I am afraid that I would find it impossible to go any further than I have done to meet Deputy Thrift in this matter. On the larger issue which he raises, that of the person who finds himself compelled at the end of a period of years to spend a considerable sum in putting property in repair, I think that the complete and final answer is that that is most often the person's own fault. In the majority of cases, if he happens to be a head landlord, there is generally a repairing covenant in the leases granted. It is to his interest to see that that covenant is carried out, and if he fails to discharge his duty to himself in a case like that and permits another person to collect from the Revenue—for that is what it amounts to—a concession in respect of repairs which he does not carry out, then I think that it is he, the ground landlord or the head landlord, who will have to indemnify the Revenue against any losses that might be occasioned thereby. It is only in cases of that sort, as a general rule, that this heavy expenditure upon repairs takes place. It takes place, as the Deputy himself, I think, mentioned in the instance he put before the House, when a lease falls in and the property reverts to the ground landlord. If the Deputy is asking us to give consideration to the person who has property in his own right and has drawn the repairs allowance on account of that property over a period of years, or if he has allowed the Commissioner of Valuation to take into consideration, in fixing the valuation, an amount which would normally have to be expended upon the property in order to keep it in proper repair from year to year, and if on a basis of that valuation he has already got the repairs allowance, I do not think he has any cause of complaint if, owing to the fact that he has not maintained it in proper repair, he has to spend an abnormal amount in any one year.
With regard to the particular amendment before the House concerning the valuation of cottage property, I am advised that the limit of £5 which we have fixed as governing the concession in this case allows an ample margin. In fact, from a review of any of the examples placed before us, we know that on the basis of those examples there is an ample margin. In view of that, and that it was to meet those hard cases that the concession was originally introduced, I do not think there is any good ground for raising the valuation to which this concession would apply. On the question of management, there again I do not think we should take that into consideration. The management of such property is comparatively simple and if a person wants to claim an exemption, I think that at any rate we should not go any further than what is normally taken into consideration in fixing the valuation of property; that is, the usual thing about repairs, maintenance and insurance of such a building. The element of management might be very greatly exaggerated in a case of this sort and I do not think it should be allowed to vitiate, from the point of view of the Revenue, the grounds upon which the concession might properly be made.
With regard to the question of appeal, there again, so far as any allowance was made prior to this amendment, it was made by way of concession under Rule 8, and from the concession allowed by the Revenue Commissioners in those cases no appeal lay. In view of the fact that the amendment has been introduced to put those concessions on a proper basis, I do not think it would be equitable to ask me to give now to the owners of this property a right which they formerly did not have. Accordingly, on the question of permitting an appeal to the Special Commissioners, I am afraid that in that regard also I should have to say that I would not be prepared to consider it further.
With regard to the general question of valuation, I think that Deputy Thrift is in error in stating that before a reduction in valuation can be secured it will be necessary to have expended the money on repairs and to have paid the income tax on the property. I think that it is open to a person at any time to appeal against the existing valuation and to produce evidence that the amount which he has had to expend from year to year on the property has been actually in excess of that which has been allowed to him when first the valuation was struck or when the existing valuation was struck. If he is not able to produce that evidence, he can go at any rate to the Commissioner of Valuation and say: "Here is what is necessary to put this property into special repair—you can compute if you like on an annuity basis —here is what I should have had to pay over a considerable number of years in order to keep the property in repair." I feel that the Commissioner of Valuation would be satisfied.
