Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Jul 1967

Vol. 229 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Government of Canada) Order, 1967.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Government of Canada) Order, 1967,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on the 27th June, 1967.

This motion relates to the implementation in Irish law of a comprehensive agreement with the Government of Canada for the avoidance of double taxation of income. This agreement is to replace the existing one between Ireland and Canada which was signed in 1954 and entered into effect as from the year 1955-56. In this country the law provides that an arrangement entered into with a foreign Government to afford relief from double taxation shall have effect here if the Government makes an Order accordingly. Before 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 agreement scheduled to the draft Order. The usual explanatory note is appended at the end of the Order; but, for the convenience of Deputies, a separate memorandum has also been circulated which explains each of the articles in the agreement in greater detail.

The reason why the existing agreement is being replaced is that the Government of Canada proposed a modification of it to take account of a certain change in Canadian tax law. It was a part of general Canadian policy to have all their tax treaties with other countries modified in this respect. The change relates to the rate of non-residents' withholding tax imposed by Canada on dividends payable to non-resident companies by subsidiary companies resident in Canada. The purpose of the Canadians was to remove any provision in treaties for a 5 per cent rate of withholding tax, or any similar reduced rate, in such cases and to secure that dividends flowing to the other country from Canadian sources in such cases would be charged to Canadian tax at 15 per cent. In conjunction with the withholding tax on intercorporate dividends going abroad, the Canadian Government introduced a special new tax of 15 per cent on the profits earned in Canada by non-resident companies carrying on business through a branch or permanent establishment.

Advantage was taken of this to have another look at the agreement as a whole; and, as a result of negotiations, a new agreement was signed at Ottawa on the 23rd November, 1966. The general scheme of the new agreement is similar to that of the existing one. The main objective is the elimination of double taxation as respects income flowing from one country to the other. In certain cases—such as shipping and air transport profits, pensions and so on —it is provided that the income will be taxable in one only of the two countries, that is, the country of residence of the recipient of the income. Government salaries, however, will normally be taxable by the paying Government only. Where income continues to be chargeable in both countries, double taxation relief will be allowed. In Ireland the Canadian tax is to be allowed as a credit against Irish tax payable in respect of Canadian income while in Canada the Irish tax suffered is to be allowed as a credit against the Canadian tax payable in respect of income arising in Ireland.

There is a provision of the Canadian Income Tax Act under which dividends flowing to Canadian companies from foreign corporations, in which the Canadian parent owns at least 25 per cent of the voting power, are exempt from Canadian company tax. This exemption applies to Irish dividends whether they are subject to deduction of Irish tax in full or are either exempt or partially exempt from deduction of Irish tax by reason of incentive reliefs such as those granted for exports or for enterprises established in Shannon Airport or for certain mining operations. The exemption afforded by the Canadian Income Tax Act will continue to apply so long as it remains on the Statute Book. Article XIV of the new agreement, however, ensures that, irrespective of any amendment cutting down or withdrawing the relief provided by the Canadian Income Tax Act, the exemption will continue in respect of the whole or the part of a dividend qualifying for Irish incentive tax relief so far as the relief is in force on the date of signature and has not been modified since or has been modified only in minor respects so as not to affect its general character.

Article III which is concerned with business profits, includes a special provision, in view of a case decided in Great Britain by the House of Lords, to safeguard certain provisions of Irish law relating to the taxation of foreign life assurance companies. The agreement is to come into force on the date on which instruments of ratification are exchanged. It will then be effective in Ireland as regards income tax for the year of assessment beginning on the 6th April next following the date of ratification and for subsequent years.

I am afraid there has been what I might describe as a series of mishaps in relation to this matter as far as I am concerned. First of all, I mentioned before that the manner in which this agreement was made public by us in Ireland had put many people in Ireland in a most invidious position. It was publicised in Canada in November and all inquiries in Ireland up to roughly six weeks ago received the answer that no publication could yet be made. Undoubtedly there was, let us say, a gaffe, and a gaffe could be made by any of us, but it was unfortunate. I appreciate, of course, that the form of the Draft Order had to be amended because of the passage of the consolidating Income Tax Act because the recitals at the front of the Order would be different, but at the same time there was no excuse for the fact that the Canadian Government circulated to all embassies abroad and to their people in Canada, an explanatory note saying the Convention had been signed and telling their people what was included in it, and we were unable to get the same information here.

Secondly, the Minister said: "The usual explanatory note is appended at the end of the Order; but, for the convenience of Deputies, a separate memorandum has also been circulated." I got no explanatory memorandum. I do not know whether it may be in the envelope, and I did not spot it, but may I put it this way, that it is unlikely that I could have been wrong twice because on one occasion, not having with me my copy of the Draft Order—it was in Kill and I wanted it in Dublin—I got on to the Revenue Commissioners and asked for a copy of the Order, and I got a copy of it, and on that occasion I got no copy of the explanatory memorandum either. Therefore I think the Minister will agree that the administrative detail in relation to this Order has not been as happy as perhaps it might have been.

However, leaving all that aside, it is good that we should be having double taxation agreements with as many countries as possible. If the Canadian Government desired to modify the Order that was brought into force after the Convention was signed in 1954, we had of course no option but to do so. As I understand it, this agreement will become operative on 6th April next, after the Order is made, that is to say, on 6th April, 1968.

I am in some doubt in relation to the construction of Article XIV which might have been clarified had I obtained a copy of the explanatory memorandum. Let me say in passing that if I had obtained a copy of the explanatory memorandum, I would have been spared a good deal of heavy work last night and the Minister might have got less imprecations on his head because it is not easy to understand.

In his speech on Article XIV, the Minister says:

Article XIV of the new agreement, however, ensures that, irrespective of any amendment cutting down or withdrawing the relief provided by the Canadian Income Tax Act, the exemption will continue in respect of the whole or the part of a dividend qualifying for Irish incentive tax relief so far as the relief is in force on the date of signature.

The relief that was in force in relation to the mining incentives was then four years full, four years half, and was to expire in 1976. The relief has since been changed by the Bill with which we dealt a few minutes ago, and now is on a different basis. It is the same basis of relief but changed as regards its period of implementation. Does that mean that the provisions of the Finance Act, 1967 will be operative through the lifetime of this agreement? It is obviously a matter of very considerable concern to Canadian companies which are operating here, and the Minister will, I think, get confirmation from his colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if he has not already got that confirmation elsewhere, that a very large part of the prospecting and searching for minerals in Ireland is being carried out here by Irish companies which have Canadian backing in Canadian finance. It is, therefore, a matter of very great concern to them that the provisions of this agreement will, in fact, operate to include what could be called franked income, the income that would eventuate when the new provisions of the Finance Act, 1967 come into operation.

The Minister has said that it does not affect Irish incentive tax relief in so far as it has not been modified, or modified only in minor respects and so as not to affect its general character. The general character, I think, is not changed. What has happened is that general character has been slightly extended.

A minor modification.

A minor modification. I hope, therefore, that the Minister has clarified the position, which is in relation to 12 months, and that the Convention will include that, too.

Finally, might I just say that I notice that the Minister has slid over the Preamble to the Order? The Government of Ireland and the Government of Canada desire to conclude an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation, as the Minister said, and the evasion of fiscal taxation. Is there fiscal taxation that the Minister is aware of? I do not think there is and I think that is a general phrase put in for good measure.

I take the last point first. The Deputy knows there is now an OECD model convention which is followed in all these cases. The phraseology is in conformity with that model.

I have already apologised to the Deputy and the House for the mix-up which occurred at our end over the position and the contents of this agreement. We took the view here that we should not disclose the substance and the details until the Order was placed before the House. Of course our placing that Order before the House was delayed because of the changes in taxation which were necessitated by the Consolidation Act. This restriction did not apply to our Canadian friends. They were free to publish details immediately on the signing of them, and they did so. I have already apologised for the omission.

The Minister has been more gracious now than on the previous occasion. If he looks at the records, he will see that he did not apologise. If he had, I would not have raised the matter now.

An apology was inherent in the reply.

I thought the Minister was trying to get out of it.

I would say that it was in deference to the House and to the prerogatives of the House that we decided not to publish it until the House had an opportunity of seeing the Order.

The other matter to which Deputy Sweetman referred was the question of the spared tax, as I think it is sometimes called. The position there is at the moment governed by the Canadian Income Tax Act, which stipulates that if the Canadian company owns 25 per cent in the Irish subsidiary, then the tax which is relieved here as an incentive will, in fact, be treated in Canada as tax paid here. That is really at this stage independent of the agreement and would spring from the Income Tax Act itself. Should the Canadians decide to change their law in that regard, then we would fall back on the agreement which stipulates that in these circumstances, the incentives will qualify, provided that was in force at the time of the signing, which is last November, or in regard to any minor modification of that. I certainly take the view that an extension of the time, as we have done, is a minor modification of these incentives and, therefore, would undoubtedly come under the provisions of an agreement if the Canadian Income Tax Act itself should be changed.

Might I ask the Minister whether if the Canadian Income Tax Act is not changed, any minor changes we have made in the 1967 Act do not affect the position? It is only if the Canadian Income Tax Act is changed that Article 14 comes into operation. Does this have to be done in the Seanad too?

No; in the Dáil only.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share