There is another point which is not so much a question of possible evasion as of a certain vagueness which I should like to draw to the Minister's attention. Owing to the time that is available in this Bill, I do not intend to do more than mention it. Many people have misgivings about the capturing of a confidential agent like a solicitor, in particular, by clauses of this nature. I do not want to repeat all the things I have said on this, but even in the case of a solicitor the point I am about to make should have attention. Under subsection (4) of this section the person who acts solely in the capacity of the agent as I understand it receives immunity under the section until an event happens, and the event in question is provided for in the following subsection. The subsection (4) to which I am referring says:
(4) A person who acts solely in the capacity of an agent shall not be liable for tax chargeable on a gift or inheritance to an amount in excess of the market value of so much of the property of which the gift or inheritance consists and of the income from such property which he held, or which came into his possession, at any time after the serving on him of the notice referred to in subsection (5).
Asking to be considered as making all the points that were made before in reference to solicitors in this context, I refer to subsection (5), which specifies that the tax is recoverable from that agent inter alios after the requisite notice has been served. That puts the agent in the same position as if, from that out, subsection (4) was not there; in other words, subsection (4) ceases to operate to protect him. I could develop this argument in support of the argument for exempting particularly solicitors from such provisions, but having said that on other Acts, as I say, I want that point to stand by itself. The point I want to make now, therefore, is a new one arising under subsection (8) which says that (a) a person who is primarily accountable for the payment of tax and (b) a person who is authorised or required to pay tax—again I am referring to the agent:
in respect of any property shall, for the purpose of paying the tax, or raising the amount of the tax when already paid, have power, whether the property is or is not vested in him, to raise the amount of such tax and any interest and expenses properly paid or incurred by him in respect thereof, by the sale or mortgage of, or a terminable charge on, that property or any part thereof.
It seems to me that that requires something like the qualification that Deputy Colley mentioned in regard to consideration. There is a defect or a danger there in that the sale of the mortgage could be effected, to the loss of the person beneficially entitled, by an agent merely to raise the cash to pay duty. It might be argued from the Revenue Commissioners' point of view that, if the tax has not been paid properly in the first instance and so on, this is equitable.
On the other hand, there is a danger—I would go so far as to say a temptation—that, if substantial property were to be in the hands of an agent, in certain circumstances that agent could either sell or mortgage the property under the colour of realising the funds necessary for the discharge of duties. As I have said, in that case the powers are too wide and, although they are not dangerous to the Revenue, they are a dangerous provision in the legislation from the point of view of the regulation of agents generally.
I wonder would the Minister consider whether any limitation could be put on that power of sale to ensure that assets are neither misappropriated, nor squandered, nor the subject of any question about negotiations or deals, that they are disposed of for full value and that the full difference will accrue in the proper location. It is difficult to see how to amend the section as it stands in that regard. It seems to me that this is a desirable amendment, from the point of view of the public and not from the Revenue point of view. I hope I have made the point clear to the Minister. If there is anything in an Act which would facilitate undesirable traffic, or even misappropriation of somebody else's property we should at least attempt to include some provision to safeguard the beneficiary, or whoever is really entitled. In the case of an agent, it might easily be a question not only of a minor or an incapacitated person but, worse still, it could be the widow who might not be emotionally equipped at the time to deal with the problems which might arise.