Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 May 1926

Vol. 15 No. 10

FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—REPORT. - RESOLUTION No. 14.

I move:—

"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 14."

The principal effect of this resolution is to make it clear that the value of property shall be taken as the value at the time that the successor comes into it—when it is actually acquired—and not the value at the time when the original Will was made in virtue of which the succession took place. That, according to certain practices, cuts both ways. The existing arrangement and practice, on which a certain doubt has been thrown by a decision of a British Court, is the fairest one. It sometimes may benefit the Exchequer and sometimes the taxpayer. For instance in recent cases it will benefit the taxpayer. If a person died, say, in 1919 and left a farm of land to his mother for life and afterwards to his brother under the arrangement that existed heretofore, and under the arrangement which we want to put beyond doubt, by this resolution, if succession duty was being paid now it would be paid on the value of the land, at the present time, and not on the value of the land in 1919, which was the peak year. In that case it would operate to the advantage of the taxpayer. If, however, the original Will were made earlier, say in 1914, and a succession occurred under it, at the present time, the land would be valued at the present value which is greater than 1914.

resumed the Chair.

In the present condition of agriculture?

I think so; perhaps I should have cited a house instead of land. In any case the arrangement that the value shall be taken at the time the succession takes place is the only just and reasonable one and is the basis on which succession duty has always been charged, but the decision of the English Court has thrown doubt on the effect of the law as it exists.

Who is to make the valuation and upon what is the valuation based? That is a very important question.

That is a big question. The valuation is made by the Commissioner of Valuation acting for the Revenue Commissioners, and there is an appeal to a referee, appointed by an appointing body, consisting of, I think, the Chief Justice, the President of the High Court and the President of the Surveyors' Institute.

On what is the valuation based?

I am not prepared to answer the Deputy, but a great deal of valuation goes on. It is based on the usual principles.

I have seen valuations made recently, based on fictitious prices paid for farms in a district, and that is taken as the value of the holdings. The President instanced a case the other day where a farm outside Dublin was sold and the competition was between two or three publicans. Is that to be taken as the value of an agricultural holding passing from father to son? Is it to be valued on that basis?

The words of the Act are:—"The particular value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, such property would fetch, of sold in the open market, at the time of the death of the deceased." That is fixed, as I have said, by the Commissioner of Valuation in the first instance, acting for the Revenue Commissioners, and there is an appeal to a referee

And one of those residential holdings outside the city is to be taken as of the same value as an agricultural holding.

I think the thing is done fairly enough.

It is, of course, from the point of view of the Minister for Finance.

No, but from the point of view of the taxpayer. The referee is appointed by an authority over which the Minister for Finance has no control, and he has no interest in doing anything but acting fairly in the matter.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share