Vol. 510 No. 4
18 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Finance the number of prosecutions taken under section 11 of the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act, 1993, in each subsequent year to date; the number of cases sent to the DPP for decisions on prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22713/99]
It is not clear which precise offence the Deputy has in mind in relation to prosecution. Section 11 of the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act, 1993, deals with penalties for certain types of tax offences committed after the passage of the 1993 legislation. The type of offences covered include, for example, making a false statement in order to obtain an allowance. It is section 9 of the Act which creates offences for breaches of the amnesty itself.
I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that none of the 16 prosecutions for serious tax evasion taken to date since 1993 have relied specifically on either of these sections.
I understand from the commissioners that a significant number of cases are currently under investigation for possible prosecution. The commissioners have assured me that when an amnesty case suitable for prosecution is identified and sufficient evidence is available, proceedings will be initiated.
The 16 cases to which I referred, which relate to a variety of tax offences, were in the following years: one in 1994, one in 1996, four in 1997, five in 1998 and five in 1999 to date.
The purpose of the question was essentially to find out whether there is a mechanism which allows the Revenue Commissioners and ultimately the DPP to go behind the certificate which was issued to taxpayers when they made a settlement under the amnesty Act. Can the Minister confirm that there is such a procedure, that it is open to the Revenue to look behind that certificate and, therefore, that it is open to them to make prosecutions under the Act because clearly very few prosecutions have been initiated to date?
As already stated, the sections that relate to prosecutions have not been used. Section 1078 is more widely used for prosecutions. Previously, section 94 of the Finance Act, 1983, was the main mechanism used for criminal prosecutions. This section covers offences committed in respect of all the main taxes administered by Revenue, including income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax and value added tax. Section 11, to which the Deputy's question refers, deals with penalties for offences that relate to the making of false statements to obtain an allowance. As already stated, however, section 1078 is more commonly used.
With regard to the Deputy's supplementary question, the Revenue Commissioners, under the 1993 Act, have powers to go beyond the terms of the amnesty if they need to do so and if a taxpayer has not complied with the full provisions of the amnesty.
My specific question relates to section 11, which is somewhat broader than the Minister indicated because it deals with declarations made for the purpose of obtaining any allowance, reduction, rebate or repayment of tax.
It is concerned specifically with obtaining allowances.
However, I have no desire to quibble with the Minister in that regard. In what circumstances would the Revenue Commissioners seek to go beyond the certificate? Is the Minister satisfied they have shown due diligence, in so far as is possible, in acting on suspicions they might harbour or information they might have been given which suggests that someone has not made a full declaration of tax due?
I am satisfied with the operations of the Revenue Commissioners in terms of the way they prosecute cases. In recent years a separate unit dealing with this matter was established but it is not as easy as people might believe. A number of grounds must be established before a criminal prosecution can be mounted. The Deputy will be aware of that from his experience as a solicitor. The Revenue Commissioners cannot prosecute someone unless there are clear grounds that the case can be won. The Revenue has a very active prosecution policy in train, but certain procedures must be undergone before a prosecution can be mounted.
