Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 12 Jun 2001

Vol. 537 No. 5

Written Answers. - Non-Resident Accounts.

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

261 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to recent media comment that holders of bogus non-resident accounts who did not reveal the existence of these accounts or misdeclared when availing of the 1993 amnesty and/or failed to avail of the 1993 amnesty will be entitled to benefit from the Revenue Commissioners' statement of practice of 2 May 2001, including having immunity from prosecution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16735/01]

I refer the Deputy to my answer to parliamentary Question No. 2 of 17 May 2001 in reply to a question about persons complying with the terms of the Revenue statement of practice.

I understand from the Revenue Commissioners that the clear indications are that most of the bogus non-resident accounts identified during the DIRT look-back exercise were in existence before 1991. There was, therefore, an obligation on the account holders concerned to comply with the terms of the 1993 amnesty but it is not known how many of them did not participate at all in the amnesty or how many participated but did not make a full disclosure. A person who complied with the terms of the 1993 legislation would have been able to satisfy all liabilities, including tax, interest and penalties, with a payment of 15% of the amounts of income undeclared.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that both categories of bogus account holders come within the scope of the statement of practice and will now be subject to a significantly more severe regime provided for in the statement. A person who did not comply at all with the amnesty will now have to pay all of the tax liability and, in addition, an amount in respect of interest and penalties. Under the statement of practice that additional amount is capped at 100% of the tax.

A person who did not make a full disclosure under the amnesty loses the benefits of the amnesty in accordance with the 1993 legislation. That person, if he or she now avails of the voluntary disclosure arrangements under the statement of practice, will have to pay the full tax, including full tax on the partial disclosure under the tax amnesty, plus up to the same amount again in interest and penalties subject only to a credit for the actual amount paid under the 1993 amnesty, as provided for in the legislation.
As I made clear in my response to the earlier question referred to, persons already under inquiry by Revenue on 2 May 2001 or coming within the scope of the Ansbacher investigation, the Flood tribunal or the Moriarty tribunal may not avail of the arrangements set out in the statement of practice. Where persons knowingly or wilfully evaded tax liabilities in respect of periods covered by the 1993 amnesty and were required to avail of that amnesty but did not do so or did not fully comply with the disclosure requirements, they are guilty of offences under the 1993 legislation.
A successful prosecution of such offences would require the necessary investigations and proofs to be established in a court of law. Revenue has informed me that, because of the very large numbers of cases which are involved, the available Revenue resources must be deployed in the most practical and effective way. It would be impossible to investigate for prosecution every person who did not comply with the 1993 legislation. Clearly Revenue takes the view that investigations with a view to prosecution are better concentrated on those persons who do not avail of the statement of practice and this will be done after 15 November next.
As I indicated in response to the earlier question, I am satisfied that the Revenue approach, as set out in its statement of practice, is the most practical and effective way of dealing with a task which is unprecedented in terms of scale.
Top
Share