Buckley

Gary Byrne

William Earley

Michael V. O'Mahony

Maxwell Sweeney

Liam O hOisin, Telephone 305236

THe views expressed in this publication, save where

other-wise indicated, are the views of the contributors

and not necessarily the views of the Council of the

Society.

The appearance of an advertisement in this publication

does not necessarily indicate approval by the Society for

the product or service advertised.

Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.

A

S the date of implementation of the Residential Property

Tax grew nearer so the concentration of minds on the

detailed provisions revealed extraordinary examples of

misplaced logic in the legislation.

One thing must first be made clear; objection is not being

taken to an additional tax on those whose annual incomes

exceed £20,000. While many in this income bracket may have

been hard pressed by the recession and by existing levels of

taxation they are still in a group which may have to be pressed

even more heavily in the short term in the pursuit of fiscal

rectitude. There may even be a case for the introduction of a

property tax but the mix of the concepts of income level and

property value upon which the Residential Property Tax is

based has been applied with a kafka-esque logic which must lead

to ludicrous consequences.

The two aspects of the tax which have drawn most criticism

are firstly the aggregation of all household incomes, requiring

the tax payer to pay tax based on the incomes of third parties

over whom he may have no control and secondly, the "market

value" concept which with its presumption of ownership of an

un-encumbered fee simple is so artificial as to raise serious

doubts as to its constitutionality.

The tax as introduced is a nonsense. It pays lip service to the

doctrine of simplicity of taxation by the introduction of a so

called "self assessment" method. Yet if it is to be monitored at

all it may well end up with the highest cost/yield factor of all our

taxes. This at a time when the report of the Commission on

Taxation has so recently recommended the simplification of our

tax system.

As the "Economist" has recently said of the UK system,

which we have not merely inherited, but have continued largely

to follow, "taxation is an illogical mess and every tax payer

knows it": Official figures in the UK show that sophisticated

property taxes and capital taxes have high cost/yield factors.

Our profession is only too familiar with the delays which,

perhaps necessarily, are involved in the processing of capital tax

cases, with consequent inconvenience or even hardship for

members of the community.

There is a strong argument that taxes should not only be

simple, but also efficient, meaning in part that they should not

result in tax payers taking a course of action which they would

not take in the absence of the tax. This applies not merely to the

taxes themselves but also to concessions which are given. The

"Economist" example of the half page of UK legislation

providing for tax relief on life assurance being accompanied by

28 pages of anti-avoidance legislation is not a unique one, nor

one unknown in this jurisdiction. Indeed some of the curious

provisions of the Residential Property Tax itself are evidence of

the difficulties of implementing efficiently what appears to be a

simple concept.

There is unfortunately evidence that our Revenue authorities

have been less than effective in collecting taxes from the

Corporate sector in recent years. Their resources should not

have been thinned further by the need to provide experienced

officials to monitor the collection of this new tax. It should never

have been introduced and should be repealed immediately.

207