The Gazette 1975

Dail Debates

Finance Bill, 1975—Committee Stage. April 22 and 23, 1975. Mr. Colley: I move amendment No. 18:

House last year but which was not reached. Mr. R. Ryan : This matter was discussed at some length in the other House. I pointed out there that the Revenue Commissioners, like any other arm of the State, must act reasonably at all times and that if they fail to act reasonably they are amenable to the Courts. The mere fact that they can be challenged in the Courts is ample protection for the citizen. It might be worthwhile to put on the record of the House what the British Court said. Incidentally, 1 should observe that the legislation in Britain deals with requiring certain certain people to make disclosures about the transfer of moneys abroad for tax avoidance purposes was introduced in 1936. It is simply providing an absolutely necessary weapon to counter tax avoidance by the transfer of assets abroad. Those who endeavour to avoid tax by transferring as- sets abroad are not simple people; they will go to any lengths to conceal their activities from the Revenue Commissioners and if they succeed it is not merely the

"34—Section 59 (1) of the Finance Act, 1974 is here- by amended by the substitution of 'reasonably require' for 'think necessary'." This amendment relates to the Finance Act, 1974. Subsection (1) to which this relates is as follows: — The Revenue Commissioners may by notice in writing require any person to furnish them within such time as they may direct (not being less than twenty-eight days) with such particulars as they think necessary for the purposes of section 57, 58 and 60. My amendment proposed to enable the Revenue Commissioners to serve a notice in writing requiring any person to furnish them within such time as they direct, not being less than 28 days, with such particu- lars as they reasonably require for the purpose of sec- tions 57, 58 and 60. The practical effect for many people of this amendment might be nil but for other people it could be of extreme importance because the section as drafted enables the Revenue Commissioners or any officer they may appoint to seek such infor- mation as they think, or as he thinks, necessary for the purposes of the sections I have referred to. On the face of it, that would appear to apply no limitation on the particulars which may be sought other than some connection which, in some cases might be very tenuous, with the matters dealt with in sections 57, 58 and 60. On the other hand, acceptance of the amendment would not inhibit the Revenue Commis- sioners from obtaining any information that would be required for the purpose of carrying out their work. There is a significance in the phrase "reasonably re- quire" as against "think necessary" because the infor- mation and the particulars sought by the Revenue Com- missioners must be such as they reasonably require for the purposes of these other sections there is built in some criteria whereas the section as drafted has no such criteria. This means that in a very unreasonable case where the Revenue Commissioners or an officer appointed by them acted very unreasonably, it would be possible for an aggrieved taxpayer to have a remedy by applying to the Court and establishing that the in- formation sought was not reasonably required. If it were reasonably required the taxpayer, by definition, Would be bound to furnish it but unless this amend- ment was expected there would appear to be virtually ° o limitation on the information which may be sought. That is wrong in principle as well as in practice. There- lore, the Minister should not have any difficulty in accepting the amendment, an amendment to the same effect as one tabled to the Bill that was before the

ALL IRELAND ALL PURPOSE PROFESSIONAL PROPERTY VALUATION SERVICE

Osborne King &Megran

Dublin 760251 Cork 21371 Galway 65261

also at Belfast and London

.183