The Gazette 1975

This also is an amendment which was put down to the Bill last year and which was not reached. It is an amendment to section 59 (4) of the Finance Act, 1974. The effect of the amendment would be that subsection (4) would read as follows: Nothing in this section shall impose on any bank the obligation to furnish any particulars of any ordin- ary banking transactions between the bank and a cus- tomer carried out in the ordinary course of banking business, nor on a solicitor, barrister or accountant act- ing in his professional capacity to give any particulars whatever concerning any advice by him on behalf of a client. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the relationship between a solicitor, a barrister or an accountant and the client should not be interfered with in any way; the relationship between a solicitor and client is a matter that has received special legal recog- nition for many centuries. The Minister may say the information that may be sought from a solicitor, for instance in circumstances such as are envisaged her, is limited and certainly it is limited in a certain way. There are two points: first, such information can be obtained by the Revenue Commissioners in other ways and, secondly, what would be lost if one were to inter- fere with the relationship of a solicitor and client, would far outweigh anything that could be gained by this section if it is amended.. The effect of interfering with that relationship is not merely what is done in the section. If it is done in this section it is only a matter of time until it is pushed further and further and such a relationship ceases to exist or to have any special meaning, particularly in law. The consequences are that a person will find he cannot consult with his solicitor for advice in regard to certain courses of action because even consulting for advice without taking action ultimately could be something on which the solicitor would be obliged to report. Th e development of this kind of law may appear in the short term to benefit the Revenue Commissioners but, in fact, it is doing the exact opposite If the people whom these sections are de- signed to get after are of the belief that consulting their bank, solicitor, accountant, or a barrister through their solicitor, will mean that information concerning their activities will be given to the Revenue Commis- sioners by these people, naturally they will not consult them. Any possible advantage that might have been envisaged disappears because such people will ensure that the activities they engage in will be unknown to their solicitor or their hank. There is a grave danger here. There are a number of trusts which have been set up in this country, whose sole purpose is to ensure that the tax to be derived is paid to the Irish Revenue Commissioners and not to foreign Revenue Commissioners. That is their sole pur- pose and yet the effect of a proposal before the House will be that they will be closed down and the revenue will go to other countries. What may appear to be something that will aid the Revenue Commissioners may do a great deal more damage than any benefit that might accrue. .216

should lay down clearly for the Courts what the Legis- lature wants and not depend unduly on decisions, particularly decisions by foreign Courts, on texts which are slightly different from the texts of this Bill. The Minister knows that a slight difference can make all the difference in the interpretation. I believe it is far preferable that we should lay down in the legislation we enact sufficient to indicate without any doubt , that we want to ensure that the powers being given to the Revenue Commissioners are exercised reasonably, that the specific powers as in this case to investigate certain transactions, are exercised in such a way as is reason- ably necessary for the purpose of carrying out the duties of the Revenue Commissioners under this legisation. I see no valid objection from the Minister's point of view to this House spelling out clearly that what we want is to give these powers to the Revenue Commis- sioners but to make it clear that we are not giving absolute power to them. We want to say: "You may investigate anything which you reasonably need to investigate to carry out the duties laid on you by these sections". Mr. R. Ryan: I cannot add to what I have already said other than that I have now checked the wording of the 1936 British Act and find it is on all fours with the wording to which Deputy Colley takes exception, that is that it requires the opinion of the Board of In- land Revenue and it would relate to matters which an inspector thought it proper that they should investigate. Ruairi Brugha: It seems there is a distinction be- tween "in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners or of such officer as the Revenue Commissioners may appoint it is proper they should investigate" and what is proposed in the amendment. It is, of course, a matter of interpretation and lawyers interpret things differ- ently. It seems to be pretty broad. The opinion of the Board of the Revenue Commissioners may be one thing and the opinion of any officer could be something else. It would seem better if the Minister were to require the Commissioners to spell out what they would think nec- essary. Here, there is a distinction between anything that one might think and Deputy Colley's amendment what may be reasonably thought to be—may reasonab- ly require information. It is a matter of legal interpre- tation but is is important that the Minister should 'be reasonable at all times. Mr. Colley: The Minister has made up his mind that he will not accept the amend- ment no matter what arguments are put forward and he had his mind so made up before he came in. That being so, there is not much point in prolong- ing the debate. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Colley: I move amendment No. 20. In page 18, to insert a new section before section 34 as follows: "34—Section 59 (4) of the Finance Act, 1974 is here- by amended by the deletion of all words after 'busin- ess' to the end of the subsection and the substitution of 'nor on a solicitor, barrister or accountant acting in his professional capacity to give any particulars what- ever concerning qny advice given by him to, or any- thing done by him on behalf of, a client'."