The section improves matters somewhat. However, I oppose it because some of its language is very archaic. By opposing it, I hope to highlight this problem. The section is over three pages long and in this era of trying to enable taxpayers to understand this type of legislation it is as good an example as any of the difficulties of meeting that objective.
This a relieving section regarding the payment of tax. However, an ordinary person would never figure that out by reading the section, which is one of the good improvements included by the Minister in the Bill as a result of negotiations between accountancy bodies and the Revenue Commissioners. No ordinary person would realise by reading it that this is a relieving section and nobody would understand its meaning unless one read the explanatory memorandum.
The position would have been fine if the wording of the explanatory memorandum had been used in the section. Explanatory memoranda explain precisely the purpose of sections and similar wording should be used in sections. I do not intend to cause offence to personnel in the Department of Finance or the Revenue Commissioners as this point applies to all Bills, which are usually drafted by the sponsoring Department before going to the office of the parliamentary draftsman.
Language, such as that in section 30 or the explanatory memorandum, should be used, rather than this extraordinary language. For example, page 59 states, "'pre-preceding chargeable period'". I know the meaning of this term, but if I was not a member of the profession, I would not understand it.
