Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Corporation Tax Bill, 1975 debate -
Tuesday, 17 Feb 1976

SECTION 10.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 15, subsection (5), between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

" Provided that for the purposes of paragraph (b) a payment falling within section 439 (1) (ii) or (iia) of the Income Tax Act, 1967 (dispositions for short periods), shall be treated as incurred for valuable and sufficient consideration."

The amendment secures that a covenanted payment to a university or college in the State to carry on research or to teach the natural sciences or to a body of persons promoting Human Rights within the meaning of section 20 of the Finance Act, 1973, will be within the definition of charges on income and will be allowable for corporation tax purposes. In effect, this maintains the status quo. I might add, that representations have been made to me on behalf of a hospital research and scientific committee which feared that the Corporation Tax Bill would mean that covenanted subscriptions would no longer enjoy a tax remission. The effect of this amendment will ensure that such charitable organisations, and kindred ones, will receive the benefit of the concessions in the Income Tax Acts.

Would the Minister explain how it would work in this particular case?

If you have, say, a committee which is approved and coming within the provisions of section 439 of the Income Tax Act of 1967, it would obtain the repayment of the income tax deducted from covenanted subscriptions which it receives. Such subscriptions were allowable for corporation profits tax purposes where the payers of the subscriptions were companies. The Corporation Tax Bill is now amended to make such subscriptions allowable for corporation tax purposes where the payers of such subscriptions are companies. In other words, the committee would enjoy in relation to such subscriptions from corporations, the same right to apply for tax refunds in respect of them which they at present enjoy.

In other words, if a company makes a covenanted subscription of £1,000 to a qualifying organisation, that would be treated in the hands of the qualifying organisation as £2,000 from which £1,000 corporation tax has been deducted? Therefore they will be able to claim a refund of that £1,000?

No. It would be £1,000 from which £350 would be deducted.

There is a convention at committees of this kind whereby the Minister's officials may participate in the discussion. If it is of any assistance to the Minister, certainly as far as I am concerned——

I am advised that this used to be the case before the present Standing Orders were introduced.

There was no provision then either.

What is the rate? Is it 50 per cent or the standard income tax rate or what?

This is what I am checking. I greatly value Deputy Colley's remarks and I happen to agree with him. But, as the Chairman said, the Standing Orders have been changed. It is unfortunate that when one has doubts on matters of technical detail——

What the Committee want to know is this: what is the net amount paid out by the company and what is the net amount received by the recipients?

At what rate is the income tax being deducted in the hands of the recipient organisation?

We take this £1,000 that was mentioned. That £1,000 would be paid less the income tax at the standard rate, which would be £350, so the charity or the university, whatever it might be, receives £650 and it would then apply for repayment of the income tax deducted, £350.

What is allowed in the company's accounts?

The £1,000 against corporation tax.

So it is allowable at 50 per cent in the company's case? I am not complaining about it.

That is a loophole that will be closed.

It is in effect not making any change but maintaining the status quo, at the moment it can be set off against both income tax and corporation profits tax liability.

It will be treated as being received in the hands of the recipient less income tax at the standard rate?

And income tax at the standard rate will be reclaimable by the receiver?

In other words the recipient charitable or scientific organisation will not be able to claim back at the 50 per cent corporation tax rate?

No. Perhaps Deputy Haughey would be interested to know I was reading some words of wisdom he uttered some years ago when he said that he thought it was very bad to argue that this concession should be further extended to those universities who are in receipt of this benefit. Perhaps the best case would be in favour of removing this benefit.

I doubt if I ever said that. I am quite certain I never said that.

I must quote chapter and verse.

From a remote distance I once tried to twist Deputy Haughey's arm in relation to this but did not succeed either.

Deputy Colley and I extended these provisions.

Deputy Seán T. O'Kelly removed them.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: " That section 10, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

This is rather a long section and perhaps the Minister would explain it.

Section 10 provides for the grant of relief in respect of yearly interest, annuities or other annual payments made and certain other interest paid after April 5th, 1976. The principle underlying the section is that these payments (which in the hands of the recipient are in the nature of "pure income" receipts) known as "charges on income" are to be set against the total profits of the company and not against the particular source of income with which the payment is connected. The section incorporates restrictions on the allowance of interest provided for in Chapter III of Part I of the Finance Act, 1974. I shall explain some of the subsections. Subsection (1) authorises the allowance of charges paid after April 5th, 1976, as deductions against total profits for corporation tax purposes. The charges must be paid in the accounting period out of profits brought into charge to corporation tax. They are to be allowed against the total profits as reduced by any other relief, (for example, relief for losses) except group relief.

Subsection (2) provides that the payments for which relief is to be granted as charges on income are to be those specified in subsection (3) excluding any payment in the nature of a dividend or distribution of profits or any payment which is deductible in computing profits for corporation tax purposes—for example, interest payable wholly and exclusively for the purposes of a trade.

Subsection (3) defines the payment to be regarded as charges on income, namely,

(a) yearly interest, annuities or other annual payments (including certain mining and other rents),

(b) patent royalties, and short interest payable to a bank, stockbroker or discount house carrying on business in the State.

Interest in the case of a trading company is normally allowed in the accounts of the company in a trading expense and therefore will not be allowed as a charge on income. The subsection also provides that short interest payable to a bank, stockbroker or discount house is to be regarded for the purposes of the section as paid on the date it is debited to the company's account in the books of the bank.

Subsection (4) provides that, where the payment is to a non-resident, it is not to be allowed as a charge unless the paying company is resident in the State and (a) it is entitled to deduct income tax from the payment and accounts for it to the Revenue or (b) the payment is payable out of foreign investment income brought into charge to tax under Case III of Schedule D.

Subsection (5) prohibits a deduction if the payment (a) is charged to capital or is not ultimately borne by the company and (b) is not paid under a liability incurred for valuable and sufficient consideration. In the case of a non-resident company there is the additional condition that the liability must be incurred for the purposes of a trade carried on in the State through a branch or agency. Subsection (6) limits the amount of interest that may be treated as a charge on income.

Subsection (7) excludes from the provisions of subsection (6) interest on loans applied to acquire a material interest in certain companies, mainly trading companies and companies whose income consists wholly or mainly of income chargeable under case V of Schedule D?

Is this the big change——

Broadly it reflects the existing position and brings all provisions within the one Act.

In your note you give an explanation of subsection (2):

For the purposes of its trade a company obtains a loan for a period of two years from a financial institution. The interest on this loan is deductible in computing the company's trading income, and consequently the interest is not to be treated as a charge on income.

Does that mean that that would not then fall within subsection (6)?

Yes, because it would be a business borrowing where the interest would be part and parcel of its trading expenses.

And that would be a deduction before you would arrive at its taxable profit?

Then under subsection (1) the deduction of charges on income from taxable profits comes in later?

There are a few points I would like to raise on this. First of all, the commencement of subsection (4), reads:

No such payment as is mentioned in subsection 3 (a) made by a company to a person not resident in the State shall be treated as a charge on income unless the company is so resident and either . . .

Is the phrase "so resident" intended to convey the same thing as " in the State "?

There is no doubt in the Minister's mind about that?

Some doubt has been expressed as to whether it clearly indicates that. I do not want to make an issue of it, but I would ask the Minister if he would have it looked at to see if he is fully satisfied that it conveys that and that it does not need to be clarified.

I will look at it, as we might be able to correct it by the inclusion of the words "in the State" after the word "resident" in the third line——

Something like that——

We want to be certain that it does not generate difficulty.

If I might now refer the Minister to subsection 4 (b) which says: " . . . the payment is one payable out of income which is brought into charge to tax under Case III of Schedule D. I am wondering whether that wording " brought into charge to tax " is correct. Section 6, I think, refers to the charge to tax, whereas section 11 deals with the computation of income. I am wondering whether the wording here is conveying what is intended to be conveyed or whether, instead of saying " brought into charge to tax " it should be " computed for assessment to tax in accordance with the rules of Case III of Schedule D "?

This is remitted income from abroad?

I think there would be agreement that there would have to be income which is brought into charge to tax, not merely capable of being brought in. The purpose of these subsections here is to ensure that the transactions come within the notice of the Revenue Commissioners, but I will look at it.

It is a technical point, I admit, and I may not be correct in what I am saying. I am merely drawing the Minister's attention to the possibility. Could I refer the Minister to subsection 5 (b) which provides:

the payment is not made under a liability incurred for a valuable and sufficient consideration. . . .

What I want to know is, why is the word "valuable" used. In other words, it is qualifying the word " sufficient ". On the face of it " sufficient " should not need to be qualified.

It could be valuable but insufficient.

Supposing it were to be "incurred for a sufficient consideration ", what is wrong with that?

Is it not based on the principle that everything must have a monetary value?

It would create difficulties for the Revenue Commissioners if they had to put a value on——

Is the consideration here not the effect of a legal contract?

Yes, it might be, say, in consideration for a covenant or something like that, there has to be, I think, a monetary connotation to it.

Valuable and sufficient consideration.

It is a fiscal cliche.

I understand Deputy Haughey has already made the point on this subsection that there are certain covenants that have been accepted from corporate bodies in aid of education, science and these matters. In the English Act is there not a specific saver for charities as a whole there? We have a different situation in regard to charities.

The British Act of 1959 allows 30 per cent of the tax liability to be refunded in respect of charitable donations. We used to have very generous charitable donations until——

No, it was later than that, I think it was 1940. The late Seán T. O'Kelly did away with them altogether. Subsequently more generous-minded Ministers for Finance brought them back for research, for teaching of the natural sciences, and a very liberal Minister for Finance also extended it in 1973 for covenanted subscriptions for the protection of Human Rights.

I must apologise for not being here for this point. I do not want to delay the Committee. The net point I wanted to make was that in the light of the whole thing, as well as merely preserving the status quo here—I mentioned the British one—since you have to do something, would you not survey the whole field where it would be appropriate to allow such and where it would be appropriate to exclude such instead of merely carrying on——

The Minister said that he was trying to bring it in line with the position of a normal individual income taxpayer.

I am sorry, it is my fault for bringing it in.

The Minister's principle is consolidation rather than seeking to bring about something which adds up to the income tax or corporation profits tax.

This is largely a consolidating measure though there are some changes being made. I would not rule out the possibility of any change. An extension to provide additional relief for charities could not be looked at merely in the light of corporation tax; it would also have to extend to income tax but we would be going outside the ambit of this Bill.

Deputy Colley was dealing with subsection (5), paragraph (b). Have you anything further on that?

I merely wanted to question the sufficiency of the wording.

The superfluity of the wording.

The only point of substance I want to raise is related to subsection (6), that is, the limitation of £2,000 in regard to interest. The Minister will recall that that limitation was introduced rather quickly and with little or no notice. The Minister has had some experience of its operation. I would suggest that, first of all, the principle involved in it ought to be considered, whether it is a good principle to have a fixed amount in a situation where you have fluctuating interest rates and that is perhaps even more topical at the moment that it might have been some months ago. Ought the figure not be related to a particular amount borrowed rather than a particular amount of interest? I am raising this point having regard to the principle that the practice of this is difficult. I am merely posing the principle at the moment.

We could have a long argument on this, but we could not deal with it in isolation. We are doing no more here than reflecting a restriction which is under the Income Tax code in the Corporation Tax code. Obviously we could not have an anomalous position where the corporation could borrow unlimited amounts for purposes which were not connected with its trading situation. I am sure Deputy Colley would agree with me that it would be wrong to have different limitations for corporations and individuals. Otherwise individuals wanting to get around the individual position would simply form a corporation to borrow on his or her behalf. As of now, with interest rates falling, obviously a £2,000 limit is of greater value to a borrower than it would have been before the interest rate fell this morning. A person could now increase the amount borrowed, rather than on the possibility of putting a limit on the amounts borrowed, rather than on the interest, but it seemed to generate more anomalies and more difficulties than by taking the interest itself as a limited factor.

It might militate against certain lending institutions whose lending rates are higher.

Such institutions are facing inherent difficulties anyway because of that fact. I want to make it clear that I am not of course suggesting that there ought to be special treatment in this case for corporations as against individuals. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that if the Minister were to amend the £2,000 figure here he could have a similar amendment in relation to an individual incorporated in the forthcoming Finance Bill. The point I was raising was the one the Minister adverted to at the end, and that is not unlimited borrowing, but that the amount of the borrowing ought to be specified rather than the amount of the interest payable as the limitation to be applied. Is it that the Minister is afraid it would be open to abuse, that there might be false figures of interest given or something like that and, therefore, larger amounts borrowed? To fix the actual amount borrowed would seem to be more logical than fixing the amount of the interest, because interest rates can fluctuate.

We are getting into a discussion on an issue upon which, quite frankly, I have not been briefed myself in detail because this measure is, to a large extent, a consolidation measure. I would respectfully suggest that the consideration involved here are more relevant to a Finance Bill where the impact on both individuals and corporations would come up for consideration. If we are to discuss each principle of the general tax code under this Bill, I will most certainly do my best to respond to all issues raised but I do not think we would get this legislation through in the time when we would hope to have it finalised.

So far as this relates to corporations and companies, I must also point out to the Minister that while this is being introduced as an anti-avoidance measure, it is being applied to foreign companies as well as home-based companies—I think that is correct. The Minister should consider the extent to which it might operate as a non-inducement, if I might put it that way, to investment from abroad. The Minister is aware, of course, of the inducements for foreign investors in relation to some National Loans and similar matters. I suggest that it is relevant at this stage to consider whether the incorporation into this Bill of this limitation in relation to foreign companies, and therefore foreign investors, is a wise move.

The situation would not be any different after the passing of this legislation than it is now. I am sure the Deputy accepts that. As of now, and in the future, any borrowing which is done for the trading purposes of a corporation will, of course, be allowed in the calculations of the profits of that enterprise. There could be no difference there. The £2,000 limit is in respect of borrowing done for purposes outside the trading of the company or corporation.

One can see that it would be easy for the Revenue Commissioners to draw the dividing line fairly clearly where individuals are concerned, but would it be as easy for them to draw it in the case of corporations? There must be very grey areas where it would be hard to know whether the money was really borrowed for trading purposes of the corporation or not.

Could you not argue it on the basis of the objects set out in the memorandum? That would be the matter at issue.

So far it has caused no problems.

Are we arguing on subparagraph (10) of the explanatory memorandum? Does this mean that interest would be allowed on all the money borrowed but not be allowed for money borrowed for capital?

Subparagraph (5) states:

No such payment made by a company as is mentioned in subsection (3) shall be treated as a charge on income if—

(a) the payment is charged to capital . . .

If this is set off against the capital account, it obviously cannot be set off against income.

I think Deputy Belton is making a very important distinction. A company could raise a loan either for normal trading purposes for the purchase of stock or for capital, or they could raise a loan for a capital purpose. The capital purpose would be necessary for their trading. Would the interest on the money made for that capital purpose directly related to the company's trading be allowed in the normal way or does this restriction apply to it?

That would be allowable as a trading expense.

If a company were to borrow for a capital purpose, would interest be deductible for that item alone or would it be deductible from the total profits of the company?

If the interest arose on loan to purchase a trade asset it would appear in the ordinary profit and loss account of the company. It would be deductible before you arrive at the net profit which would become liable to tax.

Is the reference not in subsection 5 (a), only a reference, to how the money raised is dealt with in the company's accounts and not the interest payable?

In other words, the money raised to buy a pub, for example, is not allowable for deduction. It would be the interest on it, if it is a pub company?

Say that again.

It was addressed correctly, too. Deputy Belton wants the point made again.

The money raised to buy another pub is not allowable. If it is a trading expense, the interest payable would be allowed. Is that the position?

It should be.

That is a straightforward case. There are less clearly defined cases than that where money would be raised by the company.

It need not be a property. I cannot understand why the sum of £2,000 comes into the question of a company at all.

Suppose a trading company were to borrow money to acquire investments which would be outside its trade area, then the restriction of £2,000 would apply. If it did not apply, it would mean that an individual could easily get around the £2,000 limit by forming a company to achieve that individual's investment ambitions.

That means that a company cannot under any circumstances be allowed interest on any investments outside its normal business or trade.

If any acquisition it makes is for the purpose of financing the business or enable it to carry on its trading, then it is a trading activity. If it goes beyond that it falls into the same position as an individual. There is a limit of £2,000 on the amount which can be borrowed.

To get back to the pub again, if you buy shares in another company is the £2,000 limit operative?

This is the grey area of avoidance.

Deputy Belton is adverting to a situation where in order to acquire a legitimate asset for its own purpose it buys shares rather than the property.

Deputy Haughey means that instead of buying the assets of a company you buy the shares.

To get the assets for your trading purposes.

If it is within your trade and your objects——

It would be allowed.

Yes, as in the simple example I gave earlier.

It should be allowed. Does the Minister say that the Revenue Commissioners have not got any problems?

Yes. I could give a lot of references in relation to what the position is. What we are doing here corresponds to the provisions of section 38 of the Finance Act, 1974. There is a provision excluding from this restriction any interest which may be deducted in computing income under Case I, II or V of Schedule D and any amount of interest which, though not deductible in computing income under Case I, II or V of Schedule D, is allowable for income tax purposes without restriction under section 496 of the Income Tax Act, 1967. The interest payments in question are those to which section 32 (relief of certain bridging loans) section 34 (relief to individuals on loans applied in acquiring interest in companies) and section 36 (relief to individuals on loans applied to acquiring interest in a partnership) apply. These are the qualifications which we have to the limitation.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share