asked the Minister for Finance whether, using the same terms of reference as to the classes concerned observed by the Minister for Justice at Column 658, Volume 177 of the Official Report, he will give the net gain in income made by (a) the Chief Justice, (b) the President of the High Court and Supreme Court Judges, and (c) Judges of the Circuit Court, following the recent budgetary concessions in income tax and sur-tax payments.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Judges' Incomes—Tax Concessions.
21.
As pointed out in my reply to a somewhat similar question by the Deputy on the 11th November, it would not be in accord with secrecy obligations to disclose any information relating to the taxation affairs of individual taxpayers or small groups of taxpayers. It would not be proper for me, as Minister for Finance, to put forward figures based on assumptions in relation to identifiable persons. The allowances and rates of income tax and sur-tax are well known and I am sure that the Deputy will have no difficulty in computing figures himself based on any assumptions he considers appropriate.
Is it not a fact that, in the reference I gave to the Minister, the Minister for Justice told us the income tax which the Chief Justice would pay on the £455 increase proposed in a Bill before the House? Is that not an identical disclosure? Would the Minister say why we cannot have this information?
I want to tell the Deputy that the Revenue Commissioners are obliged to maintain secrecy with regard to the income tax of any individual and therefore I could only assume or make figures on my own assumption. I am not aware of the private affairs of any of the gentlemen concerned. Whether they have any other income or not, I could not say.
I have referred the Minister to a reference made by the Minister for Justice in regard to this matter.
I made the same point clear to the Deputy.
Why cannot I have the same information in respect of sur-tax and taxation remission?