Vol. 439 No. 7
5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Finance whether the Revenue Commissioners are pursuing the matter of outstanding taxes due to the Exchequer from a group of companies (details supplied); if so, the year or years for which taxes are outstanding; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The pursuit of tax liabilities is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners who always take action to try to collect outstanding liabilities.
For reasons of confidentiality, it is established practice that a Minister for Finance does not answer a parliamentary question about an individual's or company's tax affairs, other than when the Deputy asking the question was acting on behalf of the taxpayer. It is my understanding that this is not the case in the present instance.
In the circumstances, therefore, the specific information sought cannot be divulged.
I am flummoxed by the Minister's reply. I am very much acting on behalf of the taxpayer. Have these figures been filed in the documents in the High Court because of the row about whether to appoint a receiver or an examiner? Is it not the case that £17 million has been found to be outstanding in taxes, that the Revenue's own estimate was £5 million, that of that £17 million due in taxes £11 million is due to the Irish Exchequer? Did the Revenue Commissioners acquiesce in the change from receiver to examiner when they would have been a preferential shareholder if a receiver had been appointed? Is the amount outstanding in tax more than was the amount outstanding to the banks when they decided to put in a receiver for £10 million of a total bank indebtedness of £16 million? I will have more questions later.
I would like to be more helpful to Deputy Rabbitte but yesterday evening and this morning I sought legal advice which was to the effect that the information is confidential and should not be disclosed while the group is under the protection of the court. Although Deputy Rabbitte might or might not be wrong I am not allowed, as Minister for Finance, to enter into a debate on these figures while they are before the court.
I find it difficult to understand the Minister's attitude when the figures are on record. Did he specifically acquiesce in the decison to facilitate an exmainer, which means that in all probability the State will not get back moneys due? Was there political intervention at a senior Government level?
I had no involvement whatsoever. The Revenue Commissioners do not have to consult me but act independently. I had no hand, act or part in the argument one way or the other. There was no political intervention because the Revenue Commissioners do not have to consult me.
In the matter of persuading the Revenue Commissioners to acquiesce the decision to appoint an examiner as distinct from a receiver, is it not the case that as a result of the political representations from the company via Minister Smith, the Taoiseach was involved in that decision?
The Deputy is not correct in saying that the Taoiseach was involved in matters relating to Revenue. Perhaps the Deputy is talking about the overall case. In endeavouring to save the jobs in the company concerned, the Taoiseach and a number of Government Ministers were involved. Any pressure put on Revenue would have to come from me.
We now come to Question No. 6.
On a point of order, will the Chair review my question relating to Structural Funds which in the main sought statistical information and was not a repeat of Priority Questions tabled earlier in the week?
My office is dealing with that matter, I hope in a sympathetic manner.
Will the Minister give an assurance that no member of the Cabinet, including the Taoiseach, intervened with the Revenue Commissioners or the Department of Social Welfare in relation to outstanding PRSI payments on behalf of the company concerned?
I cannot answer the second part of the Deputy's question relating to PRSI payments, but I will communicate with the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, in that regard. Revenue makes its own decisions on cases which come before the courts. It does not have to consult the Minister for Finance, the Government or anybody else on those decisions.
The Minister did not answer my question. I want an assurance that the Taoiseach did not intervene with the Revenue Commissioners on behalf of the company.
It is my understanding that nobody intervened with the Revenue Commissioners on behalf of the company.
A Cheann Comhairle——
I thought we dealt with this question adequately. I will allow the Deputy a final question.
In most cases complaints about the Revenue Commissioners relate to overestimation of tax due by large companies. However, in this case it is estimated the tax due at £5 million when approximately £11 million is due to the Exchequer. Why did the Revenue Commissioners acquiesce in the decision to appoint an examiner rather than a receiver?
We are having a repeat of earlier questions.
While I have some data on this matter I cannot give it to the Deputy as I have been legally advised in that regard by the solicitors for the Revenue Commissioners and the Government's solicitors. Deputies from all sides of the House frequently make representations to me — correctly in some cases — to plead with Revenue to take into account the circumstances of companies. For example, some companies may have a short term cash flow problem and may be trying to complete a contract. In recent years Revenue has endeavoured to take into account the employment content and is as helpful as possible in reaching its decisions. Regardless of its attitude it is impossible to retrieve all money outstanding to it.
I do not know all the circumstances of the company involved. The case is before the courts, it has not yet been resolved and we should await the outcome of those proceedings.
We are referring to the Kentz Corporation.
