Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Feb 1947

Vol. 104 No. 10

Committee on Finance. - Vote 6—Office of the Revenue Commissioners.

An tAire Airgeadais (Proinnsias Mac Aodhagáin)

Tairgim:—

Go ndeonfar suim breise nach mó ná £55,240 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfas chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31ú Márta, 1947, chun Tuarastal agus Costas Oifig na gCoimisinéirí Ioncaim, lena n-áirítear seirbhísí áirithe eile atá faoi riaradh na hOifige sin.

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £55,240 be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1947, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, including certain other services administered by that Office.

The increased provision is necessary to provide for additional expenditure amounting to £70,450 on sub-heads A, B, C, E, G, H and M of the Vote. Savings are available on other sub-heads of the Vote to the extent of £300, and these, together with a net increase of £14,910 in Appropriations-in-Aid, reduce the extra provision required to £55,240.

Sub-head A.—The provision for bonus in the original Estimate was calculated on the basis of a cost-of-living figure of 210 and provision was also made for the payment of emergency bonus. The consolidation settlement which has recently been agreed to is based on a cost-of-living figure of 270 and the additional sum of £57,700 required under this sub-head is due solely to the extra cost of consolidation.

Sub-head B.—The additional requirement of £400 arises in consequence of the payment of increased rates of disturbance allowances sanctioned for unattached officers of customs and excise. These allowances are payable to officers who are sent on temporary duty from one station to another.

Sub-head C.—The sum of £320 is required to meet the cost of arrears of billeting allowance sanctioned in the case of an official in the Conjoint Office, London. This officer was evacuated to Llandudno and the allowance was on the lines of billeting allowances payable to officers of the British service who were also evacuated to Llandudno. Provision is also made in this sub-head for additional expenditure (£280) incurred by way of lodging allowances to officers who, on transfer, were unable to secure housing accommodation at their new headquarters.

Sub-head E.—Of the total of £3,900 required under this sub-head nearly £3,000 is due to the application of the consolidation settlement to collectors of taxes; the balance is due to increased remuneration to collectors owing to increased numbers of income-tax assessments and to increased remuneration to banks and stockbrokers in respect of income-tax work arising out of the negotiation of dividend warrants.

Sub-head G.—The requirement of £4,250 is due to the cost of a new printing machine for use in the Stamping Branch of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. Provision for the purchase of the machine was made in 1945-46 but there was a delay in delivery.

Sub-head H.—The further provision of £400 is required to meet the cost of certain telephone accounts which, owing to delay in certification, were not ripe for payment in 1945-46.

Sub-head M.—The additional sum of £3,200 is required mainly to meet increased expenditure in connection with rewards for the detection of attempted illegal exports and imports.

Sub-head R.—A net increase of £14,910 is anticipated in receipts under this sub-head. To this sub-head are credited receipts which, for the most part, represent reimbursements to the Exchequer for extra Departmental services rendered by the revenue staff to various public authorities, the trading community and others.

The estimated appropriations under the following four headings have been increased:—(a) Moneys received from merchants, etc., for special attendance of officers, £4,200; (b) fines, forfeitures, law costs recovered, etc., £5,000; (c) proceeds of customs sales (seizures, etc.), £4,700; (d) charge for administrative expenses in connection with widows' and orphans' pensions, £1,010; total, £14,910. (a) is due to increased demands for the extra attendance of customs officers in connection with the clearance of goods from the ports. In (b) and (c) the improvement in the supply position which was anticipated at the time the original Estimates were framed has not materialised and the volume of arrears effected in connection with attempted illegal exports and imports continues at a high level. In consequence, increased receipts are expected from fines, etc., and from the sale of seized goods. (d) is due to the increased amount to be recovered from the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Fund in respect of salaries of investigation staff as a result of the consolidation settlement which has already been referred to.

Sub-head K.—The saving of £300 is under this sub-head and is due mainly to reductions in the price of petrol.

It was mentioned on previous occasions that the Revenue Commissioners would appear to be one of the bodies that were affected by the disclosures contained in the letters sent by Dr. MacCarvill to the Taoiseach in connection with the affairs of the Monaghan Curing Company, Limited, and published in the Dáil on the 5th June, 1946, and also by the facts disclosed in the report of the tribunal that was set up to inquire into these matters. I would like to ask the Minister for Finance what representations, if any, he has made to the Revenue Commissioners with regard to the facts disclosed there, and what exactly has happened as a result? For instance, in column 1325 of the Dáil Debates, for the 5th June, 1946, in the letter addressed by Mr. Darach Connolly to Dr. MacCarvill and forwarded to the Government, we read:—

"I should perhaps point out that the company has never paid any dividends as such, but the directors drew from the company, by way of salary and otherwise, in exact ratio to the amount of capital held by each."

In an earlier part of the letter, it said:—

"The audited accounts for the years 1938 to 1944 show that the company, on the average, has made extremely good profits especially when considered in relation to the amount of the capital invested."

Later in the letter it is stated:—

"Following is a summary of the amounts drawn—(by Dr. Ward; it only referred to Dr. Ward)—in salaries during the periods stated: during ten months of 1938, £916 13s. 4d.; during the year 1939, £1,000; during the year 1940, £1,750; during the year 1941, £2,000; during the year 1942, £2,000; during the year 1943, £1,000; during three months of 1944, £250; total salaries during six years and one month, £8,916 13s. 4d."

It can be inferred from that letter that the other directors of the company drew similar amounts by way of salary.

What has this to do with the Supplementary Estimate?

This involves the discharge by the Revenue Commissioners of their statutory duties.

There is nothing specific in this Supplementary Estimate dealing with that.

There is a Vote for the salaries, wages and allowances of the Revenue Commissioners.

That is not in the sum asked for now. That is the general Estimate.

Under sub-head A an additional sum is required for salaries, wages, allowances, etc. The original Estimate was for £1,089,440. The Minister is now asking for an additional £57,700 and it is explained on the back that this is an additional sum required to meet increases in remuneration payable from 1st November, 1946.

Not on account of the Ward-MacCarvill case.

How do we know where it arose?

Surely it covers the period?

Whether it arises directly out of having to meet the additional expense of hunting through the matters involved in this report and letters does not matter in connection with the fact that we are asked here for an additional £57,000 to meet the expenses of the Revenue Commissioners. When we are asked to do that we are entitled to discuss how the Revenue Commissioners and their staff are discharging their responsibilities.

The Ward case came on in June and July, 1946. This is to meet increases from 1st November, 1946—a very much later period.

Have I to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that the Pigs and Bacon Commission did not wake up to taking the case into the District Court arising out of this report until November, 1946? I submit that I am entitled to discuss here any matter affecting the discharge of the Revenue Commissioners' duties during the period for which they are being paid any part of the increased total of £1,147,000.

Does the Deputy feel justified in having a re-hash of the debate yesterday on the Ward case arising out of this Supplementary Estimate?

If the Chair will point out anything I have already stated to which it takes objection as being out of order or outside the scope of the debate, I should be glad to have it pointed out.

I cannot do it at the moment.

I am pointing out that we had disclosed in the letter of Mr. Darach Connolly, solicitor, to Dr. MacCarvill, which was forwarded to the Taoiseach, and the full terms of which were given to the Dáil on 5th June, 1946, that in the case of the Monaghan Curing Company, Limited, over ten months of 1938 down to 1944 a sum of £8,916 was drawn by way of salary by one of the directors of the company and, being drawn by way of salary, would be drawn as earned income and would, therefore, be liable to taxation at a particular level, whereas the implication of the statement there is that, at any rate, some portion of it was certainly drawn by way of interest or payment in respect of capital invested in the company and could, therefore, not be regarded as earned income.

I should like to know whether the Minister has drawn the attention of the Revenue Commissioners to the implication of the matter stated in that part of the letter; whether the Revenue Commissioners have taken any cognisance of that; whether they have had any special expenses arising out of the necessity for investigating these matters and who has been charged with the expenses; whether if the actions implied there are penal actions, any penalties have been imposed.

Again, in paragraph 17 of the report it is disclosed:—

"The proceeds of the cash transactions, including therein comparatively small sums representing the price of bacon and other products sold to the directors for use in their respective households, amounted to the sum of £4,739 11s. 4d."

That is, that moneys to that amount, which were withheld from the company's accounts, were, according to paragraph 19 of the report, not disclosed by the company or the directors personally for tax purposes. What investigation has been made into these matters; what expenses have been occasioned to the Revenue Commissioners in relation to the inquiries that it was apparently necessary to make in order to investigate these matters; what penalties, if any, have been applied; are there any other matters arising out of the report and the facts found in the report that the Revenue Commissioners have found it necessary to inquire into and what have been the results of their inquiry?

I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions in connection with this Supplementary Estimate. The increase under sub-head A in salaries etc. is quite understandable and the same would apply to sub-head E. When we come to sub-head R—Appropriations-in-Aid —the Estimate for these Appropriations-in-Aid was £49,090. The revised Estimate is £64,000 and I presume that the present revised Estimate is something more than is usually understood by the word "estimate". That means that there is a sum £14,910 more than was estimated for. Under the headings the Minister mentioned where those increases occurred, but he did not give any explanation of this increase in Appropriations-in-Aid, nor did he give any explanation as to why there should have been what amounts to a mistake in estimation of 34 per cent. That is a very big error to make in an Estimate for the year. I grant you that it is an error on the right side. But it is always easy for a Government Department by under-estimating its Appropriations-in-Aid to come here at the end of the year with a very happy picture of the year's work of that Department. It is not necessarily the best accountancy, in fact I think it shows a very inaccurate estimate and I would like the Minister to give us some further explanation of how an error of 34 per cent. occurred in the Estimate of this Department.

I understood the Minister to say in relation to the provision under E that the increase there of £3,900 was caused by reason of the fact that there had been an increase in the number of income-tax assessments and I want to know if amongst the additional assessments which the officials of that Department had to make what additional assessment was made in respect of Dr. Ward, Mr. Corr and Mr. MacCarvill, of the Monaghan Bacon Company, in relation to the proceeds which they pocketed of the illicit transactions in bacon. The total sum of these transactions amounted to £4,739 11s. 4d. Of that sum Dr. Ward pocketed £2,962 3s. 8d., leaving a balance between Mr. Corr and Mr. MacCarvill of £1,777 7s. 8d., and I take it that was divided between these two gentlemen in proportion to their shares in the company. I have not time to calculate the figure, but it would appear that on that basis Mr. Corr would have received a fraction of 9/32 of that sum and Mr. MacCarvill would have received 3/32 of that sum. In the findings of the tribunal, paragraph 19, it is stated these sums were not disclosed in the books of the company and were not brought to audit. The proceeds were not disclosed by the company or by the directors personally for tax purposes. I put it to the Minister yesterday that we should have some information from him of the action taken by him, in the first place, on that finding; and, secondly, of the action taken by the Revenue Commissioners in relation to the three directors who had pocketed these moneys without disclosing them in the books of the company or declaring them for tax purposes. Ordinarily, I understand the policy of the commissioners is not to prosecute: that they have some form of penal assessment or additional assessment which they impose on the tax defaulter and that they compel him to pay heavily for his offence in that way. I think in fairness to the House, we should know if such action was taken in the case of these three gentlemen, and if so, what additional moneys they were compelled to pay by way of income-tax.

I would like to ask the Minister for Finance if anything is being done for the old age pensioners, the blind pensioners and the widows and orphans. Surely if we are going to squander money these unfortunate people are entitled to relief. The old age pensioners are asked to exist on 10/- a week, widows on 7/6 a week with 2/6 for each child. I think it is about time that the Government should wake up and think of the promises they made when seeking power in 1932, when they said that if they were returned to power there would be no people in the country either poor or hungry. We seem to find money for everything and everybody except for the unfortunate poor.

There is no provision in this Supplementary Estimate for old age pensions.

These people are entitled to some relief. I think I should get the opportunity of telling the Government what I think about them and that is damn little.

A Chinn Comhairle, when I opened the Irish Times this morning and saw that there were 39 inches given to attackers upon the honour of the Government of this country, and through it on the honour of the country, and only three inches devoted to the Minister whose duty it was to defend it, I knew that this question would be raised again to-day. I congratulate Deputy Mulcahy on his helpers in this campaign. The Irish Times not only regard themselves as Sudetan-British but they regard themselves still as active Black-and-Tans. They are carrying on the fight upon the honour of this country and they have got the help of the dirt-throwers of Fine Gael. The principal one of them, of course, was absent from this House for six months but he was sure to be here yesterday. I refer to Deputy McGilligan.

What is this about?

I told the Deputy yesterday that the Revenue Commissioners were aware of the tribunal that inquired into the charges levelled against Dr. Ward by Dr. MacCarvill and that they had the matters in hands. I also told the Deputy, and he knows it perfectly well, that the Revenue Commissioners are as independent in their assessment of income-tax—as independent of the Minister for Finance—as are the judges in carrying out the ordinary law. I rely upon them and I think the people of the country know perfectly well that the Revenue Commissioners will do their duty and collect all the money which they can prove is due from Dr. Ward or from any other citizen and that the matter can be safely left in their keeping. Deputy Mulcahy of course, knows that as well as I do. He only wants to get another couple of columns in the Irish Times to-morrow, in his campaign to drag down the honour of this country.

Who dragged it down?

Deputy Dockrell thinks the Revenue Commissioners were not able to estimate very well when they were out a small sum in one of the subitems of their Estimate. I told him in my opening statement what were the reasons for that and, if he reads it, he will see.

My name has been dragged into this matter by the Minister. I do not feel it necessary to apologise to my own constituents, because they already know what happened. I might explain, however, that if I have been out of this House for four months, part of that time was spent in a nursing-home, and I was ill otherwise; but I was glad to be back yesterday for a debate which concentrated, as the Minister for Finance pointed out, on the honour of this country, as personified in Dr. Ward and his speculations.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share