Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1929

Vol. 31 No. 1

In Committee on Finance. - Vote No. 6—Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. Blythe

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £440,300 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1930, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig na gCoimisinéirí Ioncuim, maraon le Seirbhísí áirithe eile atá fé riara na hoifige sin.

That a sum not exceeding £440,300 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, including certain other Services administered by that office.

The increase shown in the Estimate is due mainly to incremental increases. There is also some slight addition to the staff of the Chief Inspector of Taxes.

Mr. MacEntee

The greater part of my speech on the Report Stage of the Finance Bill dealt with certain aspects of income tax administration. I do not propose to keep the House very long discussing this Estimate, but I should like to refer to a statement made by the Minister for Finance, that it had not been the practice to impose penalties in cases in which false or incomplete returns of income had been made to the British authorities prior to the change of Government in 1922. I accept what the Minister has said, that it was not the policy of his Department to impose penalties in such cases, but, at the same time, I must say that since he made that statement I have received from very many and very responsible quarters representations that the Minister's statement was at variance with the facts; that actually penalties had been imposed in regard to incomplete returns made prior to 1922. It has also been pointed out to me that it has been the practice of the Revenue Commissioners to use the threat of penalties in regard to income tax returns to compel taxpayers to make a full disclosure of their income over a considerable number of years prior to 1922; going back in many cases to 1914, and, in one case, I have been informed, going back actually to 1886.

As well as that, there are a number of other aspects to which I think attention should be directed. First of all, I should like to know what action the Commissioners have taken arising out of the High Court decision in the case of Spain v. the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. In that case the Special Commission, acting on what the High Court declared was an erroneous view of the law, refused repayment to a claimant. The court held under the Statute that they could not override or reverse the decision of the Special Commissioners in the matter, but, at the same time, expressed the view that the Special Commission should reconsider its decision, although it could not be compelled to do so. I should be glad to know from the Minister what action the Special Commissioners have taken in regard to that case. I ask that question because I know that in other cases the Special Commission has no hesitation in acting harshly and even illegally. As an instance of that, I take a case which occurred in 1927 of a wine merchant.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Was that in 1927?

Mr. MacEntee

It was prior to 1927, and I am anxious to know whether the Special Commissioners still persist in a course of action condemned, in no uncertain terms, by the judges of the Supreme Courts, for in that case the Special Commissioners overrode the ordinary law.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is an Estimate for 1928. The Deputy cannot go back to what happened in 1927. I think the Deputy is aware of that.

Mr. MacEntee

Possibly. I was going to mention the case simply because I wanted an assurance from the Minister that a practice which was condemned was no longer carried out. Of course, there may be the possibility that the Special Commissioners, owing to that judgment, have modified their attitude. But I am informed by those having many dealings with them that the general view-point of the Special Commission is that it is a tribunal that has powers of overriding, and does habitually override, every statute in the State.

If I am not allowed to deal with that, there is another aspect of income tax administration to which I think attention should be directed. In Section 202 of the Act of 1918, which is one of the special provisions applying only to Ireland, I think, any appeal to the High Court upon a decision of the Special Commissioners on claims of repayment is precluded. Now, in the case of companies, particularly in such cases as Guinness, in respect of taxes paid by them on Irish profits, the Revenue Commissioners take the view, I believe, that although such companies are registered in England, but earning their profits in Ireland, the tax paid by them on their Irish profits cannot be recovered by shareholders in Ireland who are entitled to exemption or abatement.

Mr. Blythe

That is ancient history.

Mr. MacEntee

I know it is, but I took the precaution of inquiring to-day from an income tax recovery agent if that attitude was still maintained by the Special Commissioners, and he told me that was their custom, and is their custom at the present moment.

Mr. Blythe

It is not now; that sort of thing could not arise at all, since the coming into existence of the present arrangements of the double relief tax.

Mr. MacEntee

Am I to understand, then, that so far as small income tax payers are concerned, the Special Commissioners now grant their claims for repayment where tax has been deducted?

Mr. Blythe

No Free State tax is now paid.

Mr. MacEntee

I am glad to hear that, but it is rather extraordinary, because I was talking to an income tax expert on this matter to-day.

Mr. Blythe

It is about four years out of date—at least three.

Mr. MacEntee

I was talking to a person with an extensive practice, and he assured me that that custom did continue.

Mr. McGilligan

That is a bad advertisement for him.

Mr. MacEntee

I grant you that.

Mr. Blythe

It is at least three years out of date.

Mr. MacEntee

Then we will have to abandon that. There is one other matter to which I think attention ought to be directed, and that is the attitude which the Revenue Commissioners adopt in connection with Customs import duty. I believe in some cases the Customs authorities have refused to accept the declared value of goods imported, and have required a deposit to be made to cover the disputed duty claim before the referee's court. They are entitled to do it under Section 3 of the Customs Consolidation Act of 1836. Under that section, as amended by the Finance Act of 1929, they are bound forthwith to refer the matter of disputed value to the decision of the Treasury referee, and to repay any excess of the amount deposited over and above the duty as so decided. Cases have occurred in which, the deposits having been exacted, the Customs authorities have proceeded to a reference, and have withheld deposits for a period of years. I understand that custom prevails, and I would like to know what justification there is for it. The Customs authorities, having refused to accept the declared value of the goods, and having required a deposit to be made, proceed to take the matter before a Treasury referee, and to repay any excess of the amount deposited over and above the amount of the duty as determined by him. I am informed it is the custom of the Revenue Commissioners to act in the way I have described, and I would like to know from the Minister what justification there is for that attitude.

The Minister has stated that a number of cases that I cited to-night, particularly the case which occurred in 1927, and also this question of the rejection of claims for repayment by small income tax payers, no longer hold, and that the position as described to me no longer obtains. At the same time it would seem among the general body of the tax-payers—I suppose it is natural that the taypayer should take this view—that the Revenue Commissioners seem to have regarded it as their function to do more than merely collect the revenue to which they are entitled by law. They would seem, as a matter of fact, to seek to increase the revenue by straining any statutory provisions which would give them any advantage or a lever over a taxpayer. I do not think that is a proper view for the Commission to take of its duty. It should act in a more or less judicial capacity, and should endeavour to act justly as between the taxpayer on the one hand, and the State on the other. It should act entirely within the law, and not in any way attempt to strain the statute as against the taxpayer.

The feeling among a considerable body of taxpayers is that the income tax authorities particularly are going to unjustifiable limits in their efforts to collect arrears of income tax. I have in front of me a statement signed by a person who declares that in the present year a sum of £3,313 has been demanded from him by way of excess profits duty for the years 1916-1920. Income-tax amounting to £865 has been demanded from him in respect of the years from 1914-1927. In this case the Revenue Commissioners have demanded altogether from this taxpayer a sum of £4,178 17s. 0d., plus compound interest at 5 per cent. and a reasonable sum in respect of mitigated penalties. My correspondent informs me that in 1927 he went to the income tax authorities and gave them particulars of all sources of income, and gave them authority to get his bank returns. He states: "As my premises and books were burned in 1920, I am unable to dispute the above figures. I may also mention I was out of business for nearly three years, but I am taxed as if my business was carried on as usual. I have offered to pay all tax due to the Free State since it was established, but this offer would not be considered, and I am still willing to pay them, but if the arrears demanded are recovered, I may close down my business." It would seem to me the Commissioners are acting here with undue harshness. This man's premises and books were burned in 1920. Income tax and excess profits duty have been demanded from him for the years prior to 1921-22. They have also demanded from him interest at five per cent. and a reasonable sum in respect of mitigated penalties.

I do not know how the Commissioners feel themselves justified in going back to the years prior to 1921-22, particularly in view of the fact that the man's business premises and books were burned in 1920, and he was out of business for nearly three years. Surely it is hard to justify going back prior to the date upon which this man's premises were burned. The Minister told us that penalties are not being imposed for making false returns in respect of the years prior to 1921-22. In this case, according to my informant, he went to the income tax authorities in 1927 and made a full disclosure of all his sources of income, and gave them authority to get bank returns, although he himself had no books available for the years 1920-21. I think, having regard to the general view which the public take of the manner in which the Revenue Commissioners are acting at present, that they are straining the law. In some cases, especially in the case taken to the Supreme Court but which I will not be permitted to refer to, they are over-riding the law, and their action has been condemned in no uncertain language by the Chief Justice.

I think before we allow this Vote to go through we are entitled to have from the Minister some assurance that in collecting revenue the Income Tax Commissioners and the Revenue Commissioners will give more consideration to the taxpayer than hitherto they have done. He is generally, as we know, a very patient beast of burden. But there are times even when the camel's back will be broken. The Revenue Commissioners have proceeded with such extreme hardship that firms have been made bankrupt and have had to seek the protection of the courts, as Mr. Joseph Reed did some years ago owing to the demands of the Revenue Commissioners. The purpose of the Revenue Commissioners is of course, to collect revenue. At the same time they should not behave like the man who killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. They ought not to proceed to execute the taxpayer or the taxpayer's business in order to get the pound of flesh. I feel that in view of the very general complaints which we have received from taxpayers of all classes and of all political parties as to the present manner in which income tax is collected in this country, that we would not be justified in asking the Dáil to pass this Estimate.

Mr. T. Murphy

Certain activities of the Revenue Commissioners were reviewed on the debate on the Finance Bill. There are certain activities which I am anxious to draw the attention of the House to now, and if I take some time in doing that, I think the cases I am submitting to the House demand that. I want to know, first of all, whether the Minister is aware of what is happening in certain cases of which Deputies here are informed fairly regularly. I think that some of us, at any rate, have come to the conclusion that it is useless to make any representations whatever to the Revenue Commissioners in connection with the cases under their notice.

Before proceeding very much further it seems to me that it is with difficulty that officials of the Revenue Commissioners are civil when representations are being made to them. It seems to me that certain activities of the Revenue Commissioners are nothing less than the systematic persecution of the people. I am going to substantiate that statement by concrete cases of which I can give details here to-night. The thing looks like an attempt to harass people. I want to show the House that assessments that are illegal and unjust, and that could never be sustained, are enforced because the Commissioners are dealing with unfortunate people who have no knowledge of their rights, and have no means of employing assistance in order to assert their rights. The first case I have here is that of an unfortunate constituent of mine who was assigned by an uncle of his a farm of 66 acres, two-thirds of which is not considered arable. In the assignment of this holding provision was made that during the lifetime of a sister of the man to whom the land was assigned maintenance should be provided out of the holding for that person. The assignment was made several years ago. I understand that the deed by which the assignment took place was drafted in a hasty and, I think, in a faulty condition. The result of that is that this man, in 1929, is being asked to pay £35 succession duty for suceeding to himself, because that is really what it amounts to, for several years ago the land was assigned to him. During the lifetime of his sister she enjoyed certain privileges on the land. The holding was really in the possession of the same individual during the whole of that time. Eight or nine years afterwards the Revenue Commissioners come in and demand £35 succession duty. I want the House to hear what the parish priest of the parish in which this man resides has to say about this case. He writes: "He is very poor; he has but two cows; all his stock and chattels are not worth the sum demanded by the Revenue Commissioners. He has applied to the Agricultural Credit Bank for a loan to help him to stock his land. The poor man has not the means to engage in a lawsuit against the Revenue Commissioners, but if he had he would probably be defeated on the technicality that he did not appeal against the assessment. He thought this claim was made because of some error in the office, because the claim is patently groundless." In this case the Revenue Commissioners offered no solution except that a writ has been served on the unfortunate man and he is faced with the possibility of the wretched roof over his head at the present time being sold in order to satisfy a payment of this kind. It seems to me, in view of the local opinions that I have heard offered in this case, that if this man were able to complete the appeal notice when he had an opportunity of doing so that there could be no foundation whatever even in law for a claim of this kind. I wish the Revenue Commissioners joy of the victory that they will achieve when they take the remaining cow off the wretched holding of an unfortunate man whose last penny is going in order to sustain his family on that particular holding. That is one instance of the activities of the Revenue Commissioners.

Within the last week the particulars of a case were handed to me where two constituents of mine purchased two houses in 1920. Since 1920 they have discharged all their liabilities for the tax on the two houses concerned. They purchased them under an assignment that contained a clause indemnifying them against claims on the property up to the date of the purchase. Nine years afterwards it is discovered that the person who held the houses prior to the purchase by the persons I have mentioned owed property tax. The persons concerned, who have always discharged their obligations to the Revenue Commissioners, are now faced with the possibility of having their furniture and goods seized to satisfy a claim of that sort. I do not know that the legal aspect of that case would stand investigation either. But whether it would or not, I think there is not equity or fairness in treatment of that kind. These are people who could not be considered people anxious to evade their responsibility in any way. I grant you that the task of the Revenue Commissioners is not an easy one. I do not expect very much humanity from the Revenue Commissioners in dealing with these cases; but one would expect people would get a fair deal, and that advantage would not be taken of their ignorance of their rights to mulct them. It seems to me assessments are being made regularly by the Revenue Commissioners that could not be sustained in law, and there are certain activities on the part of the Revenue Commissioners that are nothing less than legalised blackmail of the people.

I come now to another case, the case of a man who was recently decreed in the District Court in my constituency for arrears of income tax. I am in a position to know that the assessment was outrageous. I made representations to the Revenue Commissioners, not that the sum should be reduced in any way, but that that particular person would get time to meet the decree against him. I do not think that there was anything unreasonable in a request of that kind. I complain of the fact that I had to address a second letter to the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners before I got the courtesy of a reply. The usual stereotyped answer was given that the Commissioners could not interfere, as the matter was decided by the court. The Commissioners are in a position that they can put a respectable person, a decent citizen, into prison and can break him up. They will not receive any revenue as the result of this action. On the other hand, they can, as they ought to, arrange reasonable terms by which the money would be accepted over a certain period. Is there any reason why terms of that kind could not be accepted and an adjustment reached in that fashion?

The facts of another case were sent to me within the last few days, the case of a working man in West Cork. So deserving was his case considered that the Winding-up Committee of the White Cross Association, in the last few weeks of their existence, granted him a certain sum, having regard to his condition and what he endured. He has no means whatever. Again, the assessment of the Commissioners was ridiculous. The man found himself in the District Court, and was mulcted for a sum which he had no way of meeting and which he should never have been asked to pay. If the facts were known, it would probably be found that he was assessed because of certain local factors which I have no desire to bring into this discussion. The Revenue Commissioners have also something to do with old age pensions. Deputies from West Cork are familiar with a case there which has engaged the attention of the Revenue Commissioners for some time. It is the case of a claimant who irregularly obtained an old age pension some years ago. Portion of the money was refunded afterwards, but the claimant, on reaching 70 years of age, realised that a certain portion of the money was still unpaid, and so she refrained from making a claim. She claimed a pension, however, when she reached the age of 73½ years, but the Commissioners held up the pension and seriously suggested that she should go on for 3½ years more, and they refused to give her credit for the time since she became legally entitled to the pension.

Is there any real defence for an attitude of that kind? Have the Commissioners any desire to approach matters of that kind from the standpoint of fair dealing to the parties concerned, or are they simply a machine anxious to grind the last farthing out by any means, proper or improper, legal or illegal, from the type of people I have mentioned? I have other cases, but I will not repeat them at the risk of wearying the House at this late hour. In connection with the administrations of the Entertainment Tax, certain extraordinary anomalies in the decisions of the Commissioners come under my notice from time to time. I was responsible for making an application to the Revenue Commissioners some time ago for exemption for a certain concert that was taking place on behalf of the local band. I do not complain that that application was turned down, but I do complain that an application for exemption from the very same district on behalf of an entertainment which was got up to improve a certain building in the district I come from was granted. I can prove that that entertainment was exempted. I want to know where discrimination comes in or what facts, local or otherwise, impelled the Commissioners to refuse one application and to grant another. I raised the matter in the House. The President was here to answer, and a deliberately evasive answer was put into his hand. I could not question the President, as he had no knowledge of the activities of the Revenue Commissioners. I was informed that if I supplied certain particulars the matter would be inquired into. The Commissioners were aware of the point raised, because I had challenged them in the course of correspondence upon the matter. I can prove deliberately that, whether at the instigation of a local officer or not, certain entertainments, not one whit different to the entertainment I referred to, were exempted.

I suggest that before money is voted to the Revenue Commissioners to continue harassing people in this respect there should be a full inquiry into the whole position. I know that the Minister is anxious to be fair in matters of this kind, and I think he should inquire into the case I refer to. I have not exaggerated nor painted the case in any way. I have confined myself to the facts. I raise the matter not with any pleasure but because I regard it as a duty and because people from different parts of the constituency have urged me to bring forward cases of the kind. I think there is a clear case for inquiry. I re-echo what has been said already, namely, that there is a tendency to override all considerations and all laws very often. I do not know if the Minister agrees with that action. I intend to vote against the Estimate in the absence of some satisfactory explanation or some assurance that the activities of the Revenue Commissioners in this direction will be reviewed and will cease, and that people will get an opportunity of making a fair case and getting a square deal when they come under the harrow of the Revenue Commissioners in future.

Mr. Fahy

I suppose nobody expects the Revenue Commissioners to be popular in any country. They have work to do which is not pleasant, but I should like to know if they received special instructions in regard to income tax to export the last penny, and also in what percentage of cases do they accept the returns honestly made by taxpayers. From my experience of cases that have been put before me, it seems to me that in a large percentage of cases the assessment is made much higher than is justified by the returns sent in by the taxpayers. In some cases the extra assessment may be one pound or two pounds. You can, of course, go before the Special Commissioners and plead your case. Many neglect doing so, while others might not think it worth their while losing one or two days by doing so, and they prefer to pay. I have known cases in which that was done. There is one taxpayer whose circumstances I know intimately, and last year he paid £1 5s. extra rather than go before the Special Commissioners. He said it was better to pay than to have it questioned. I am perfectly certain that the amount was not owing and that there was no justification for it. I mentioned a case of assessment last year, and as it is still going on I suppose it would not be out of order to mention it again.

That is the case of John Finn. It was agreed by the representative of the Commissioners down there that he was not liable for income tax. The following year on the same income—I saw his books, and I went through them very carefully—he was assessed in a considerable sum. He demurred, naturally, but did not go before the courts in Galway and had to pay. He is still being assessed on that figure. He was assessed for a large amount of income tax when a new officer was appointed in the district. I wonder whether there is any law or any specific basis by which a man should be declared not liable for income tax by one officer, and should be declared by his successor liable for £300. It certainly seems strange. It is perhaps necessary that the decisions of the Revenue Commissioners should be ineluctable, but in arriving at these decisions they should be very careful and be more inclined to deal justly with the taxpayers than it strikes me they are at the present moment.

Mr. Cole

I would like to know from the Minister if he has received resolutions from the Cavan County Council as regards a certain road in the county. This question has been raised on several occasions before. It has been going on since 1927. This road is the old coach road from Dublin to Enniskillen via Belturbet and it has been the means of penalising the people of Belturbet town very severely. The border line comes along half a mile outside the town and the people there are not allowed to bring across merchandise of any kind. A shopkeeper some time ago was supplying cement for the building of a chapel across the border and because he was a trader, he was compelled to take a round of almost forty miles in order to get to this chapel which is only a mile outside the border. I think that is unduly penalising our own people. If it were done to prevent other people from coming in to trade here, something might be said for it, but here are our own traders who are not allowed to bring any stuff across the border. In the same way, if a man in the town wishes to buy a sheep, he has to get the farmer from whom he purchases to bring it in. He is not allowed to bring his cart across the border because thereby he becomes a trader. That gives a lot of annoyance to many people, and we can ill-afford to annoy people in that way. I would be glad if the Minister would do something in this matter because resolutions have been passed in reference to it, not alone by the County Council, but by the Belturbet Urban Council.

Another point to which I wish to call the Minister's attention is that at the present time a person has to cross the border line before nine o'clock unless he gives notice to the Customs officer beforehand that he will be crossing later when the Customs officer is generally willing to wait. I think that during the summer months, at any rate, the time might be extended until nine o'clock. Supposing, for instance, my colleague. Deputy Major Myles, wished to go to Bundoran or to Ballyshannon, and that he is kept here in the House until three o'clock or until a later hour in the afternoon. He cannot cross the border after nine o'clock without giving notice to the Customs officer, because he has to pass two barracks—one at Clones and another at Ballyshannon. I think the Minister might consider the advisability of making the time ten o'clock instead of nine, especially during the summer months. Another complaint which has been brought up here by my colleagues refers to dealers coming across the border. In the border counties we are dependent altogether on Northern dealers who come across the border.

Attention called to the fact that a quorum was not present. House counted and twenty Deputies being found present.

Mr. Cole

I was saying that we in the border counties of Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan are altogether dependent on Northern dealers who come in there. If they are hampered in coming in to buy our cattle, the cattle will be left with us. If it happens that they do not come in, the farmers can take their cattle home, the result being that the Land Commission cannot get their annuities from these farmers. I think some consideration should be given to these men. After all, they come in not to take money from us, but to leave us money. Most of us know as business men, that when we are going to get money we should give every facility to the people who are giving that money to us. I think it is a great drawback, and certainly means a considerable loss to the farmers in border counties that this tax is imposed on dealers coming in. The question has been raised in the House several times before, but it is no harm to raise it again, and I hope it will get some consideration.

Mr. Moore

I would like to draw attention to the other side of the picture which Deputy Cole has presented to us. I think the Minister should tell us whether it is not a fact that an altogether abnormal amount of time is spent by the Revenue Commissioners in dealing with the question of difficulties which arise in connection with the import of certain dutiable goods across the border. To my own knowledge there has been a huge amount of correspondence during the past twelve months on that subject. There is a great deal of money belonging to Saorstát traders in the hands of the Revenue Commissioners at present, some of it in the hands of the Commissioners for a very long time. What is the purpose of all this trouble? Is it an effort to facilitate Northern Ireland and Great Britain in getting their own goods in here on the easiest possible terms? Is it not an effort to carry out a Sinn Fein policy there to the detriment of Saorstát trading? My knowledge is confined to motor-cars, and therefore I can see no excuse for these difficulties, if it is not covetousness on the part of the British manufacturers and traders in Great Britain and Northern Ireland generally.

The usual method with regard to the sale of these cars is to give the concession to one or two traders in the Free State. Here we have in the case of several cars that are very popular here the concession for certain Free State counties given to a Belfast wholesale firm. There can be no purpose in that except the merest covetousness-give as little as possible to the Free State trader and get as much as possible for our own people. The assessment of cars because of claims made by the Free State importer causes a great deal of trouble and correspondence. We here object to all that trouble. We think there is no need for facilitating that traffic here. It is bringing no good to the Free State, and, on the contrary, what ought to be done is to assert that the Free State has the right to the wholesale profits of these goods and not the traders in Belfast or Great Britain, as the case may be. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that he is not going to put up with any more of it; that there is a quick and ready method of dealing with that, and a much less expensive method than the present method is proving.

In the same connection, I think the Minister might tell us what is the system of checking claims for preferential duty on dutiable goods imported from countries, say, like Canada. I understand it must be proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that 25 per cent. of the work done on such goods is done within the Empire. It seems a bit of a mystery to some of us how the Revenue Commissioners can be in a position to prove that. Is it their practice to accept the statement of the exporter, or have they any method of checking fraud in connection with this matter? It is asserted in another country that fraud is being carried on, and, of course, if that be the case, the revenue here is losing a certain amount. We would like some information on that matter; and, again, we would like to know is it the intention of the Free State Government to adhere to the 25 per cent. basis which has heretofore ruled in regard to the giving of Imperial preference.

I think during the past twelve months Canada has decided that there must be 50 per cent. Empire manufacture in any goods for which the preference rate is claimed on import into Canada, and there would seem no reason why we should adopt lower rates. Again, it has been suggested in connection with raising the woollen tariff that this method will be tried for securing the preference there. A great deal of very cheap material is being imported at present from Germany and CzechoSlovakia, and possibly from one or two other European countries. That material would be very likely treated in England and exported to this country, where the Imperial preference rate would be claimed. Is it the intention in that case that a mere 25 per cent. would be sufficient to justify the granting of that rate? These are questions on which we would like some information, and I hope the Minister will give some satisfactory reply.

Mr. Little

It is surprising what thrills one can get out of investigations in income tax. For quite a time past everyone accepted the totally wrong point of view that what used to be called Crown debts could not be statute barred, and under this false impression the Revenue Commissioners collected an enormous amount of tax to which they were not entitled at all. On looking up the law of the matter I discovered it in a book which has been accepted as an authority for a great number of years. My edition of the book is 1916. It is a book which has been satisfactorily used by many firms. I refer to Pratt and Redman's book on income tax. Dealing with claims for back duties we find this:—

"Claims are sometimes made by the Revenue authorities for back duties which, through inadvertence or otherwise, have not been paid for a period of years exceeding three. Such claims, since the power to make additional assessments or surcharges is limited, as above pointed out, are restricted to the three years preceding the year of assessment."

I would like the Minister to listen carefully to what follows: "The sinister method of threatening proceedings or penalties for inaccurate returns and to enforce irrecoverable debts has been discredited by the courts." Now, as to the first thing, of course the three years have been extended by the 1925 Act to six years in all cases except in cases of the estates of deceased persons. This shows the attitude of the people who first imposed income tax was that an income tax debt was not even on the same footing as an ordinary contract debt. Whereas a man was obliged to pay contract debts going back six years he was only obliged to pay income tax debts going back three years. Now it became a sort of moral law that we had to go back nearly one hundred years if the Commissioners liked to take us back that distance until it came out the other day in the course of a debate that the Commissioners could only go back six years. It has worked some inequitable proceedings during the last three years, cases in which not merely were the people unfairly treated, because the Revenue Commissioners were acting on laws which did not exist, but also because the people themselves have been landed in a state of almost absolute poverty. I know myself the case of a man who had a business in Dublin. He was very progressive before and during the Great War. He was the only man, I think, in Ireland that time who was cutting gears for motor cars, and owing to be succession of wars in the country his overdraft became too great. In the end his estate had to be administered, and one of his great difficulties at present is the claim for back duties made by the Revenue Commissioners. I hope the Minister will look into this particular case. I can give him the name of the particular person.

He has been extraordinarily brave through the whole thing. Although in a state of absolute poverty, he has always managed to keep a courageous front. He is a man who did some service of a curious kind for our common cause during the Black and Tan period. He happens to be the man who gave the rifle to Kevin Barry. I hope the Minister will look into the case of this man and see that no further claims are made against him with regard to the past, because it might make the difference ultimately for him of starvation or not, if these claims are not pursued. One is struck by the iniquity of having collected an amount of income tax which was not due, but unfortunately the individual cannot proceed against the Revenue Commissioners because it has been a mistake of law. Whereas he might recover if it was a mistake of fact, he cannot pursue it if it is a mistake of law. At the same time, if there was a particular case where the Revenue Commissioners actually put a man in jail under their system of body-warrants for not paying taxes which they had no right to claim, I am not at all sure that that individual has not got the right of action against the Revenue Commissioners for false imprisonment. Again, as regards income tax experts who misled people as to the law, it is not at all certain that individuals could not have rights of action against income tax experts for having misled them. The situation is a serious one, and probably in a couple of years we will have the Revenue authorities bringing in an Indemnity Act to cover the situation.

Last year the Minister for Finance very sensibly agreed to arrange for a certificate to be given in respect of property which would be transferred where income tax had been paid, so as to prevent a recurrence of claims for income tax. It was for the purpose of facilitating the sale and transfer of property. It has not worked out very satisfactorily, because the certificate is delayed, sometimes for three months and sometimes longer. I would suggest that the Minister should inquire to see if the machinery could not work a little more quickly in this matter, because, after all, where it is a question of sale of property rapidity is fairly essential. The law is slow enough as it is, with examination of title and that sort of thing, without increasing the law's delays like this. Under the Finance Act, I meant to ask the Minister when he was bringing it in if he would undertake to have an examination as to the possibility of having drawbacks given on motor-parts which would be imported into this country to people who would undertake to make the motor cars.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would not this require an amendment of law?

Mr. Little

Not the particular thing I am asking about, because I think the Minister has more or less agreed that he will do that as soon as he has made inquiries. The inquiry is purely a matter of an administrative nature.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Would it not require legislation?

Mr. Little

Ultimately, yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is, therefore, out of order.

Mr. Little

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot advocate anything on an estimate which would require legislation.

Mr. Little

I am not advocating anything. What I am doing is suggesting that he promised to have an official inquiry into the matter. An official inquiry might be fairly considered an administrative matter. I merely wish to know when he will be likely to say what he will do about this matter. While it is a small matter, this question of delay is a very serious one. For that reason I would like him, if he could, to limit the time which such inquiry would take, so that traders could know and make their arrangements accordingly as to when it would be likely that something concrete would be done.

As regards the system of body-warrants, here again it is a matter of administration until the law is changed. I would be glad to know whether he is going to instruct his Department not to exercise their powers with reference to body-warrants from this time onwards.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is it not the law at the moment?

Mr. Little

It is the law, but it is not a law of obligation. It may or may not be exercised by the Revenue Commissioners.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is the law until such time as it is amended.

Mr. Little

If the Minister gave a direction that this power is not to be exercised it would certainly case the situation until such time as a law is passed to deal with it. I would suggest to the Minister also that he should give a direction to the Minister for Justice that a certain practice should be stopped, and that is that certain English firms dealing in bicycles make policemen the agents for those bicycles, very much to the detriment of Irish-manufactured bicycles. I think it would fairly come under the province of the Minister for Finance to arrange with the Minister for Justice that if there are any such agencies they should be for Irish bicycles and for no others.

Speaking generally, I would try to encourage the Minister not to be dominated by his experts. Henry Ford gave very wise advice about that. He said: "I never ask my experts what I can do, because if I do they will always tell me I cannot do anything. But I tell them what I want done, and I tell them it is their business as experts to find a way to do it." I suggest if he would take up that line it would be greatly to the good of the country. There have been discoveries, and there are prospects of discoveries in the region of finance which will be as surprising and of as great advantage as discoveries which have been made in the region of electricity. One might sneer at that, but one can sneer at some recent discoveries in electricity. As in the case of medicine and surgery, a great deal has been discovered in that matter during the war owing to war exigencies. So a great deal has been discovered in the region of finance, and I would suggest that the Minister should open his mind to these discoveries and adopt the same attitude towards experiments in these matters and inquiries into them as the Minister for Industry and Commerce did in the matter of electricity.

I hope the Minister will see that the practice of using penalties in order to go back for taxation will be dropped altogether. Really it is so unfair as to court illegalities on the part of the ordinary citizen, because the natural reaction in the average citizen, when he finds that laws are being administered in a harsh and tricky manner is that he will be as tricky as possible; he will have no respect for the law and will try to defeat it at every hand's turn.

An Ceann Comhairle

took the Chair.

Mr. Jasper Wolfe

When this discussion opened, I had not intended to take any part in it. I thought, and still think, that it is hardly fair to shy a number of individual cases at the Minister for Finance, and ask him, without notice, to answer them straight off. So as not to take him at a disadvantage while the House was discussing the delinquencies and shortcomings of the Executive Councill, I retired to the library and put down for the Minister five questions which I hope he will answer next Wednesday. These relate to the shortcomings in regard to the collection of income tax. I could have put down a great many more questions. I do not want the Minister to answer those questions now. I am raising this question now because I do not want it to be said that I allowed this opportunity to pass of saying that the methods adopted by the income tax collectors in this country require very much to be improved upon. They have given rise to universal dissatisfaction. The clouds are gathering on the heads of the Commissioners, and the day is fast approaching when public opinion will force them to alter the methods they have manufactured and are now putting in force.

When I heard my colleague from West Cork refer to individual cases, some of which I am personally aware of, I could not refrain from joining in this discussion to corroborate him as to the facts in the cases he dealt with and as to the truth of which there can be no answer whatever. Deputy Murphy gave us a case founded on the state of the law. Perhaps he will pardon me for saying that that case does give rise to difficulty. From the letter of the parish priest which he read, it is apparent that the legal position is difficult, and it may be that in order to deal with it the Department of Finance will require to have the law altered. Therefore, I would not press that case beyond stating the fact that it is a very hard one. As to the facts of the case, I have no doubt that Deputy Murphy has stated them clearly. The Deputy referred to another case dealing with income tax. This was the case of two occupiers who bought their holdings in 1920, and from 1920 to 1929 they paid their income tax regularly and without default. What happened? Let us get rid of all this talk about income tax being collected only over the last six years. At present income tax returns are being asked for over a period of 40 years, and in some cases over a period of 60 years. I have seen some of these demands myself. Let no one on the Opposition benches, or in any other part of the House, tell me that demands for the payment of income tax only go back over the last six years.

Mr. MacEntee

Might I intervene to correct the Deputy? I never suggested that income tax had been demanded only over the years subsequent to the passing of the Treaty. As a matter of fact I mentioned a case in which the assessment had been dated back to the year 1886, and in which payment of the tax had been demanded in respect of all the years since then.

Mr. Wolfe

I am sorry if unconsciously I did Deputy MacEntee an injustice. At all events, at the present time, demands for the payment of income tax which go back, not over six years, but upwards of 40 and 60 years, are being sent out. In the case to which Deputy Murphy refers, the demand was sent out a few months ago for the first time. It was made against the two people concerned in respect of the years from 1914 to 1920. When my firm wrote to the collector begging him to wait for a few weeks until the matter was put before the Commissioners, the answer that came back from the collector was that he could not wait; to-morrow he would have to proceed to that particular town and destroy those concerned with costs. That was not enough. He coupled with that the threat that he would issue a warrant to the sheriff. Even these two threats were not enough. He made a third threat against these unfortunate people, who owed no income tax, by saying that he would have to take proceedings. These are acts of hardship and of oppression, and, though I dislike using the word, threats of blackmail. That is an unpleasant word; a word which ought not to be applied, certainly not to the Department of Finance, because I am satisfied, as I think everybody is, that the Department of Finance would be the last Department in this or in any other Government that would in any way sanction the methods that are being used if the facts were known to the Minister. The Minister will know about them sooner or later. The time will come when they can no longer be suppressed.

I am not asking the Minister now, but I will ask him at another time whether by a motion before the House or in some other form, to state under what statute the collectors of income tax are authorised to send around threats to people for the payment of compound interest on arrears of income tax from the year 1914, and in some cases interest at 5 per cent. When the Minister is answering that question I ask him not to take a mere denial until he has got someone in authority who will tell him that such demands have been made. When he does that I will prove the charge home for him. I give him that undertaking. I understand that there is no statute that authorises that. If it comes out that an official has suggested or hinted at a charge of 5 per cent. compound interest, or even simple interest, on arrears of income tax, or on arrears of income on which tax is not chargeable, then I will ask the Minister for Finance, with every confidence, to deal with that official or with those officials in the only manner in which they should be dealt with, that is by clearing out the Augean stable and getting rid of them. That is what should be done if that has taken place, and I am afraid that the Minister will find that beyond any doubt it has taken place.

There is one other method which the Commissioners for Inland Revenue have adopted, and which I hope to deal with on Wednesday next. They have hit on a new method of torture. This method is being peculiarly applied to the unfortunate taxpayers who live in my constituency and in the adjoining county of Kerry.

They have established in Dublin Castle an inquisition for the interrogation of taxpayers upon whom they have designs, and forth from Dublin Castle go to the remotest portions of West Cork and the County Kerry summonses to attend for interrogation before the supreme inquisitor who reigns in Dublin Castle. I want to ask, with very great respect, the Minister for Finance to make quite sure and take note as to whether that new method of procedure has been set up. I ask him in fairness to these unfortunate taxpayers to find out under what statute, or by what excuse, this outrage has been committed on these people. They have been dragged away from their homes and have had to travel up to 400 miles to sit for interrogation before an official in Dublin Castle. Who is going to pay them for the expenses they have incurred, and pay for the loss and inconvenience caused by being away from their homes and business when they should be trying to save up something to meet the next income tax demand. I do not want to say anything unreasonable, but I do say that if a scandal like that is found to exist, then it ought to be dealt with very firmly and very quickly. The confidence of the public in the Commissioners of Inland Revenue ought to be restored, and it ought to be as strong as it is in the Ministry of Finance itself.

There is another matter which, I think, is hardly fair. I know an instance in which a trader has passed his accounts year after year. He is frequently before the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. He has been there accompanied by his auditor. I have seen them there. The auditor has been interrogated. His accounts have been passed, and his experience has been accepted by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, and yet in 1929, under the procedure followed, but which I could not follow, that unfortunate man has been told "You must get another auditor. We are not satisfied with the auditor, whom the Special Commissioners have hitherto accepted, and with whom they profess themselves satisfied, and we want you to get another auditor. We are not satisfied with the academic qualifications of the first. He must produce his degree, and go back to 1914." They throw on this unfortunate man the burden of the expenditure of some hundreds of pounds for the purpose of producing accounts some fifteen years old, and which now would be at the best unreliable, and to a large extent a fake. Deputy Murphy spoke of the difficulty he had in getting civil replies from some of the income tax officials. I must congratulate Deputy Murphy, because he says he has succeeded in getting them.

Mr. Murphy

With great difficulty.

Mr. Wolfe

Deputy Murphy deserves the greatest credit for getting them at all. In most cases there is the greatest difficulty in getting any civility from them. See the way they treat the taxpayers. A month or two ago a notice of the hearing of appeals was sent around West Cork, stating: "You have to come up here on the 5th June and attend at a place and hour to be notified later." Every man jack of these appellants was there waiting in fear and trembling for the 5th June. No other business could be taken on or around that date. They were there in readiness to know at what hour and place they were to attend on the 5th June. Lo and behold! the 4th June came and the 5th June, but not having the same confidence in getting the civil reply that my friend and colleague did, they started wiring to their solicitors begging them for God's sake to know what was to happen. The collector would not take the trouble of telling these people that they would not be heard on the 5th June. They are only ordinary taxpayers; why send them a postcard? What harm did it make to issue summonses to people and then treat them with the utmost contempt? I ask the Minister for Finance, if he finds that is the conduct which his Commissioners and the income tax officials are pursuing, to deal with it with a heavy and no uncertain hand.

Looking back over the last period of just twelve or thirteen months, I have known two prominent West Cork men, and I have followed them to their last resting place. They went there, according to medical opinion, as the result of unfounded and unjust income tax assessments made upon them. I do not think income tax claims should be thrown around. They should not be shied lightly at people. They know these awful happenings have followed in their track. Knowing that, they should turn over a new leaf. I wish the Minister would ask them to stop bluffing. I am a very old man to be caught out by bluff. I assure the Minister they are not above trying to bluff me. I am too old for that. After all, it is not very complimentary to a man forty years in the legal profession, and who, during that time, has been constantly dealing with income tax, to find out that the income tax officials try to bluff by threats and nonsense. It would be better for the revenue of this country that the income tax officials should treat the public with courtesy and civility as they were treated with, say, twenty years ago.

I do not want to make any comparisons of an odious description, but I would like to know why there is such a difference in the conduct of income tax officials in 1929 as compared with 1909? There is no use hiding the fact, whatever the cause of it. I am not going to discuss what took place in the period between 1916 and 1921, or whether people were told to pay income tax or not. I understand that some time in the year 1923 a notice was issued by the income tax people telling them that if they would stand on the stool of repentance and make a full confession, full absolution was awaiting them. I must confess that until I heard it from the Minister I never before heard it. I would like to remind the Minister that the early part of 1923 was a time when very few newspapers reached country districts, and when often and often people would be six days without seeing a newspaper.

Not only was I in ignorance of that notice ever having been issued until I heard of it from the Minister, but people with whom I came in contact are ignorant of it. The news would be more likely to reach me than the ordinary taxpayer, because I have received their instructions, but I never heard of any such thing.

I would make this last appeal to the Minister: For the sake of the revenue of the State he should get rid of this unrest that has forced, and is forcing, millions of pounds of capital out of the country. Let bygones be bygones, and give these people a clean sheet to the 1st April, 1923, or April, 1922. If any of them do owe tax, let them come forward, and let threats of penalties, threats of compound interest, threats of various sorts that have been hurled at them day after day, be stopped if they pay the tax that they owe, and let it not be followed by threats of arrest. If that were done it would be to the advantage of the State and of the public generally.

There is only one other case that I will refer to. Deputy Murphy has referred to a case relating to an old age pension, a singularly sad one, the case of an old lady who, really without any criminal lapse, and owing to what at the worst was an error, received the old age pension for some years when she was not entitled to receive it. When the facts were discovered, out of a windfall which came to her from a foreign country, she paid back a very considerable portion of the money she had received from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. She gave them practically her all, and when she reached the age of seventy years, destitute, forlorn as she was in every respect, she was entitled to receive the old age pension, but she waited year after year until the time came when, by not claiming the pension at the age of seventy years, the balance of what she had received was paid off. She waited all those years so that she could remove the moral stigma of owing anything to the Revenue Commissioners, and at the end of that time she asked the Commissioners to wipe off the debt which morally she did not owe, because she had discharged it, and when she asked for the old age pension they turned her down. That is not the way to administer the Old Age Pensions Act. It should be administered in the way in which the Minister would wish to have it administered, in the way, I am glad to say, he is now seeing that it is administered by the officials who are more directly in contact with the matter than the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are. Let him see that it is administered in a fair way in justice to those unfortunate people who are unable to protect themselves.

Mr. White

I desire to congratulate Deputy Wolfe on his powerful and eloquent speech. The voters who sent him to the Dáil knew their business. I would refer the Minister to the present forms that are sent out by the Revenue Commissioners to their unfortunate victims all over the country. These forms are in the nature of a Chinese puzzle to the ordinary men and women who get them. They do not know how to fill them. I will give an instance which I came across some time ago. An unfortunate farmer in my part of the country came to me with an income tax form to fill up. He had eleven children, but there was room in the form to put in the names of only five of them.

Mr. MacEntee

Why did he not ask for two forms?

Mr. White

I would suggest that these forms should be more simple, so that a man or woman of ordinary intelligence would be able to fill them up without having to go to an income tax expert or to a recovery agency to have them filled in and have to pay the income tax expert and the recovery agency, in addition, for that purpose. There is a matter affecting my area I desire to deal with, I being a border Deputy. I would suggest that more expedition should be exercised by the officials on the Customs posts in the vicinity of Derry, particularly on market and fair evenings. We cannot change the geographical position of the area in which we live, and as a matter of necessity we have to use Derry City to a large extent as our principal market town. On Wednesday evenings—Wednesday being the principal market day—and also on fair days, very considerable traffic passes into and out of Derry from and to Donegal, and more expedition should be used by officials, particularly in the winter season, in clearing the various vehicles that cross the Border. I do not complain with regard to the courtesy of the officials. There has been a very considerable improvement in the last year or two in that respect. They discharge onerous duties and they discharge them in the least objectionable way possible.

I join with Deputy Cole in asking that the time be extended to 10 o'clock for people to pass these frontier posts, particularly for people who have occasionally to go to Derry to look for a doctor or for a veterinary surgeon. It is often necessary for a Senator who lives in my district, and for myself, to go to Derry at night, because we cannot get through the Border customs posts in the morning in time to catch the 7.25 train from Derry. I think when we are doing the nation's business we should be facilitated as much as possible by the Customs officials and that we should be enabled to get through the Customs posts without any objection in order to catch that train. The extension of the time to 10 o'clock at the various Customs posts on the County Donegal border would not be, I think, any inconvenience to the officials. It is citizens of the Free State who have to use these posts, and they are the only people who are penalised. I would strongly urge on the Minister the desirability of keeping these posts open until 10 o'clock, at all events during the summer season.

Mr. Briscoe

It seems that every Deputy who has spoken on this Vote is in full agreement, that the bogey men of the citizens of this State are the Revenue Commissioners, particularly in connection with the collection of income tax. Every Deputy who takes any interest in the affairs of his constituents, and who has occasion to look into matters relative to income tax, will certainly have verdicts to bring in on different points which will coincide with the views expressed by various members of the House, and particularly by Deputy Wolfe. I am not criticising this Vote purely for the purpose of criticism. I want to try, if I can, to suggest ways that might help to alleviate, even in a small way under the existing code, some of the difficulties which confront people. First and foremost I must say that, with the exception of the Commissioners themselves, the average income tax official is certainly lacking in courtesy. In fact, I have come to the conclusion that in some cases officials are chosen because of their bullying capacity. I do not say that because of the opinions that have been expressed. I raised the matter on a previous debate on this Vote in connection with an official of that department using third degree methods, not only to a man in arrears, but also to the professional gentleman who represented him, in my presence. That situation has not changed very much. I was in an income tax office on Tuesday last, and the official there took up the attitude that he was boss, that the citizen had nothing to say, and that what he said went.

There appears to be some suggestion that not only must these officials keep their eyes on every penny that has come in or gone out, but that they must also have periscopes to view the future. I know a case that happened only within the last few months, of a young lady who came here and resided in a hotel for the purpose of choosing a house which her father was buying for her, and which he was going to settle on her when she was married. She was in the hotel for a very short period, and spent her time here viewing property. She purchased a house and many things to put into it.

Attention having been called to the fact that a quorum was not present, a count was ordered. Twenty Deputies being present,

Mr. Briscoe

As I was pointing out, this young lady was only a short time in this country, having come across from England for the purpose of settling down here. She had no income whatever, and yet she came to me in a great flurry with papers asking for an income tax return. That is just an illustration of how keen the income tax people must be in watching hotel registers to see how long a visitor or a prospective resident remained in a hotel. I presume, because in this particular instance she happened to stop at a fairly good class hotel, and because she happened to be spending money which she received from her father, they considered she was domiciled here after six weeks, and they proceeded to use their instruments of torture. There is no doubt about it but that the Income Tax Department does attempt to extract, by any means whatever in their power, tax beyond a period of six years, whether or not the individual concerned is guilty of having concealed his income, or having attempted to defraud them in any way. I am quite content with the reply given by the Minister for Finance on the Finance Bill last week, that any citizen who was being dunned for payment of income tax for a period beyond six years, and who had not committed fraud, could tell the officials to go to pot. I hope that, at least, the only means for conveying that to the public—the Press, which has been guilty of keeping that from the people— will convey that. I hope that they will, at least, announce shortly, particularly before the next payments are due for 1929-30 returns, that they need not worry about income tax arrears due over a period beyond six years, especially in cases where there is no suggestion of fraud.

With regard to business houses, the income tax department adopts a very peculiar attitude in connection with returns. In the ordinary course of business, a trader who is stocktaking carries over stock which he has bought the previous year, and which, for some reason or another, is unsaleable. Possibly it is defective, and possibly it is out of fashion. That trader in the ordinary way writes down that stock to have it sold at a cheaper price. The income tax department does not allow that.

Attention having been called to the fact that a quorum was not present, a count was ordered, and 20 Deputies being present,

Mr. Briscoe

The income tax department does not allow for the writing down of stock, and a concern has to make a return, for the purpose of income tax, of a balance sheet showing all goods at actual cost, irrespective of whether the articles have been damaged or unsaleable for any reason whatever. They argue that the firm can show a loss at a subsequent date when it has sold the articles. Now, if it never sells them it can never write them down, and I contend that some alteration should be made in the regulation which prescribes that method for the purpose of making returns. I firmly believe that if instructions were given to this department to be more courteous, to be a little more friendly, to create some confidence in the minds of the people, and if facilities were given people to go to the department without finding themselves in a net that they would never get out of, the collection of income tax would be made much easier. It would also be much more comfortable for the people who get the forms and the subsequent letters which have been discussed here for the last few hours.

There is an item I should like to refer to in connection with customs and excise. I raised it on the Finance Bill, but I do not know whether anything has been done in the matter. It has reference to the irritating delays in connection with business generally. Recently a tariff was imposed on cloth at a certain figure. Immediately imports were subject to that duty, and firms importing goods, although they had ordered those goods prior to the proposed tariff, because the goods only arrived on that day or the day previous and entry had not been made, were liable to duty. I am not finding fault with that. What I am finding fault with is that when the tariff was changed and a certain class of material was made free by the increase of the exemption clause, those goods when they arrived on that day, or the day previous, were also made liable to duty. I understand that the matter was sent to the Attorney-General for interpretation. I would impress on the Department that they should facilitate merchants by getting these things attended to as soon as possible and not be keeping people two or three weeks arguing and bargaining.

I do not want to go into individual cases in connection with income tax matters. I must say in fairness to the Department, that when I approached them in the last few weeks I was met very fairly, and was given an opportunity to arrange, on behalf of certain people who were in difficulty, with the Commissioners. As I said, the higher officials are not deserving of the criticism which has been offered. It is evidently the official who is not in touch with the public as much as he should be who adopts the attitude of carrying in his hip pocket a bludgeon or a hammer which he threatens to take out every five minutes when discussing matters with citizens. When people go themselves to the Department they should be assured of freedom of speech and courtesy, so that they will be able to put their own affairs before the Department, instead of having to employ a solicitor or an accountant, which in many cases is impossible from the point of view of expense. I believe that while the present regulations exist facilities should be given to the people who are worried and harassed. At least they should be assured that they are not going to be frightened into making statements.

Deputy White spoke of the income tax forms. One clause on these forms says that the penalty for fraudulently concealing or untruly declaring any particular in making any claim for any allowance is £20 and treble the tax chargeable in respect of any source of income. Any Deputy filling in this form would find it hard to be able to swear that every single return was accurate as far as he was concerned. Yet the word "untruly" there covers erroneously, and he is liable to all these penalties, even if he makes a genuine mistake. Of course, the Minister for Industry and Commerce laughs and jeers and does not realise that some people are sincerely trying to do what they can for the people who sent them here.

I spend my whole day in dealing with these matters. The Minister is now in touch with the people. If Ministers were more in touch with the people, they would realise some things could be changed so as to make matters work far better all round. One other remark I wish to make, and that is with regard to the change in the regulations concerning financial matters which the Minister for Finance promised to have carried out some time back. I would like to hear when these regulations will be altered, and whether it is proposed to alter them in the near future. I do not believe that an Act is necessary, but rather that it could be done by the Revenue Commissioners themselves. Perhaps some Minister on the benches opposite would bring this matter to the notice of the Minister for Finance, who is not here at the moment, because otherwise I do not suppose we will hear any more about it for some time to come. I have already spoken privately to the Minister for Finance about this regulation. I believe that if these regulations are altered they will make things easier for the Revenue Department, and several other people think so as well.

Mr. Kennedy

There are a few questions I want the Minister for Finance to answer. We want a clear definition as to where Succession Duty is applicable. It is laid down by statute that it is not applicable to estates under a valuation of £15,000. Yet we find that, where certain administrative acts are neglected, it is made applicable in estates of £2,000 valuation and less. As well as putting on estate duty and legacy duty, they put on succession duty. There should be legislation passed to do away with that.

The President

I think this is hardly in order.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy cannot advocate legislation in a debate on Estimates.

Mr. Kennedy

Another matter has been pointed out, and I want to ask a question as to whether it is right or wrong. I could not read it into the Finance Bill, but it was pointed out by responsible persons that by some alteration made by the Finance Bill incomes arising out of investments outside the country are subject to income tax and super-tax in this way—that all appreciations of capital are treated as income even though there is no transmission of cash, and that when the draft does come over that appreciation of capital is also subject to income tax and super-tax.

The President

If chargeable.

Mr. Kennedy

With the result that the whole thing is swamped. There are people supporting the President who made these representations to me.

The President

Send them on to us.

Mr. Kennedy

They saw it was useless to try and get anything done through Deputies sitting on the other side of the House. I would like to get an assurance that the position as regards that will be made clear.

An Ceann Comhairle

rose to put the question.

Mr. MacEntee

Are we to have no reply from the Minister to the very severe criticism upon his administration which has been passed by this side of the House?

Mr. McGilligan

Trying to make a farce of the whole proceeding.

Mr. MacEntee

I protest that that is a very improper remark for the Minister to have made. I have tried to maintain decorum when members of the Party opposite who voted for this all-night sitting refused to do so. If there is any person making a farce of the proceedings it is the members of the Minister's own Party who have been absenting themselves, although it was they who demanded an all-night sitting and secured it.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 49.

Tá

• Aird, William P.
• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Coburn, James.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEóin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, John.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Colbert, James.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kent, William R.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Maguire, Ben.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Seamus.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corkery, Dan.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Davin, William.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doyle, Edward.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• French, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Leary, William.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tubridy, John.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.

Question declared carried.