I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, before section 6, to insert a new section as follows:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other enactment no charge to tax shall be made on any person in respect of any benefit derived by him from the provision of a vehicle where such person is wholly and exclusively employed in the capacity of commercial traveller by the person or organisation supplying the vehicle.".
I trust that the fundamental disagreement which exists between the Minister for Finance and myself on economic and taxation policies generally will not have any effect on his consideration of this amendment. I ask him to consider it seriously on its merits on the grounds of fairness and equity. I want in this amendment to achieve a situation where a genuine whole-time commercial traveller will not be taxed on some imaginative benefit which the Revenue Commissioners believe he derives from being provided with a company car.
We had a discussion yesterday evening about benefits in kind which taxpayers derive from being provided with company motor cars. I want to indicate to the Minister as clearly as I can that in this amendment I am not concerned with people who really derive benefit from having cars provided by their companies which in effect is an addition to their incomes. I would like on another occasion to argue with the Minister about that whole taxation provision and perhaps persuade him, as Deputy Colley attempted to do, to alter the system, not necessarily change the principle.
I am concerned in this amendment with a very limited and clearly defined situation. I am not concerned with the managing director or the general manager who has a large car placed at his disposal by an appreciative company, which in fact amounts to a substantial perquisite in his case. I am concerned solely with commercial travellers, men who are fully occupied by an employer, a company or an individual as commercial travellers. I did not put down this amendment because of any approach from commercial travellers as an organisation.
This matter was brought to my attention very definitely and very clearly by a constituent of mine who is a commercial traveller. He is a hard working individual and is married with six children. He has a moderate income and he received from the Revenue Commissioners an additional assessment going back over four or five years which amounted to £300 or £400. This was a crushing blow to this man. He is, like many other people, particularly the white collar category, continually striving to make ends meet. He has to pay for practically everything for himself and for his family. He gets very few free services from any organisation. He is just about able to make ends meet from month to month.
This extra additional taxation was a crushing hardship inflicted on him because in the view of the Minister and the Revenue Commissioners he is deriving some tangible benefit from the car provided for him by the company he works for. That car is an absolute necessity. He leaves his family early on a Monday morning and travels throughout the country on his company's business and returns home on a Friday night or maybe a Saturday morning. It is both absurd and ridiculous to suggest that he is deriving some positive benefit by reason of that car being provided for him.
The commercial traveller has a difficult and tedious sort of life which involves most of the men and women concerned being away from home from Monday to Friday and living during the week in difficult and unsatisfactory conditions around the country. It is unreal as well as unfair to suggest that they be taxed on some imaginary benefit. Their companies provide cars so that the travellers can pursue their occupation and carry out the work of the organisations concerned. I came to this situation as a result of having been made aware of the dilemma of a constituent of mine. This is a hard-working, family man who is pushed hard to make ends meet in the normal course of events. Suddenly he has received an assessment for income tax in respect of an imaginary benefit. He simply does not understand the reasoning behind this. I endeavoured to explain to him the concept of benefits in kind and he suggested that if it would suit the Revenue Commissioners he would be prepared to leave his car at his company's premises during week-ends, that he would arrive at his office early on Monday morning and get away as quickly as possible if this would prevent the Revenue Commissioners from placing that unfair imposition on him. I was unable to put across to that man the idea behind these assessments. I am asking the Minister to look at the situation of this category of persons who do not derive any positive satisfactory benefit from these company cars.
The Minister may say that they have the use of the cars at weekends but people who drive around the country from Monday to Friday in pursuance of their daily work have no wish to go on long drives on Sundays. Therefore, so far as the physical use of a car at weekends is concerned, the Minister can be assured that the people we are talking of engage only in the minimal amount of driving in their free time. I should like the Minister to tell me whether, if a commercial traveller leaves his car at his company's premises during the weekend, the Revenue Commissioners will insist on assessing him for benefits in kind.
When the person to whom I have referred brought this matter to my attention I decided to investigate further and I asked a number of other commercial travellers with whom I am acquainted what was the situation. They had all had a similar experience and all equally resented these assessments which they do not regard as either just or fair in their case. One very experienced commercial traveller told me that in most cases the tax-free allowances in respect of his friends on the road have been reduced by between £300 and £600 as a result of this alleged benefit in kind.
It is absurd to tell an ordinary hard-working commercial traveller that he is deriving £600 worth of benefit simply by having provided a car for use in the pursuance of the business of his organisation. I asked the Minister not to quote to me the case of the higher-paid executive who derives substantial benefit from his car. As Deputy Colley has said, we can argue that case some other time on its merits. Therefore, I ask the Minister not to confuse the issue by dragging in the situation of the managing director with the Mercedes. This argument is totally restricted to commercial travellers. However, I wish to say a word about the big car in this context. Many commercial travellers by reason of the mileage they do and by reason of the type of goods they carry need big cars. In the course of his political career the Minister, like the rest of us, travels a fair deal and he knows that if one is doing a lot of what is known as country work there is a major difference, from the point of view of one's performance, capacity, safety and well-being, between a big car and a small car. For the commercial traveller who must carry a range of goods either a saloon-type car or a station wagon-type is necessary. I am making that point so that the Minister will not introduce the big car as a luxury item where the commercial traveller is concerned.
I am asking him to consider favourably the case I have made and not to give me the argument that if this concession is granted a corresponding burden must be placed on somebody else. That is an argument that is more apparent than real. First, it discounts any possibility of revenue buoyancy. As the Minister knows, it is possible for him to make concessions in the tax system without necessarily imposing a corresponding burden on another section. A concession can be taken care of in the general overall increase.