The Gazette 1975

Dail Eireann FINANCE BILL 1975—COMMITTEE STAGE 23 APRIL 1975 Part II Mr. Colley: I move amendment No. 19. In page 18, to insert a new section before section 34 as follows:

their investigations in cases where taxpayers might complain of their activities and believe that they had gone beyond what was reasonably required for the ex- ecution of their duties. I assume the Minister would agree that the Revenue Commissioners should not go and and are not entitled legally to go beyond what is reasonably required for the execution of their duties. Therefore we ought to set that out clearly. Mr. R. Ryan: The question is that of the reason- ableness of the actions of the Revenue Commissioners. The constraints or the propriety of any investigation are set out in the 1974 Act. The Revenue Commis- sioners may not investigate anything other than that for which they are given power in sections 57 to 60 of the 1974 Act. If a person to whom notice is addressed considers himself aggrieved, that the Revenue Commissioners are overstepping their power, he can challenge the propriety of any such notice. Section 59 of the 1974 Act contains a safeguard to ensure the confidentiality of the relationship between solicitor and client. There is even a limit on the amount of information which the Revenue Commissioners may obtain from a soli- citor, who is confined to giving the name and address of a client, of a transferee of the person concerned, of a body corporate involved, of a settlor or of some per- son resident or domiciled outside the State to whom assets are trejisferred for tax avoidance purposes. The wording of section 59 is taken from the statute of an- other country and has been well and truly tried for 39 years. Obviously there is merit in using language which has stood the test of time. There are slight variations in wording. Language used by parliamentary draftsmen must change from generation to generation. There is this con- tinuing change in the use of words but, in effect, the wording we have used here is that which has stood the test of time and which achieves what Deputy Colley attempted to achieve in the amendment. Mr. Colley: This amendment relates to transactions which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners or an officer they may appoint, it is proper that they should investigate. It is not confined to investigation of activities by solicitors. The point made by Deputy de Valera on the pre- vious amendment probably has some validity, and the Minister accepts that also: that it is possible that the amendment might result in a more favourable interpre- tation by the Courts for the Revenue Commissioners. What I am concerned with is that the Legislature .215

"34—Section 59 (2) (b) of the Finance Act, 1974 is hereby amended by the substitution of 'with respect to which the Revenue Commissioners or of such officer as the Revenue Commissioners may appoint may reas- onably require information' for 'which in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners or of such officer as the Revenue Commissioners may appoint it is proper that they should investigate'." There is a considerable similarity between this amendment rnd No. 18 but there is also a difference. Like the previous amendment it was tabled last year but was not discussed because of the guillotine motion used to terminate the debate on the 1974 Act. Section 59, subsection (2) (b) of the 1974 Act reads: As to transactions which in the opinion of the Rev- enue Commissioners ma.y appoint it is proper that they investigate for the purpose of sections . . My amendment proposes to delete the words "which in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners or of such officer as the Revenue Commissioners may ap- point it is proper that should investigate" and to sub- stitute for that "with respect to which the Revenue Commissioners or such officer as the Revenue Commis- sioners may appoint may reasonably require informat- ion." This is slightly different from the last one in that in this case the section refers to that which in the opin- ion of the Revenue Commissioners or an officer of theirs, it is proper that should investigate, whereas the amendment proposes words to the effect "with respect to which they may reasonably require information." The object here is to try to provide a basis on which the Courts may act in the case of an aggrieved tax- payer. If the amendment is accepted any officer of the Rev- enue Commissioners who, perhaps for reasons of ex- cessive zeal or otherwise, may be tempted to go beyond what is proper, would find that he must consider how the Courts would interpret his action. I suggest that he would be less inclined to be concerned with the question of whether the Courts would interfere with his activities under the section as drafted than he would if this amendment were accepted. There is no restrict- ion involved on the legitimate activities of the Revenue Commissioners in their pursuance of the various sect- ions. All I am proposing is the laying down-of some criteria to which the Courts could have regard in judg- ing the activities of the Revenue Commissioners in