Amendment No. 63 is out of order.
SECTION 65.
Chairman
There must be a typographical error in my amendment. I wanted to reduce capital gains tax to 20 per cent, but I find myself increasing it for some extraordinary reason in my amendment. It certainly is out of order in its present form and I am delighted to withdraw it.
Maybe the Progressive Democrats' true colours are coming out?
Amendment No. 63 not moved.
Sections 65 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 68.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 104, subsection (2), line 2, to delete "1995" and substitute "1989".
This section gives rollover relief in respect of profits made on foot of disposal of land arising from a compulsory purchase order. I propose to delete its application from "1995" and instead substitute "1989". My reason for putting this amendment forward is partly parochial. Although I received representations in this regard from some people, I would also be aware that a lot of compulsory purchase orders were put into effect in my county which I suppose is the most motorway by-passed constituency in the whole of Ireland.
I welcome the relief being put forward by the Minister in section 68. The Minister is recognising that a farmer who is forced to dispose of his land on foot of a compulsory purchase order can qualify for rollover relief if he does not put it all back into the same asset.
I inserted "1989" on the basis of going back to the normal six year period because the Revenue Commissioners might do that in any event. It will give an unfair advantage to people who currently have a compulsory purchase order as regards motorways as against those who have had their lands bought by compulsory purchase order in the recent past. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
I am not in the position to go back to 1989 and the principle of that would be damaging. One could make many other forms of tax retrospective if it was applied to this tax. I am also informed by my colleagues in the Revenue Commissioners that there would be administrative difficulties. After having moved to self-assessment over the last number of years, the access to records that existed in the past is simply not there any more.
I do not fully understand the argument and reasoning behind this amendment. Perhaps the Deputy would, subject to time constraints, elaborate on it further because I do not see the need for it.
On 25 April, the Minister answered a question in the Dáil for a colleague of mine, Deputy Cowen, who asked the Minister:
... in view of the announcement in the budget confirming that land acquired compulsorily for road development would not be regarded as development land, if this provision would apply to farmers (details supplied) in County Laois and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Minister's reply states:
In this year's budget, I announced measures to allow deferment of capital gains tax [this is the section] for farmers disposing of farm land, including buildings, to a local authority for road building or road widening purposes, to the extent that the proceeds of the disposal are reinvested in acquiring replacement farmland. In the recently published 1995 Finance Bill, I have broadened this relief to include reinvestment in agricultural plant and machinery. These new measures apply in respect of disposals taking place on or after 6 April 1995 in line with normal practice followed in the capital gains tax codes. I understand that the majority of disposals referred to by the Deputy would have taken place prior to 6 April 1995 and, therefore, would not come within the scope of the new provisions.
That is one of the things that was brought to my attention; it also would have some bearing on land compulsorily acquired in my own constituency and that is why I put down the amendment, but I recognise that it is not usual to have retrospective provisions in finance legislation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 68 agreed to.