Previous Page  147 / 822 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 147 / 822 Next Page
Page Background

claim for an increase in duty in respect of such

increased value.

In 1944, the Society took the matter up with the

Controller of Death Duties in connection with a

case in which a claim for additional duty was made

upon executors some years after they had distributed

the estate, notwithstanding that a certificate in

the form mentioned above had already been issued.

The Council took the opinion of Senior Counsel

who advised that Section XI (i) does not impose

any obligation on the Revenue Commissioners to

issue a certificate of discharge as it merely states

that the Commissioners

on being satisfied

that full

duty has been paid

shall

issue

the

certificate.

Furthermore, this certificate is limited to

estate

duty and does not cover legacy or succession duty.

He also advised that Section XI (i) merely discharges

the property and does not release the party account

able from his personal liability.

Section XI (2)

discharges the property and the person accountable,

but here again the discharge is limited to estate

duty.

Certificate No 149, which is issued by the Revenue

Commissioners to the effect that there is no out

standing charge for death duties (including legacy

and succession duties), does not appear to be issued

in pursuance of Section XI of the Finance Act,

1894, and is in fact a non-statutory certificate.

It

is doubtful whether the Revenue Commissioners

have ever issued a statutory certificate in accordance

with Section XI. The effect of the qualifying clauses

which appear in the non-statutory certificate No.

149, is that an executor may not be safe in dis

tributing an estate, without setting aside a fund

to provide for the possibility of outstanding death

duties, until a period of six years has elapsed from

the date of death, having regard to

the danger

that additional facts may come

to

light at a

subsequent date, which were unknown to him when

he distributed the estate, which may give rise to

a

further claim

for duty for which he will

be personally liable.

The following statement in regard to the present

Certificate No. 149, appears at page 28 of the late

Mr. Glover's Treatise on

the Registration of

Ownership of land in Ireland :—

" The form of the certificate issued by the

Commissioners to the effect that on the facts

disclosed to them they have no claim for

duty, is not a certificate that complies with

Section XI of the Finance Act; and having

regard to the express terms of sub-section 3

of that section it is difficult to understand

why or on what grounds the certificate is

issued. Such a certificate at any rate does not

justify an entry in the Registry of exemption

from duty."

61

In February, 1944, the Council suggested to the

Revenue Commissioners that the two qualifying

clauses mentioned above should be omitted in

future from certificate No. 149, and that where

an application is made for a certificate the Revenue

Commissioners should decide once and for all what

value they will accept in respect of the property

and issue an unqualified certificate on that basis.

They also suggested that as Section XI of the

Finance Act, 1894, is limited in its application,

and as

the present certificate No. 149 does not

appear to be a statutory certificate it would be

advisable to seek statutory authority for the issuing

in proper cases of a certificate which would relate

to all death duties and would discharge both the

property and the personal representatives or other

accounting parties from liability for such duties.

On February i8th, 1944, Mr. Casey, the Controller

of Death Duties, wrote to the Society referring

to Section 14 of the Customs and Inland Revenue

Act, 1889, which has application both to estate

duty and legacy and succession duties, and which

has the effect of exonerating from liability for duty,

after the expiration of six years from the date of

the furnishing of a full and true account of the

property, an executor or other party accountable

for such duty. Mr. Casey considered that this

section by analogy justifies

the practice of the

Revenue Commissioners in inserting the six years'

qualifying clause in the certificate of discharge,

No. 149.

This argument, however, seems to be

begging the question as it is precisely in cases

which do not come within the scope of Section 14

of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889,

that the executor requires a certificate of discharge.

If the executor could afford to wait for six years

before distributing the estate he might not require

a certificate to discharge him from his personal

liability, but, as is universally known, an executor

who waited so long before distributing the estate

would be subject to continual pressure from the

beneficiaries, and such delay would in fact be

unreasonable in most cases.

Mr. Casey further pointed out that under Section

XI (3) it is open to any party accountable to request

the Commissioners to determine the value of the

property for the purpose of death duties, and that

once the value has been determined by the Valuation

Commissioners or fixed on an appeal to the Court

from such determination,

it becomes

final and

binding on both the taxpayer and the State. In such

cases the six years' qualifying clause

is

omitted

from Certificate No. 149, but the limitation of the

discharge to the facts disclosed by application for

the certificate remains. It is only in cases where the

Valuation Office

raise no question

on the value of the