Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Jul 1967

Vol. 230 No. 5

Double Taxation Relief (Sea or Air Transport) (Finland) Order, 1967.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Double Taxation Relief (Sea or Air Transport) (Finland) Order, 1967,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Dáil Éireann on the 17th day of July, 1967.

Copies of draft Orders relating to double taxation relief arrangements with three European countries were laid before Dáil Éireann on 17th July, 1967. One of these is an Agreement with Finland limited to the avoidance of double taxation on income derived from the business of sea or air transport. The other two are comprehensive Conventions with the Republic of Austria and the Swiss Confederation for the avoidance of double taxation of income generally. I think it convenient to take these draft Orders together.

The Conventions and the Agreement have been signed on behalf of the respective Governments. Before the arrangements enter into force, however, the necessary steps must have been taken under the laws of the countries concerned to give effect to them.

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, sur-tax, corporation profits tax and any taxes of a similar nature shall have the force of law here if the Irish Government makes an Order accordingly.

Prior to the making of such an Order, however, a draft must have been laid before Dáil Éireann and a resolution passed approving it.

Deputies will find the texts of the Agreement and Conventions scheduled to the draft Orders now before the House. The usual brief explanatory note is appended at the end of the Orders relating to Austria and Switzerland. For the convenience of Deputies, a separate memorandum has also been circulated with each draft Order explaining the articles in greater detail.

The Conventions with Austria and Switzerland follow the general pattern of modern double taxation relief agreements and incorporate, as far as possible, articles based on the models drawn up by the Fiscal Committee of the OECD. Apart from certain matters of detail, the provisions are similar to those contained in the conventions which this country has concluded with Sweden, Germany and Denmark and in the Convention with Canada which was recently approved by Dáil Éireann. The Agreement with Finland follows the general pattern of existing agreements with the Kingdom of Norway and the Republic of South Africa.

The Conventions with Austria and Switzerland will help to promote the development of trade with those countries. They are intended to encourage investment of foreign capital in this country and they represent a further significant advance along the road towards the elimination of double taxation. This is important from the considerations of encouraging foreign investment and of taking care of our own foreign financial and commercial interests.

The explanatory memorandum on the Convention with Austria has drawn attention to a feature which is of particular significance in this context. Austria will exempt from the Austrian corporation tax dividends paid by an Irish company to an Austrian company which has held 25 per cent or more of the share capital of the Irish company continuously for at least 12 months. This exemption will be granted whether or not Irish income tax has been deducted from the dividends. In this way, the benefits of the exports tax relief and the tax relief to industries set up in the Shannon Customs-free area are preserved for Austrian interests operating here through the medium of Irish subsidiary companies.

The Convention with Switzerland will have like beneficial effects. Its explanatory memorandum points out that Switzerland will exempt from the Swiss Federal Defence Tax dividends paid by an Irish company to a Swiss company if the latter company holds not less than 20 per cent of the capital of the Irish company, or if the holding is valued at an amount in excess of two million Swiss francs. Similar exemption from Cantonal tax is granted in many of the Swiss cantons. This exemption will be granted, as it will in the case of Austria, whether or not Irish income tax has been deducted from the dividends.

The purpose of the Agreement with Finland is set out clearly and concisely in Article 2. The exemption which will be accorded to Finnish undertakings under the Agreement will cover income tax, sur-tax and corporation profits tax and also any other tax on income which might be imposed in the future in this country. Irish undertakings will be exempt from equivalent taxes on income in Finland.

The Convention with Austria will enter into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. Upon entry into force, the Convention will have effect in Ireland, as respects income tax and sur-tax, for 1964-65 and subsequent years of assessment, and, as respects corporation profits tax, for any accounting period beginning on or after 1st April, 1964, and for the unexpired portion of any accounting period current at that date. It will continue in force indefinitely but may be terminated by either country giving notice of termination at least six months before the end of any calendar year.

The Convention with Switzerland also will enter into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. It will have effect in Ireland, as respects income tax and sur-tax, for 1965-66 and subsequent years of assessment, and, as respects corporation profits tax, for any accounting period beginning on or after the 1st April, 1965, and for the unexpired portion of any accounting period current at that date. It, also, will continue in force indefinitely but may be terminated by either country giving notice of termination at least six months before the end of any calendar year after the year 1971.

The Agreement with Finland will enter into force upon the exchange of notes indicating its approval by each country according to that country's legal procedure. It will then be effective in respect of profits earned as from the 1st January, 1967—the earliest date from which liability to tax might conceivably arise. It will thus put beyond doubt any question of possible tax liability for past years. The Agreement will continue in force indefinitely but may be terminated at any time by the Government of either country on giving six months' notice to the other Government.

The motions must be moved separately.

I take it, Sir, we are discussing Nos. 5, 6 and 7 together?

Yes, we can do that.

I am quite agreeable to that course. So far as No. 5 is concerned, it appears to me that this is a double taxation agreement in relation purely to sea and air transport. In the explanatory memorandum, there is a phrase in relation to Article I of the definition section to the effect that it is confined to bona fide Irish enterprises which have their head offices and control administration within the State. Does the Minister intend to imply by that phrase that, for the purposes of this agreement, the tests which arise normally in relation to taxation in the case of a company are not operative here? The normal test is that of control and this provision in relation to head office is not something that normally arises in the consideration of the liability of any company to taxation in Ireland.

The Minister is aware from his private capacity, as I am aware from mine, that for any company it is control that is the operative section and though the company may, perhaps, be incorporated with a head office outside the country, even if that is so, should effective management of the company rest in Ireland, then it would be covered here. This certainly would hardly arise in relation to air transport, but it is possible in relation to sea transport; I should like the Minister, therefore, to deal with this aspect when he comes to reply.

The pattern of these double taxation agreements has now been amended to cover the pro-forma pattern laid down by OECD. These follow that pattern. It seems to be a necessary part of the pattern, as I understand it, that we would, in so far as we can, complete first a sea and air transport double taxation agreement and then, when we come to complete a fuller one, that sea and air transport agreement is superseded during the course of the currency of the full double taxation agreement. That naturally brings us to the point of inquiring whether, in relation to Finland, there is any immediate hope or prospect of having a full double taxation agreement.

As regards the other two agreements, we have made it clear for some time on this side of the House that we would welcome the enactment of arrangements for full double taxation agreements with as many countries as possible. I am not quite clear whether my research has been insufficient or whether the fact is that we are still a long way behind where we should be, but we had the other day a discussion of a new Canadian agreement and I want to make it clear now, in making this comment that, for once, I can completely absolve the Minister but, when we were speaking on that occasion, I had not the benefit of the explanatory memorandum before me which the Minister had sent over here but which, for reasons none of us need elaborate, had not been circulated to this side of the House, not because, I may say, of any ulterior motive but just by reason of one of those mistakes that can occasionally happen. Because of that, however, I was not able to raise this point then. Indeed, I was completely taken aback, as the Minister will readily understand, when he referred to the explanatory memorandum and I had not seen it. I thought there might be something in that memorandum which raised the point.

In the case of Canada, there was a double taxation agreement entered into on 28th October, 1954, and which was implemented probably in 1955, Series No. 18. Am I correct in thinking that, now, that old agreement is not merely obsolete but is superseded by the new agreement, that the present agreement entirely displaces it and that the necessity for such displacement arises purely from changes in the Canadian tax law rather than in the Irish tax law? There has been a suggestion that the necessity arose because of the consolidation of our income tax law in the Consolidation Bill enacted just before Easter, in March, 1967. I cannot understand how it could arise from our consolidation because we were only consolidating what was the law before. I think the necessity for the new taxation agreement arises solely because of changes in Canada and not because of changes here, but I think it desirable that it should formally go on the record, whether I am correct or incorrect on that basis.

Secondly, in relation to these general agreements, it seems to me that we have agreements now in relation to Germany alone of the EEC members. My research certainly has not been able to show to me that we have any such agreement with Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg, France or Italy. I think that, in certain cases, we have the limited sea and air agreements to which I referred in relation to the case of Finland. I am quite prepared to stand corrected by the Minister in relation to this, if I am wrong, but it does seem to me that we have only the one full double taxation convention that I mention with any country of the EEC, that is, the German one that was brought in in 1962. If that is so, may I put this to the Minister? It is a poor preparation for our application to EEC though I accept without question that the negotiation, for us, a small country, of double taxation agreements must be a matter of some difficulty because of the limited personnel we have available and because of the difficulties in relation to the availability of that personnel of which I am personally aware. At the same time it is a matter on which we must pull up our socks pretty expeditiously.

Leaving out the countries of the EEC, we have I think conventions with other countries with which we do a substantial amount of trade: I am talking of full conventions rather than of limited ones. We have the ones with the United States, with Canada, with Sweden and with Germany, and I think we have one also with Denmark for the full basis of double taxation relief. I should like the Minister to indicate to us how many of these full conventions we have follow the OECD pattern and how many of them will require revision to fit in with that pattern? The OECD statement made it clear that it would wish all member countries to follow the pattern that was laid down, I think some number of years ago, for that which was adopted by the fiscal committee of OECD; I cannot remember the year at the moment but it was in comparatively recent years. It may be that as a result of that convention, it will be necessary for us to re-negotiate and re-amend some of the existing ones. I should like the Minister to make clear how many of our existing double taxation agreements do not conform to that pattern and whether he has any present intention of re-negotiating in the immediate future so that they can be in accord with the general OECD convention.

While I accept without question that the immediate object of the Minister for Finance must be or should be to deal with the other five countries of the Community, at the same time there are other countries with which we do a substantial amount of trade and the necessity and desirability of dealing with them on a double taxation agreement basis should be evident. Australia, for example, is one that immediately comes to mind. Incidentally, it suddenly dawns on me that I forgot to mention the United Kingdom which is, of course, our main double taxation source, going back now about 40 years.

The world in which we live today becomes a smaller place every year with the development of air transport. For that reason, I can well understand and accept that, when it is not possible to negotiate quickly full double taxation agreements, it is necessary to bring in the limited type such as the Finnish one we have before us. At the same time, the shrinkage in delays in transport, both for personnel and for freight, makes essential in the freeing of trade that general double taxation agreements be introduced at the earliest possible moment with all the countries with which we do any business.

Could the Minister explain to us why, in respect of the limited agreement we have here in draft before us with Finland, it is expressed to be done at Dublin on 15th day of September, 1965, and yet it is not brought before Dáil Éireann for almost two years afterwards for whatever procedure we are now engaged in and which I imagine is substantially one of ratification? Is there any reason for that delay? Has there been a corresponding delay perhaps in Finland?

In dealing with the rather more extensive agreement which is contained in the convention with the Republic of Austria, it is expected to have been done in duplicate in Vienna on 24th May, 1966. Is there any particular reason why the appropriate documents for ratification should not have been brought before Dáil Éireann without a lapse of 12 months or was there perhaps some development in Austria which involved that delay? Deputy Sweetman spoke of how there could be some delay associated with the agreement with the Swiss Confederation arising out of our Income Tax Act, 1967. The Minister will notice that it specifically refers to power conferred upon him by section 361 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1967 (No. 6 of 1967). I also share Deputy Sweetman's interest to know how any new power or procedure had been adumbrated by the Income Tax Act, 1967, which carried with it the certificate before this House that it in no way altered the existing law. When the Minister is concluding perhaps he would have time to deal with these three queries.

The first question raised by Deputy Sweetman was on the interpretation of the Finnish agreement and I think I can do no better than to reiterate the words of the explanatory memorandum which clearly indicate that the limitation of the exemption to corporations and partnerships constituted under the laws of Ireland necessarily confines relief to bona fide Irish enterprises which have their head office and control administration within the State. The Deputy also asked about the position regarding agreements with various other countries. Perhaps it would be best if I ran through quickly the present state of relations with other countries.

Perhaps the Minister would not mind if I interrupted him. I saw that in the explanatory memorandum but it is not in the agreement—at least I could not find it. If the Minister looks at Article 1, he will see that it means "persons resident in Ireland and not resident in Finland, and corporations and partnerships constituted under the laws of Ireland and managed and controlled in Ireland". That is not the same as the explanatory memorandum.

I think it is.

The Minister, in his other capacity, knows what "managed and controlled in Ireland" means.

I would refer the Deputy to the definition section.

Yes, that is the one I am reading: Article 1.

` "Irish enterprises" means the Government of Ireland, physical persons resident in Ireland and not resident in Finland, and corporations and partnerships under the laws of Ireland and managed and controlled in Ireland.'

That does not necessarily involve the head office.

"Resident in Ireland"—surely that covers it?

No, "resident" under the taxation laws means managed and controlled.

I think this can stand on its own legs.

I do not agree.

That is my advice from the draftsman.

It will be an interesting contest before the Special Commissioner some time.

The position is that we have full agreements in force and signed with the UK, the USA, Canada, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark. As Deputy Sweetman points out, Germany is the only EEC country included in that list. The agreements with the USA and with the United Kingdom were long before the OECD model agreement and the agreements with Sweden, Germany and Denmark were entered into before the final draft of the OECD model was ready but account was taken of the provisions of the draft model in framing these agreements so that it is legitimate to say they are, by and large, mutatis mutandis, in accordance with the model Agreement. From now on our agreements, so far as it is possible, will be in accordance with the OECD model. It would not be our intention to revise any particular agreement simply to bring it into line with the OECD model but if and when any agreement falls to be revised for any reason, we intend to bring it so into line.

However, double taxation agreements have been completed and signed with Austria and Switzerland, and are now before the Dáil, and agreements have been completed but not signed with France and Italy, both EEC countries. Agreements are under way with the Netherlands, Norway and Cyprus, and negotiations are authorised but are either not yet initiated or not completed with Pakistan, Zambia, Nigeria, Malaya, Australia and Luxembourg, another EEC country. Limited sea and air transport agreements are in force with Norway, South Africa and Switzerland. An agreement with Finland is now before us; and an agreement with Belgium which is also an EEC country is at an advanced stage but it has not yet been signed.

Is the Belgium agreement only sea and air?

Yes. We are not proceeding to the full scale comprehensive agreement with Finland because there does not seem to be any great demand for it. The volume of business between Ireland and Finland would not seem to warrant it. If a demand should arise in the future for a full scale double taxation agreement we would negotiate such an agreement and the present sea and air transport agreement would be subsumed into the more comprehensive one.

Deputy Sweetman is right about the Canadian situation. What happened there was that because of changes in the internal income tax laws of Canada, we had to revise the double taxation agreement, and then of course there was a delay because we had to incorporate into the revised agreement technical references to the Income Tax Act, 1967. That is really the explanation for most of the delay which Deputy Dillon refers to in regard to the other agreements.

Perhaps the best thing I could do would be to give him the timetable of affairs. In regard to Finland, negotiations commenced in January 1960; the draft agreement was sent to Finland in June 1961 and was agreed to in 1964 and signed in September, 1965. The Draft Order was presented here in this House in April 1966 and had to be delayed to take account of the Income Tax Act, 1967. In regard to Austria, negotiations commenced in March 1964 and the agreement was signed in May, 1966. This was announced in May, 1966, but further action was held up until now because of the Income Tax Act, 1967. In regard to the agreement with Switzerland, negotiations commenced in March 1965 and the agreement was signed in November, 1966. This was announced in November, 1966, and because of the Income Tax Act, 1967, it was held up until now. These are the main questions which were raised and I recommend the three agreements to the House for approval.

May I comment on the motion that this is the kind of legislation appropriate to this time of year and, as the Minister will observe, this is the kind of legislation on which the Government may expect to get co-operation from the House?

There is no difficulty about a quick passage for a measure like this.

I did not notice that the Taoiseach was present and I direct his attention to my remarks.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share