asked the Minister for Finance if the Revenue Commissioners have been paid the sum of £8,000 odd alleged to be due to them prior to the liquidation of Potez Aerospace Limited; and, if not, if he will indicate the schedule under which such tax became due, and the period involved.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Potez Aerospace Limited.
12.
: Presumably the Deputy has in mind the report in the daily press of the meeting of creditors of the company at which a list of creditors was given including the Inspector of Taxes for a sum of £8,033 12s 5d. As regards the details for which the Deputy asks, he will appreciate that statutory obligations as to secrecy preclude the Revenue Commissioners from disclosing the income tax affairs of a particular taxpayer.
: Does the Taoiseach not appreciate that this company was not liable for income tax at all and, therefore, this money represents money withheld by those concerned from the employees to pay over to Revenue and in fact this money is not tax due in the ordinary way? It is a misappropriation of funds taken from the employees to be paid to Revenue and not paid. In those circumstances £8,000 represents an outrageously long period.
: The Deputy will appreciate that there is a commercial practice whereby interest on loans is paid to the advancers of the loans or to people entitled to get a dividend and tax repayments withheld. It is likely that this £8,000 was made up in that way and it will have to be refunded to the Revenue Commissioners.
: It is not exactly the same except that in one case it is deducted from the employees, and in the other case from the payee of the loan interest? It is not like an ordinary case of tax on profits? It is tax withheld.
: It is tax that will ultimately be paid. The Revenue Commissioners cannot know at all times and in all cases——
: I am not blaming the Revenue Commissioners at all.
: In any event, it is a holding back of the tax element in the repayment of the loan. The position came to the notice of the Revenue Commissioners. If there were any overt, or other attempt at evasion it would in any event come to the notice of the Revenue Commissioners. The liquidator or whatever you call the man concerned made this disclosure openly and this was obviously evidence of intent to pay the sum due.
: I accept that it is money withheld that should have been paid over at the date of withholding.