The Gazette 1975

ing a section of the Finance Act, 1974 which was intro- duced for the purpose of ensuring that, as we were taking steps to stop tax avoidance by transfer of assets abroad, we would give the Revenue Commissioners sufficient powers to ensure compliance with the law. It would be pointless for Parliament to enact a law and not give anybody the power to enforce that law. What we have done is no more than is necessary to enforce it. I can go back to 1938. I have a whole brief on the matter here. In fact, I can go back to 1936, because the section in our 1974 Act is not dissimilar to what was introduced in Britain in 1936. The wonder is that we took so long to move against tax avoidance by the transfer of assets abroad. This is a practice which is engaged in by such people as have wealth surplus to their immediate requirements. I saw quite recently where a journal read by financial people in Dublin carried large advertisments for a special magazine which gives people advice as to where they can get the best return in 37 tax havens in the world. There has to be a perpetual surveillance by Parliament of actions taken by people with the intention of frustrating Parliament's intention. Every Finance Bill, almost without except- ion, includes provisions to close off loopholes which have been identified. This perpetual competition is an aspect of life that will always be with us. Major de Valera: It will always be there as long as there are accountants and lawyers. Mr. R. Ryan: As long as they have clients with an appetite sufficient to try to avaid paying tax. Of course, at the same time, ndbody is under any obligation to pay any more tax than the law requires. But, because of the need to ensure that avoidance and evasion do not reach unacceptable limits, the Legislature must strengthen the hands of the Revenue Commissioners. It could well be that in exercise of the powers under section 59 of the Finance Act, 1974, the Commissioners might get information which would not disclose a tax- able liability. Nevertheless, if they have reason to be- lieve that assets have been transferred abroad, surely it is proper that the Revenue Commissioners should take details of such assets because such assets, if trns- ferred abroad and yielding an income, are liable to tax. The Revenue Commissioners must ensure that there is a proper return in that situation, just as they have to ensure that there is a proper return of income from activities or assets within the State. We have said that there should be no difference between them. I think that is the correct attitude. I accept that there is no difference of principle be- tween us. There is a request that the language be soft- ened so that it might appear better. But I am saying that section 59 of the 1974 Finance Act may be used by the Revenue Commissioners in a reasonable way only. Before the Legislature agrees to make an amendment in the 1974 Act we would want to have evidence that section 59 was being used in a way which was oppres- sive or burdensome. That evidence does not exist and case law is against the possibility of the section being used in an oppressive or burdensome way. I think that

is the best way in which to leave it and not to be in- troducing language which, because it has not yet been tested, may cause more complications than we would wish. Major de Valera: I must say the Minister's latter arguments are more compelling than were his first ones. In this context I would like to refer to two points he made. He used the word "burdensome". I agree that the ordinary honest, straightforward taxpayer has not any real complaint. It should be borne in mind that the system is terribly burdensome to all of us.

James Cawley & Co.,

and Sheerin Wynne & Co.,

wish to announce that they have merged their firms and will practise in future as Cawley Sheerin Wynne & Co., Solicitors

at 2 Hume Street, Dublin 2.

Telephone 763505

Cables Cawlex

Telex 5511

.193