Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Apr 1976

Vol. 289 No. 8

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Revenue Commissioners Valuation Procedure.

18.

asked the Minister for Finance why the Revenue Commissioners, now and for some time past, automatically reject all affidavits, certificates and other evidence of market value in voluntary transfer cases; and if this procedure follows a direction from him to extract the maximum duty out of every such transaction.

It is not correct to suggest that there has been any change in the Revenue Commissioners' practice in these cases or that they automatically reject all affidavits, certificates and other evidence of market value in voluntary transfer cases. Cases are referred to the Valuation Office only where the valuations supplied seem inadequate. The majority of valuations are accepted without reference to the Valuation Office.

Does it come as a surprise to the Minister that his fellows in the legal profession are all complaining about the fact that the Revenue Commissioners return certificates, affidavits and other evidence of market value as a matter of course and that there is serious complaint about this within the profession? Would the Minister accept that, in my experience, claims for value which are obviously outrageous have issued from the Revenue Commissioners? Would the Minister agree, therefore, that there does appear to be a change in policy?

I certainly accept it if the Deputy tells me that that has been his experience. First of all, he asked me whether I gave any direction. I gave no direction.

I accept that.

I gave no direction and it would be improper of me to do so because the only requirement existing here is that which lies, by law, on the Revenue Commissioners. Of course the operation of that is a matter for themselves. But what the Deputy has said to me does surprise me and it has not previously come to my notice. I am assured by the Revenue Commissioners that there has been no change in practice. It may be that some people have been unlucky. I experienced cases which were challenged and ones which were not and sometimes I was surprised as much when they were not challenged as when they were. Of course, the pattern of experience can vary. Valuations are made by valuers, not by lawyers.

Would the Minister accept that there is considerable complaint within the profession about the fact that, to say the least of it, the proportionate return at present is very much higher than it used to be?

I will certainly look into it. I am assured by the Revenue Commissioners that there has been no change in practice and that the majority of valuations are accepted without reference to the Valuation Office because on the face of it, they appear to be proper. It is only where they have doubts about the valuation that they refer them to the Valuation Office.

That comes as a very great surprise to me.

I should like to reaffirm what Deputy Flanagan says as one who does valuations. Ninety per cent of them are referred to the Valuation Office at present.

Of course, I am not saying that this is necessarily the case but if valuations which might have been historically correct are submitted in relation to present-day values they may well be challenged. It is a matter, in the final analysis, for the Revenue Commissioners to decide whether or not they should seek further and better opinion from the Valuation Office.

Top
Share