Síle de Valera
Question:31 Miss de Valera asked the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht the views, if any, he has on the recent decision to introduce new guidelines concerning tax exemptions for artists. [9826/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tax Exemptions for Artists.
As the Deputy is aware, a statutory provision in the Finance Act, 1994, required that guidelines be drawn up by the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht and An Chomhairle Ealaíon, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, for determining, for the purpose of section 2 of the Finance Act, 1969, whether works falling to be considered under that section are original and creative works and whether they have, or are generally recognised as having, cultural or artistic merit.
The Deputy is further aware that section 2 of the Finance Act, 1969 provides that a work for the purposes of the section is an original and creative work in one of the following categories: — a book or other writing, a play, a musical composition, a painting or like picture, and a sculpture.
I am satisfied that what has been agreed between myself, An Chomhairle Ealaíon and the Minister for Finance are guidelines that restore the original intent of this statute as envisaged in 1969 in a way that takes reasonable cognisance of the present state of cultural activity in the country and bearing in mind what is practically achievable by statute.
Assessment of individual cases is a matter for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.
I am sure the Minister will agree that since 1969 tax exemptions for artists have been of tremendous practical and financial assistance to many of them. I note the Minister stated that the criteria for such exemptions must ensure that the work is original, creative and has cultural or artistic merit. Does he agree that the regulations are very restrictive and exclude works which, up to now, were included.
The volume of applications put the scheme under pressure. Since 1969 section 2 of the Finance Act was operated by the Revenue Commissioners along the lines stated in my reply, but the absence of definitions caused some difficulty. Following the introduction of the appeals mechanism in 1989, people began to lodge appeals regarding their works. The appeals commissioners heard cases which contended that works contained elements of originality and creativity and in some cases applicants were successful in seeking exemptions. Lengthy disputes arose about the inclusion of items such as school text books, books used primarily as aid to professional practice, works which arguably mainly presented existing facts or ideas and were compendiums of no knowledge rather than original or imaginative works. The established criteria are an attempt to deal with the issue of absence of definition so that the basis on which an appeal is made will be a response to known conditions. The scheme has benefited many artists, and I pay tribute to those who introduced it, but to retain its effectiveness it was necessary to prevent its diffusion through vague definition. The intention of the new guidelines is to direct the benefits of the section to those originally envisaged under the Act.
I would agree with the Minister if we were talking about huge numbers but the information I have been given, and I am open to correction, is that in the past 26 years, only 4,800 works were submitted and of those approximately 50 per cent were accepted under the old criteria for tax exemptions. The regulations brought in are rather parsimonious since we should encourage creativity. The arts plan recognises the importance of allowing artists the right to live by their art and we should create the climate whereby those involved in the arts are seen as being part of an industry.
Genuine applicants and the people who are referred to in the arts plan will not be discommoded by the guidelines. The people who may be are those who previously, on appeal, would have argued for an equivalence between a work of original insight, imagination and creativity and, say, a practical handbook for professional usage. The difference is that the former is associated with the work of the artist, as the Deputy describes it, but the latter deals with what one might regard as a tool of one's profession. There is a difference between the two. It is worth giving the guidelines a chance to see if they manage to accrue the benefits of the Finance Act, which I welcomed, to those who most deserve them.
Over a period of 25 years, only 2,400 applicants benefited from those tax exemptions. I asked the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, a parliamentary question on Tuesday, 25 April on whether he was considering expanding the tax regime for artists to include actors, musicians and those persons who create jobs in the music business. Unfortunately, I received a one line reply stating: "I have no plans to expand the scope of existing relief for artists provided in section 2 of the Finance Act, 1969". Will the Minister agree that not only do we not have any plans to expand the scope of existing relief for artists but there has been a limitation of that relief which will result in many artists being excluded?
The way to assist artists such as those to whom Deputy de Valera refers is by way of proposals specifically dealing with their situation rather than by confusing the distinction between, say, a work of art and artistic interpretation. There is a huge difference between the two. Actors and others — and I would be very sympathetic for many reasons towards their position — are really involved in artistic interpretation. That deserves special and separate provision rather than dilution of an existing provision which exists for the production of a work of artistic, imaginative and creative effort.