I thank Deputy Gallagher for giving me an opportunity to say a few words generally about this scheme and I assure him that I will personally examine the case he raised.
I will briefly outline the rationale behind the still relatively new vehicle registration system which has been in force for only ten months. Excise duty on motor vehicles was replaced from 1 January 1993 by a first registration charge aimed to maintain revenue from motor vehicle taxation at an equivalent revenue neutral level. The new vehicle registration tax is based on the open market selling price and is designed to ensure the same amount of tax is charged on all vehicles of a similar value in Ireland, irrespective of whether they are imported or originally purchased within the State and whether new or used. The non-discriminatory nature of the registration tax is a requirement of the EC Single Market and indeed the neutrality of the system as between different vehicles of the same value makes it inherently fairer than the system it replaced. Needless to say the scheme will experience teething problems.
Since 15 September 1993 Revenue have intensified their crackdown on unregistered vehicles. Road checks were carried out throughout the country and vehicles on which VRT had not been paid have been seized. A number of Deputies have raised that matter with me. Revenue have concentrated in particular on Irish residents who should not be driving foreign registered vehicles. There are severe monetary penalties and possible jail sentences for persons convicted of VRT offences. National newspaper advertisements have drawn peoples' attention to the law in this regard. In 1992 the Revenue Commissioners seized 1,529 vehicles. Between 1 January 1993 and 14 October 1993, the latest data available, 1,309 vehicles were seized. Under Revenue's special nationwide enforcement exercise, which took place between 15 and 28 September 1993, 278 vehicles were seized.
In relation to the particular case raised by Deputy Gallagher, I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that in May 1993 the person concerned visited the vehicle registration office at Tullamore and sought to register a car without payment of vehicle registration tax under the reliefs available to persons transferring their residence to the State. During the interview he indicated that he had been resident in the State for approximately two years. The car had been obtained for him by his son-in-law who is resident in the UK and imported into the State in December 1992. He was advised that he would not qualify for transfer of residence facilities as he did not meet the condition that the person transferring his residence to the State must have had possession and use of the car outside the State for at least six months before the date of transfer of residence. This condition is set out in the Vehicle Registration Tax (Permanent Reliefs) Regulations, 1993.
He was advised of the amount of vehicle registration tax payable on the car. He was also advised of the legal requirement to declare the car within one working day of its arrival in the State. At this stage, I understand, he terminated the interview and left the office. A few days later he again visited the vehicle registration office. When he refused to register the car and pay the VRT due he was warned that he was committing an offence and the car was liable to seizure. The car in question was encountered being driven by the person concerned by officers of the Customs and Excise on 11 October 1993. As they had reasonable suspicion that the VRT on the vehicle had not been paid they detained it for further investigation using powers under section 142 (3) of the Finance Act, 1992.
Subsequent investigations indicated that the person concerned applied for and was granted transfer of residence facilities in respect of his household goods in January 1992. These facilities were granted on foot of a declaration signed by the person concerned in which he stated that he had surrendered the tenancy of a local authority house in the UK in January 1992 and in return had obtained financial assistance from the London Borough of Hackney Housing Authority to purchase a house in County Offaly.
The officers were satisfied that the person concerned was a resident of the State and had failed to pay VRT due by him on the car in question. This is an offence under section 139 (3) (d) of the Finance Act, 1992. The penalty on summary conviction for this offence is £1,000 and the car is liable to forfeiture. In this case the car was offered to the person concerned for a compromise sum of £400 in lieu of prosecution. This offer has not yet been availed of and the car remains in the custody of Customs and Excise.
On 15 October 1993, while investigations were continuing, the person concerned visited the vehicle registration office at Tullamore and submitted an application for relief from payment of VRT on the basis that he had transferred his residence to the State on 10 December 1992. This is at present under consideration. However, he will be required to provide evidence to substantiate his claim.
The nature of the disability of the person concerned is not known, but I will communicate with the Deputy in that regard. The person involved has not applied to the Revenue Commissioners under the terms of the Disabled Drivers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1989, as yet, but I will make available to the Deputy details of that scheme and the procedures that must be followed by the person involved.
The Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that the officers involved dealt with the matter fairly and correctly at all times. Nevertheless, I will take account of what Deputy Gallagher has told me. I appreciate his concern in putting forward the case and I will ensure that the matter is investigated fully.
