90 / 264
GAZETTE
Correspondence
CAPITAL GAINS TAX
Following comment made at various meetings of Bar
Associations, representations were made to Mr. G.
Collcy, T.D., Tánaiste and Minister for Finance, to the
effect that the administration in respect of the above tax
should be centralised. The following reply has now been
received from An Tánaiste:
Oifig an Aire Airgeadais
Baile Atha Cliath 2.
22 May 1978
Mr. James J. Ivers
Director General
The Incorporated Law Society of Ireland
Solicitors' Buildings
Dublin 7.
Dear Mr. Ivers,
I refer to your letter of 10 February about capital gains
tax.
You mentioned in your letter that it has been
represented strongly to you by a number of solictors that
the administration of the Capital Gains Tax Act should
be centralised.
I would not be in favour of this course for a number
of reasons. The main reason is that the administration of
the Capital Gains Tax Act is bound up with the adminis-
tration of income tax and corporation tax and both these
taxes are administered by the Inspectors of Taxes from
various centres throughout the country. For example,
taxpayers are required to make a single annual statutory
return for the purposes of income tax and capital gains
tax and the essential check for the purposes of capital
gains tax is made by reference to the disposal of assets as
disclosed by this document which is supplied to the
relevant inspector of taxes. A centralisation of the capital
gains tax administration, involving a separate capital
gains tax return, could result in a duplication of queries in
many cases and in unnecessary correspondence which
would be troublesome to taxpayers, who would no longer
be able to have their income tax and capital gains tax
dealt with in the same tax office.
In the case of corporation tax, the aggregate of the
income and the chargcable capital gains of a company is
assessed to corporation tax in one sum. The agreement of
the assessment which is based on the examination of thd
accounts of the company is one idivisible operation from
which the capital gains aspect could not be divorccd.
Furthermore, it is considered that the close monitoring
of the 'roll over' provisions of Scction 28 of the Capital
Gains Tax Act. which is necessary to ensure that the
time limit for the making of assessments is not over-
looked, can only be done effectively by the inspector who
determines the annual profits or gains of the person or
, company owning the asset involved.
Another reason for adhering to the present
administrative arrangements is that approximately eighty
per cent of the cases in which capital gains arise are
settled conveniently and expeditiously by negotiation
locally between the inspector and the taxpayer or his
agent, usually an accountant. Where, exceptionally, such
agreement is not possible, the liability would fall to be
JULY-AUGUST
1978
determined by the Appeal Commissioners at an appeal
hearing held locally at which the Revenue would be
represented by the inspector of taxes and the taxpayer by
his agent. The centralisation of the capital gains tax
administration would, on the other hand, inevitably lead
to considerable delays in the majority of cases, where, as
stated, there is little or no delay at present. This would
cause greater inconvenience to taxpayers and their agents
than 'the multiple source of enquiry' to which you
referred in your letter.
Finally, mention was made in your letter of the rule of
the Capital Taxes Branch of the Revenue Com-
missioners. A relatively small number of cases are in fact
referred either to the Valuation Office (mainly cases in
which the market value as at 6 April, 1974, is taken as
the base cost of land) or to the Capital Taxes Branch of
the Revenue Commissioners (mainly cases in which a
valuation of unquoted shares arises). Such valuations,
particularly of unquoted shares, may involve detailed
enquiries or negotiations in which event delay may be
unavoidable. These delays in the small number of cases
involved would occur whether the capital gains tax is
administered locally or centrally, and certainly would not
justify centralising the administration of the capital gains
tax.
Yours sincerely,
George Colley,
Tánaiste and Minister for Finance.
ANONIMITY
Killester,
Fairyhouse,
Ratoath,
County Meath,
Republic of Ireland.
4/5/1978.
Sir,
Looking over the Gazette for March 1978,1 desire to
refer to two items therein, and both of them, even as
minutiae, will help contributors in future issues:
(1) In a bracketed headnote under "Women and the
Law" you explain that the author would rather remain
anonymous for reasons "not altogether abstruse". If a
thing is not altogether abstruse then it is not abstruse at
all and ought to be told obviously.
(2) In another Article, highly laudatory in its tone, the
author of it merely puts his or her initials at the foot. Is
this another case of abstrusencss? — or why cannot
people reveal their identity?
It is quite a coincidence that the first essay (page 31) is
entitled "Go public, your privacy is dead".
Yours truly,
Michael C. Bcatty.
9 1