247 / 300
Mr.
R.
Ryan:
He
deliberately
conveyed
the impression that this was a witch-hunt by
the Revenue Commissioners to get a lot of information
about advice given, to require the solicitors to disclose
what information they received from the clients who
consulted them and to state precisely what they did.
That is not required. They are required to give the
names and addresses of the people who have engaged
in the transfer of assets abroad for the purpose of
avoiding tax.
It is all very well for the Opposition to state that they
share with us a desire to stop people transferring assets
abroad for the purpose of avoiding tax and in the same
breath stating: "We do not propose to enable the
Revenue Commissioners to take the necessary steps to
stop the transfer of assets abroad for the purpose of
avoiding tax."
I deplore the remarks to which Senator Brosnan has
just now referred—the remarks of Deputy O'Malley in
the Dail when he asserted that he proposes to disobey
the law. It is unforgivable that a man should do it
in such a way as might entice people to consult him for
the purpose of engaging in the transfer of assets abroad
for tax avoidance purposes.
Mr.
Yeats:
This
is
a
typical
example
of
the
way
in
which
the
Revenue
Com-
missioners over the years literally are allowed
to get away with murder. The Minister appears
to envisage what is almost a 1984 situation. He says in
his simplistic way that if we in the Opposition were
really against tax avoidance then we could give him the
powers he wants. We all know there are things going on
that ought not to go on. People break the law and
attempt to evade taxes. It is simply because we know
this, and in the interests of the civil rights, that one has
to ensure that authorities do not try to take upon
themselves powers which are unjustified.
Power is being sought to require every solicitor to give
the names to the Garda of all those who they know
have been employed in certain named offences. The
principle is precisely the same in each case. We are
against sin, crime and wrongdoing of all kinds. That
does not mean that we are bound to accept a 1984
situation in which the authorities are in a position to
cross all the boundaries of confidentiality that have
been set against them over the generations.
I will give the Minister credit in assuming that he
would not be prepared to accept a situation where
solicitors were instructed by the Garda to report to them
the names of all clients who have been known to them
to have been involved in breaking the law.
Whether one is guilty or not, one must be
able to go to a solicitor and seek his advice without
feeling he will rush off to the Garda to report that one
has been engaged in illegal activities.
As much as we object to and resent the activities of
people who are attempting to evade tax, we must have
regard
to
the
requirements
of
confidentiality.
The
preservation
of
confidentiality
between
solicitor
and
client
is
more
important
than
the immediate interests of the Revenue
Com-
missioners. This is not just a proposal to say that
from now on transactions of this kind may be reported
in effect by a solicitor having to give the names and
addresses of his clients. The words used are "he must
state that he is or was acting on behalf of a client".
The Revenue Commissioners can go back fifteen years
if they want to. They can go on a fishing expedition
back
through
the
generations.
There
is
no
limit.
They
can
call
upon
a
solicitor
to
get the name of a client who was involved
in transferring funds in 1952. That is the problem with
which we are faced. It is in the interests of the Revenue
Commissioners and all taxpayers that as much tax as
possible should be collected and that there be as little
fraud as possible. Nonetheless, there are other more
important interests. We feel in this instance that the
Minister is violating them.
Mr. Brosnan: It seems extraordinary that the Minis-
ter should use this House to make an attack on the
President of his own society. It is very significant that
not one legal colleague of the Minister, either in this or
in the other House, with one exception, got up and
spoke in favour of this measure. These are people who
studied the section and who knew what it was about.
They all refused to come to his assistance. This was
noted by many people, including the public. The only
person who made a contribution in relation to this
section was the Leader of the House and he made an
apology.
Incidentally, there is some provision in the Finance
Acts whereby solicitors are required to send certain
returns to the Revenue Commissioners every year. I do
not know how long this provision has been in force. I do
know that solicitors have repeatedly refused to make
these returns. What has the Minister or anybody else
done about it? The same will happen in this case.
Could the Minister tell the House whether it is a fact
that they have refused to make these returns.
Mr. R. Ryan: I do not know.
Mr. Brosnan: Does the Minister know about these
returns or about the provision?
Mr. R. Ryan: I know about the provision.
There
is
a
provision
in
law
that
any
person who receives money for and on behalf of another
may be required to disclose information about such
money to the Revenue Commissioners.
Mr. Brosnan: Is it a fact that the solicitors' profes-
sion have refused repeatedly yeai after year to make
these returns to the Commissioners?
Mr. J. Fitzgerald: Even the bank managers had
to do it.
Mr. Brosnan: They refused to do it.
Mr. R. Ryan: This is not an 1984 situation. As 1
pointed out already it is a 1939 situation.
Mr. Brosnan: It is a George Orwell situation.
Mr. R. Ryan: It has existed in the UK since 1939.
Mr. Yeats: For thirty-five years Ministers for Finance
have resisted the impulse to go on the disreputable road
followed in England. It has taken thirty-five years for
te Minister to come round to it.
Mr. Brosnan: Does the provision exist? If it does, i
s
it not ignored by the profession.
Mr. R. Ryan: It is in the 1967 Act.
Mr. Lenihan: In practice it has been ignored.
Mr. Brosnan: A return has never been made.
Mr. R. Ryan: I think there is evidence to the
contrary.
Mr. Brosnan: I have made very positive
inquiries
and neither the Minister nor his predecessor could do
anything about it.
Mr. Lenihan: This is why all this is utter
n o n s e n s e-
It is unnecessary, superfluous. It will never be enforced-
Question : "That the words proposed to be deleted
stand", put and declared carried.
Recommendation declared lost. Section 59 agreed to-
244