This section deals with the £1,000 VRT rebate on cars over 10 years old. Has there been much interest in this relief? This proposal was put forward by the motoring industry and the Minister went along with it. Have we any idea as to the success of the measure?
SECTION 92.
Question proposed: "That section 92 stand part of the Bill."
It was a proposal made by SIMI and was accepted. There were some doubts as to whether it would be effective. In tax terms, we could not as a community be at a loss. SIMI has considerable faith in its effectiveness based on the experience in a couple of other European countries, so I agreed to go along with it. The approach was generally welcomed.
The indications in terms of informal inquiries to the Department would seem to suggest a considerable amount of interest in so far as one can gauge it. It will not come into effect until 1 July. We cannot lose and we can possibly win.
One of the arguments that convinced me was that we will soon have to introduce an EU directive with regard to motor vehicle testing and if implemented in an insensitive way it could have a dislocating effect on many. This may facilitate the taking off the road of cars that would not pass an MOT.
If the roads are left in their current state, there will soon be no problem about ten year old cars because they will have a rarity value. Subsection (e) requires that in the preceding two years a person must have had a vehicle road licence and an approved policy of insurance. With respect, it will be difficult in some cases to prove that there was an approved policy of insurance. People may have been driving on their mother in law's insurance and so on. In any event, one has to produce insurance to get a vehicle road licence. I suggest that the Minister consider deleting that provision because proving where one's insurance was two years ago would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
One can get car tax by arrears but one also has to produce insurance. The scheme will only work if it is loosely——
I am trying to avoid a situation where somebody is told they cannot have £1,000 because they cannot produce their certificate of insurance.
Must the car be taken to a scrap yard and broken up?
Yes.
With what requirements does a person have to conform in this area? Many people are concerned that this will be complicated and bound up in red tape.
There are five or six locations around the country where cars can be compressed and destroyed and a certificate from one of those verifying that the car has been removed from the car pool is required. The total number of cars in the State is 939,022. Some 23 per cent or 218,000 of those are more than ten years old.
As the Minister said earlier, such a large number would cause great difficulties when compulsory testing is introduced. We might have to consider something else. I would never have believed the figure was so high.
Chairman
The benefits apply only if a person is buying a new car. Is there any particular reason it should be confined to new cars?
To improve the quality and age of the stock.
And to create employment through selling them.
That was the case as well.
Our only concern is that it will not be tied up in red tape and that the regulations will be clear and precise.
I assure the Deputy that the SIMI had full and detailed consultations with the Revenue Commissioners to agree the method of administration and ensure it is as user friendly as possible.
Have they agreed to it?
Yes.
How does the Minister know that this will benefit the consumer and that car prices will not be affected?
The Revenue Commissioners make the rebate and not the trade.
The £1,000 goes back to the purchaser of the new car.
If the Deputy buys a car from Deputy Cullen and trades in a ten year old car which is properly certified, he makes the claim to the Revenue Commissioners and gets the £1,000 from the them. Deputy Cullen does not give him a cheque.
What is the predicted uptake?
We do not know. On balance, we have to gain because even the cheapest car will have a higher tax attached to it.
I am surprised the Minister indicated that there have been so many inquiries because I was not overly optimistic given the size of the car pool.
It is one of those ideas where, on balance, we cannot lose.
I accept that.
On the other hand if the old banger was not scrapped, it would have to be taxed. The Minister is losing the tax on that and some young person will not have a car.
Chairman
It could be used as a hen run in some farmyard.
How this scheme operates this year will be important in view of the fact compulsory testing will come about. Perhaps this scheme might be of benefit before we reach the stage of compulsory testing because of an EU directive. We have succeeded in getting a derogation for some time, although it is running out. I am surprised to hear that there are more than 218,000 ten year old cars in the country. If the age threshold was reduced, it would give people a chance to buy a new car. As other Deputies said — I am sure the Minister would agree —£1,000 will not be enough to get a person with a ten-year-old car to buy a new one. Given that there are 218,000 cars over ten years old the scheme should be modified to encourage more people to buy new cars so as to get them over the MOT test, to create jobs in the industry and to provide additional taxation for the Government.
I, and a number of Dublin Deputies, including the Chairman's brother, have cars which are over ten years old.
When must the MOT directive be implemented?
Subject to confirmation, it must be introduced by January 1998, so we have some time. The figures are interesting in that there are 55,000 cars over ten years of age, 43,000 over 11 years, 37,000 over 12 years and so on. There are 16,000 cars over 15 years. Some may well be roadworthy.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 93 to 96, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTIONS.
Chairman
Amendments Nos. 86 to 92, inclusive, form a composite proposal and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 120, before section 97, but in Chapter IV, to insert the following new section:
"Chapter V
Appeals in relation to Excise Duty 97. — In this Chapter—
‘Appeal Commissioners' has the meaning assigned to it by section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1967;
‘appellant' means a person who appeals to the Appeal Commissioners under section 98 or 99, as appropriate;
‘the Commissioners' means the Revenue Commissioners.".
The proposed amendments introduce a formal system of appeals in relation to excise duties. At present there is in the main an informal appeals system whereby the aggrieved person appeals to the Revenue Commissioners against a decision of an officer of the commission in relation to excise duty. The appeal is usually examined by a superior officer. The proposal incorporates as a first stage a formal system for this type of appeal with clear deadlines and the provision for specially appointed appeal officers in the Revenue Commissioners.
It is proposed to provide that an appellant who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the first or administrative stage of the appeal will have recourse to appeal commissioners who, as Deputies know, are independent of the Revenue Commissioners. It puts on a formal basis what was an informal structure and is welcome.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 87:
In page 120, before section 97, to insert the following new section:
98.—(1) Any person who has paid or who, in the opinion of the Commissioners, is liable to pay a duty of excise and is called upon by them to pay an amount of such duty may appeal in accordance with this section against the decision concerned in respect of the liability or the amount of the duty.
(2) Any person who has claimed or received a repayment of a duty of excise may appeal to the Commissioners against the decision concerned in respect of the amount of such repayment or the refusal of such repayment.
(3) An appeal under subsection (1) or (2) shall be in writing and shall set forth in detail the grounds of appeal.
(4) An appeal shall be lodged by the person concerned with the Commissioners within the period of 30 days from the date of
(a) the payment of a duty of excise,
(b) the notification by the Commissioners on being called upon by them to pay an amount of a duty of excise,
(c) the repayment of a duty of excise, or
(d) the notification by the Commissioners of a refusal of a repayment by them of a duty of excise,
or within such longer period as the Commissioners may, in exceptional cases, allow.
(5) An appeal shall, subject to subsection (11), be determined by the Commissioners within a period of 30 days from its lodgement with the Commissioners.
(6) The Commissioners may appoint one or more of their officers for the purposes of carrying out their functions under this section:
Provided that no such officer shall determine an appeal under this section in respect of a decision he or she has made.
(7) The Commissioners shall, in writing, notify an appellant concerned of their determination of an appeal and the reasons for their determination.
(8) Where the Commissioners determine on appeal that the amount due is less than the amount paid, they shall repay the amount overpaid to the appellant concerned.
(9) Where the Commissioners determine on appeal that the amount due is greater than the amount paid, the appellant concerned shall pay the amount underpaid.
(10) For the purpose of determination of an appeal any goods or vehicles to which the appeal relates shall be produced to the Commissioners for inspection, if so required.
(11) Where an appeal has been lodged but not determined in accordance with subsection (5) there shall be deemed to have been a determination by the Commissioners on the last day of the period of 30 days from the date the appeal was lodged that the appeal was not upheld but such deeming shall cease to have effect if a determination is subsequently made by the Commissioners before a determination is made by the Appeal Commissioners under section 99 in respect of the matter concerned.
(12) The provisions of the Customs Acts or of any instruments made thereunder, in so far as they apply to appeals concerning duties of excise, shall not apply in relation to any amount of excise duty capable of being the subject of an appeal under the provisions of this section.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 120, before section 97, to insert the following new section:
99.—(1) A person who is aggrieved by a determination of the Commissioners under section 98 may, in accordance with the provisions of this section, appeal to the Appeal Commissioners against such determination and the appeal shall be heard and determined by the Appeal Commissioners whose determination shall be final and conclusive unless a case is required to be stated in relation to it for the opinion of the High Court on a point of law.
(2) A person who intends to appeal under this section against a determination of the Commissioners shall, within 30 days of the notification of such determination (or the expiry of the time limit for such determination, whichever is the earlier) give notice in writing to them of such intention.
(3) Subject to the provisions of this section, the provisions of Part XXVI (as amended), other than sections 429 and 430 and (in so far as it relates to those sections) section 431, of the Income Tax Act, 1967, shall, with any necessary modifications, apply as they apply for the purpose of income tax.
(4) (a) Subject to paragraph (c), where a notice or other document which is required or authorised to be served by this section falls to be served on a body corporate, such notice shall be served on the secretary or other officer of the body corporate.
(b) Any notice or other document which is required or authorised by this section to be served by the Commissioners or by an appellant may be served by post and in the case of a notice or other document addressed to the Commissioners, shall be sent to the Revenue Commissioners, Dublin Castle, Dublin 2.
(c) Any notice or other document which is required or authorised to be served by the Commissioners on an appellant under this section may be sent to the solicitor, accountant or other agent of the appellant and a notice so served shall be deemed to have been served on the appellant unless the appellant proves to the satisfaction of the Appeal Commissioners, that he or she had, before the notice or other document was served, withdrawn the authority of such solicitor, accountant or other agent to act on his or her behalf.
(5) Prima facie evidence of any notice given under this section by the Commissioners or by an officer of the Commissioners may be given in any proceedings by production by an officer of the Commissioners of a document purporting to be a copy of the notice and it shall not be necessary to prove the official position of the person by whom the notice purports to be given or, if it is signed, the signature, or that the person signing and giving it was authorised so to do.”.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 89:
In page 120, before section 97, to insert the following new section:
100.—Where an appeal has been made under section 98 or 99 in respect of an amount of duty which a person is called upon by the Commissioners to pay, such appeal, shall not be determined by the Commissioners or the Appeal Commissioners, as the case may be, unless the said amount of duty has been paid.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 120, before section 97, to insert the following new section:
101.—Where liability for a duty of excise is the subject of criminal proceedings or a decision is pending on whether to initiate criminal proceedings in respect of such liability, then such liability or the amount of such liability or repayment connected with or sought in respect of such liability may not be appealed under the provisions of section 98 or 99 until the determination of such criminal proceedings or a decision is duly taken not to initiate criminal proceedings.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 120, before section 97, to insert the following new section:
102.—Section 138 of the Finance Act, 1992, is hereby repealed.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 92:
In page 120, before section 97, to insert the following new section:
103.—This Chapter shall come into operation on such day or days as may be appointed by order or orders made by the Minister for Finance, either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision, and different days may be so appointed for different purposes and different provisions of this Chapter.".
Amendment agreed to.