asked the Minister for Finance why no reference was made by him, either in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Finance Bill 1969 or in the Dáil, to the change effected by section 22 of that Bill so as to make owners of land now for the first time liable to income tax on conacre rents received by such owners.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tax on Conacre Rents.
41.
Rents from conacre lettings have been chargeable to income tax since the year 1963-64. The Finance Act, 1969, did not alter that position.
The Deputy may, however, have in mind receipts from the letting of land for grazing on the eleven months system. These lettings constitute easements and section 22 of the Finance Bill, 1969, provided, in explicit terms, for the charging of receipts from easements generally under Schedule D. The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill and my speech on the Second Stage drew attention to this change.
Prior to the Finance Act, 1969, a person who let land for conacre was liable to tax under Schedule D on the receipts whereas a person who let land for grazing on the eleven months system was liable to tax under Schedules A and B. With the abolition of tax under Schedules A and B, the receipts from grazing lettings on the eleven months system were brought into line, for tax purposes, with those from conacre lettings.
I am sure the Minister has there the phrase he used in the explanatory memorandum and the phrase he used on the Second Reading when he referred to these points. I have both of these here but I cannot find it.
I do not understand what the Deputy is getting at.
Is it not clear that the Minister never brought this matter to the attention of the House? Is it not perfectly clear this was a major change in income tax law? The Minister had an obligation to advise the House of the effect the wording was going to have.
I am being kind to the Deputy in ignoring the fact that he seems to be unaware of the difference between a conacre letting and a grazing letting. In my speech on the Second Stage of the Finance Bill, on the 15th July, I said that the section also brought into charge receipts from easements, and that these receipts were in the nature of rents and included receipts from car parks, caravan sites, fishing rights, et cetera.
Is the Minister aware that nobody in the whole country interpreted the easements as meaning that and that in fact it was three months after the Act was enacted before anybody, be he accountant, solicitor or any tax expert, noticed what the Minister had done? It was done in a sly way.
Could the Minister give us any reason why these incomes should not be subject to income tax?
Nobody is arguing about that. I am referring to the way in which this was done. I was not arguing about the merits of the case. It was done in the wrong way.