Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Nov 1972

Vol. 263 No. 12

Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kingdom of Belgium) Order, 1972: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kingdom of Belgium) Order, 1972

a copy of which Order in draft was laid on the table of Dáil Éireann on the 18th day of January, 1972.

Copies of the draft orders relating to double taxation relief conventions with Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and Zambia were laid before Dáil Éireann on the dates mentioned in the motions which appear on the Order Paper.

The conventions have been signed on behalf of the respective Governments. Subsequent to the signing of the conventions, four White Papers containing the text of the relevant convention were laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Before the conventions can enter into force, however, certain steps must first be taken under the laws of the countries concerned.

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 character 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 of the order must have been laid before Dáil Éireann and a resolution passed approving it.

Deputies will find the texts of the four conventions scheduled to the draft orders now before the House. For the convenience of Deputies, a separate memorandum has also been circulated with each draft order explaining briefly the effect of the articles in each convention.

The conventions with Belgium, Italy and Luxembourg will enter into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification and the Zambian convention will enter into force once it has been given the force of law in both countries.

The convention with Belgium will have effect in Ireland, as respects income tax and sur-tax, for the year of assessment beginning on 6th April in the year in which the convention is ratified and, as respects corporation profits tax, for any accounting period beginning on or after 1st April of the year in which the convention is ratified. It will be effective in Belgium as respects all tax due at source on income normally credited or payable after 31st December of the year in which the instruments of ratification are exchanged. It will apply as respects all tax other than tax due at source on income of any accounting period. ending on or after 31st December of the same year.

I should add that a limited agreement between Ireland and Belgium was concluded on 4th December, 1967, for the avoidance of double taxation on income derived from the business of sea and air transport. This agreement will be suspended for the period for which the new convention is in force and relief from double taxation of the income covered by the agreement will be provided under the provisions of Article 8 of the new convention instead.

The convention with Italy will have effect in Ireland, as respects income tax and sur-tax, for 1967-68 and subsequent years of assessment and, as respects corporation profits tax, for any accounting period beginning on or after 1st April, 1967, and for the unexpired portion of any accounting period current at that date. It will be effective in Italy for taxable years beginning on or after 1st January, 1967.

The convention with Luxembourg will have effect in Ireland, as respects income tax and sur-tax, for 1968-69 and subsequent years of assessment and, as respects corporation profits tax, for any accounting period beginning on or after 1st April, 1968, and for the unexpired portion of any accounting period current at that date. It will be effective in Luxembourg for periods of assessment beginning on or after 1st January, 1968.

The convention with Zambia will have effect in Ireland, as respects income tax and sur-tax, for 1967-68 and subsequent years of assessment and, as respects corporation profits tax, for any accounting period beginning on or after 1st April, 1967, and for the unexpired portion of any accounting period current at that date. In Zambia, it will be effective for tax years beginning on or after 1st April, 1967.

Each of the conventions will remain in force indefinitely but may be terminated by either this country or the other partner country giving the appropriate notice of termination prescribed by the respective convention.

The provisions of the conventions with Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and Zambia are broadly similar to those contained in the conventions which this country has concluded with other countries. In this respect I might mention that conventions are currently in force with Austria, Britain, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America. When the conventions that are now before the House come into force, we will then have double taxation relief arrangements with all the existing member States of the European Economic Community and the acceding countries. The main benefit which this country derives from the conclusion of such arrangements is the removal of a disincentive to the investment of foreign capital in Ireland.

I recommend that Dáil Éireann approve these draft orders.

I am not in a position to approve or disapprove because we have not yet received the explanatory memoranda on a number of these documents. They are still in the process of distribution. If the Minister wants co-operation we should receive these documents in advance. Even if they had been distributed when the Minister began speaking, how could anyone get through this material? This is only one document and there are four. How could one absorb them and consider whether there is anything appropriate to be said in respect of them? We have not got them. At the moment I have in front of me the Zambian draft order and explanatory memorandum and the text of the Minister's speech. I have not seen the others.

I think the Deputy is mistaken. I understand they were circulated at the time that the draft orders were laid before the House.

The explanatory memoranda?

So I understand.

I do not think it reached me. I am always hesitant in asserting anything negative as regards what reached me but I think if I had received four times this volume about double taxation I would recall the fact. I am open to correction if the Minister insists that that is the case, but I certainly do not recall receiving them. If I had, I should have regarded it as my duty to read them at once as I would assume that they would come within my area of responsibility.

Like the Deputy, I have a similar hesitation to assert positively or negatively but I am informed that this is so.

Whatever the reason, this is the first time I have seen these documents.

Is the Deputy in the position that he does not at the moment have copies of these documents?

All I have at the moment is the Zambia document. There is a pile over there. I do not know whether we are meant to have these also distributed.

These documents were distributed, I understand, originally when the draft orders were laid before the House and the intention was to distribute them again this morning in case Deputies had mislaid them——

Does that include the explanatory memoranda?

That is what I mean.

If that is the case, I do not recall receiving these documents, including the explanatory memoranda at any stage. If I am incorrect in that I shall be prepared to apologise but the position is that I have one document in front of me at the moment dealing with Zambia which makes the point that a feature of the convention is that matching credit is provided for tax foregone by reason of tax incentives granted to encourage industrial development. I do not understand why the Minister has distributed the Zambia one—or perhaps redistributed it—and does not redistribute the others. In the absence of the others I do not know whether this particular feature is included in the other agreements or not.

The Deputy will appreciate that it is not the Minister who distributes documents in the House.

Was it the Minister's intention to have this redistributed or distributed? Copies of all four or only the Zambia one?

It was intended to redistribute copies of all four.

They have not reached us yet—I have now received them. Am I expected to absorb them and speak intelligently about them? Can the Minister tell us—because I have not time on my feet to read through the documents—whether the matching credit provision is a feature of all four agreements?

Is it the tax-sparing arrangement that the Deputy has in mind?

(Cavan): On a point of order, there seems to be some confusion and some doubt as to whether certain information has been made available. Perhaps in the circumstances the Minister would agree to an adjournment of this discussion to enable Deputy FitzGerald to look into the matter?

I do not wish to be obstructive but I am informed that these documents were circulated before and, if they were, it seems a little unreasonable that the House should adjourn at this stage. Would the House bear with me for a moment?

I understand the documents, the explanatory memoranda, were made available to the Dáil Office. Whether they were circulated or made available for Deputies to get on demand, I do not know because they passed out of my ken at that stage. In the circumstances I would not object to a short adjournment if the House so wishes.

I appreciate the Minister's courtesy because it is possible that they were circulated but that we did not absorb them at the time.

On a general point in relation to the same area I found that in respect of another Department documents which are usually circulated to Members in their homes were left in an office here. The Government might look into this matter and see that these documents are circulated through the post to Deputies and not left where Deputies may not be able to get them or may not think of getting them?

Would 15 minutes be sufficient? There is a good deal of business before the House and I do not want to hold things up.

After Questions.

My difficulty is that if I agree to the suggestion, for instance, that they be taken after Questions, I do not know what other Ministers are concerned in other business and they may have so arranged their appointments today that this might be inconvenient for them.

I should think that, in regard to the mass of documentation, any remarks I make when I do have a chance to absorb it will be pretty brief. I do not think other Ministers will be held up for very long.

I should not think there will be many speeches on this.

I understand it would be possible to proceed with the next item, the County Management (Amendment) Bill but, perhaps, I could ask that we commence this business at 4 p.m. and complete it not later than 4.45 p.m. I am asking this for personal reasons as I have certain commitments.

I am agreeable to that if Deputy O'Donovan is also agreeable.

Certainly, I agree with that suggestion.

Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 to be taken at 4 p.m. to conclude not later than 4.45 p.m.

Top
Share