Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 1 Jul 1964

Vol. 211 No. 8

Additional Estimates, 1964-65. - Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income and Capital) (Royal Danish Government) Order, 1964: Motion of Approval.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income and Capital) (Royal Danish Government) Order, 1964

a copy of which order in draft was laid on the table of Dáil Éireann on the 23rd day of June, 1964.

This motion relates to the implementation in Irish law of a comprehensive Convention with the Royal Danish Government for the avoidance of double taxation of income and capital. The Convention has been signed on behalf of the Irish and Royal Danish Governments but, before it can enter into force, the necessary steps must have been taken under the law of both countries to give effect to it.

In this country the law provides that an arrangement entered into with a foreign Government to afford relief from double taxation in respect of income tax, surtax, corporation profits tax and any taxes of a similar character shall have effect here if the Irish Government makes an Order accordingly. Prior to the making of such an Order, however, a draft must be laid before Dáil Éireann and a resolution passed approving it.

Deputies will find the text of the Convention scheduled to the draft Order. The usual brief explanatory note is appended at the end of the Order, but, for convenience, a separate memorandum has also been circulated which explains in greater detail each of the articles in the Convention.

The Convention follows the general pattern of modern double taxation agreements and incorporates as far as possible articles based on the models drawn up by the Fiscal Committee of the OECD. Apart from certain matters of detail, its provisions are similar to those contained in the agreements which this country has concluded with the United States, Canada, Sweden and the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Convention will help to promote the development of trade between Ireland and Denmark and should encourage the investment of Danish capital in this country. As pointed out in the explanatory memorandum in connection with Article XXIII, in Ireland, Danish income tax suffered will be allowed as a credit against the Irish tax payable in respect of the relevant Danish income. In Denmark the deduction to be allowed is one equal to the amount of Danish tax appropriate to Irish income. The deduction which will be allowed by the Danish authorities will be computed without regard to the amount of Irish tax actually borne on the relevant income and, therefore, the benefit of the Irish incentive reliefs will be preserved for Danish interests.

The Convention will enter into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. It will continue in effect indefinitely but may be terminated by either Party by giving written notice not earlier than 30th June, 1965. Upon entry into force, the Convention will have effect in Ireland—

(a) in respect of income tax for the year of assessment 1961-62 and subsequent years;

(b) in respect of surtax for the year of assessment 1960-61 and subsequent years; and

(c) in respect of corporation profits tax for any chargeable accounting period beginning on or after the 1st April, 1961, and for the unexpired portion of any chargeable accounting period current at that date.

It is desirable that there should be as many as possible of these double taxation agreements in force. This one appears to follow the same pattern as that set by other agreements in recent years. Apart from the Double Taxation Agreement negotiated way back in 1926 with Britain by the then Cumann na nGaedheal Government the Minister has, I think, mentioned the other countries with which such agreements are in force. Am I correct in thinking that the United States, Canada, Sweden and Germany are the only countries, in addition to Britain, with which we have double taxation agreements?

That is right.

I should like the Minister to give the House some information as to whether there are any discussions going on with France, Holland, Belgium and Italy. As members of EEC it would be highly desirable, I think, to have such taxation agreements in force. I appreciate the job of negotiating these agreements is far from simple because, before they can be negotiated, the officers of the Revenue Commissioners here must learn the taxation laws of the other countries concerned and vice versa but these agreements are of the greatest importance particularly now that distances are being bridged so quickly and so easily with air transport.

The Minister did not answer my question earlier about the opening of the Potez factory. Could it be that it is being delayed for the purpose of a double taxation agreement with France? Would that be the reason why nothing is being done and why I see no activity as I pass up and down every day.

We welcome legislation providing for this double taxation agreement with Denmark. These agreements should be extended as far as possible. The Minister says this agreement will help to develop trade and encourage the investment of Danish capital in this country. Later he said it will have effect in respect of income tax for the year 1961-62 and in respect of surtax for the year 1960-61. Why is there retrospective effect? How can that encourage investment now? Is there much money involved. Will many people or firms be affected by this? To put it bluntly, is there a firm or a person likely to get a substantial handout as a result of retrospection? Perhaps there is a simple explanation, but I just cannot see it.

To deal first with Deputy Tully's question, some of the Danes who came here understood this agreement would be made. I do not say they were promised they would get retrospective treatment. This will cost this country very little. It will, I think, cost Denmark a bit more.

Would there be only a small number involved?

I do not know, but it will cost us very little. As the Danes were prepared to agree to it I think we should agree to it also. Deputy Sweetman asked about Potez. I forgot to deal with that earlier. I believe there is no slowing down on activities there. The equipment is, I understand, a very slow job and it will take at least 12 months before it is complete.

There is not much sign of activity when I pass by every day.

I am told there is activity. Double taxation has nothing to do with this. There are negotiations, I should mention, going on with the Netherlands, France, Belgium and Italy.

And Luxembourg.

Luxembourg has not been tackled yet. Outside of the EEC countries, the only other country with which there are negotiations is Austria.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share