Written Answers. - Tax Amnesty.
Eric J. Byrne
Question:
56
Mr. E. Byrne
asked the
Minister for Finance
whether any persons who availed of the tax amnesty in 1993 have subsequently come to the attention of the Revenue Commissioners in respect of non payment of tax, late payment of tax or other revenue offences.
[14830/96]
Eric J. Byrne
Question:
57
Mr. E. Byrne
asked the
Minister for Finance
the estimated total amount of taxation written off by the State as a result of settlements made under the 1993 tax amnesty.
[14831/96]
Eric J. Byrne
Question:
58
Mr. E. Byrne
asked the
Minister for Finance
the procedures, if any, that were in place to ensure that the 1993 tax amnesty was not used to allow criminals to avail of the tax amnesty, thus legitimising money obtained from criminal activities.
[14832/96]
Eric J. Byrne
Question:
59
Mr. E. Byrne
asked the
Minister for Finance
the number of persons, if any, who availed of the tax amnesty in 1993 that had previous criminal convictions; and the number, if any, that have been convicted in the courts of criminal offences since availing of that amnesty.
[14833/96]
Eric J. Byrne
Question:
60
Mr. E. Byrne
asked the
Minister for Finance
the number of individuals that availed of the tax amnesty in 1993; the number of companies who availed of this amnesty; the total amount of money paid under this amnesty; and the average payment made in each case.
[14834/96]
Michael McDowell
Question:
64
Mr. M. McDowell
asked the
Minister for Finance
the attempt, if any, that was made to establish that moneys to which certificates applied under the provisions of the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act, 1993, were not unlawfully obtained.
[14844/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 and 64 together.
The Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act, 1993 provided for two separate amnesty schemes: an incentive amnesty under which, subject to compliance with specified conditions, certain liabilities to income tax and capital gains tax, together with interest and penalties, could be discharged by payment of 15 per cent of the underlying income or gains on a confidential basis to the chief special collector established under the Act; a general amnesty under which other tax arrears had to be paid in full with remission only for interest and penalties.
I understand from the Revenue Commissioners that the aggregate amount of tax and levies remitted to the chief special collector under the 15 per cent incentive amnesty is estimated to be £185.4 million on behalf of some 39,700 individuals in respect of declared amounts of income and gains. This represents an average payment of almost £4,670 per person. Companies were not eligible for this amnesty.
The total yield of tax, PRSI and levies under the general amnesty, including some £14.1 million in value added tax paid to the chief special collector, is estimated at close on £76 million. Separate figures on numbers of individuals and companies availing of the general amnesty were not maintained by the collector-general. Many payments were presented to the collector-general by taxpayers and agents without being identified as payments under the general amnesty. I understand, however, that an analysis carried out by the Comptroller and Auditor-General revealed that this amount was received from 15,055 taxpayers, indicating an average yield of £5,048 per taxpayer.
As regards amounts of tax written off by the Revenue under the incentive amnesty, the position is that, because of the special confidentiality arrangements that apply to that amnesty, the collector-general will become aware of payments under it only as the taxpayers concerned produce to him the prescribed Form of Evidence of payment made to the chief special collector. Where taxpayers had liabilities on record they have been reminded by Revenue of the need to send in the form of evidence. In cases of people with undeclared income who availed of the incentive amnesty, Revenue clearly would not be in a position to write to them.
Some 7,200 Forms of Evidence have been received by the collector-general to date and a total of £8.1 million has been discharged on the basis of examination of about 1,200 of these forms. The forms are being worked through systematically with a block of staff currently made available to the Revenue Commissioners from the decentralisation surplus. The work is time-consuming as it involves checks to ensure that the taxpayer correctly availed of the conditions of the incentive amnesty.
In the circumstances, it is not possible to say at present what will be the total tax discharged under the incentive amnesty or indeed how much, if any, of it would have been otherwise collectible.
As I have explained, given the special confidentiality arrangements that applied, normal Revenue records will not identify all the individuals who availed of the amnesty. Where people do not meet their ongoing tax obligations, they will of course be picked up through Revenue's ongoing compliance and enforcement programmes.
There was no requirement under the amnesty legislation to record past or future convictions for criminal offences. I want to make it clear, however, that the amnesty provided no protection against tax liability on foot of income from an unlawful source. Nor does it impede in any way Garda investigations into criminal activity.
In this connection I want to point out that among the specific exclusions from the 15 per cent incentive amnesty was tax on income or gains which arose from unlawful sources or activities. Accordingly, income from such sources did not qualify for that amnesty. Tax on income from such activities was required under the scheme to be paid in full by 14 January 1994.
One of the conditions of the incentive amnesty was that a person had to make and sign a declaration form which included an undertaking that no part of the declared income or gains arose from unlawful sources of activities. If a person included income or gains from unlawful sources or activities in an amnesty declaration, the declaration would be false. A person who made a false declaration is not entitled to any of the benefits of the amnesty and, accordingly, remains liable to the full tax, interest and penalties.
Where tax had been discharged there is provision for it to be reinstated. In addition, the making of a false declaration is an abuse of the amnesty scheme. There is provision under the legislation to challenge any declaration made under the amnesty if it appears to be false. In accordance with the amnesty legislation the person concerned would be liable to severe penalties, including imprisonment, which were introduced specifically to curb abuse.
