Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Corporation Tax Bill, 1975 debate -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 1976

SECTION 51.

Question proposed: " That section 51 stand part of the Bill."

I should like to preface my remarks by saying that we have received some recent representations on this particular section and the following section which are being considered in the Department of Finance and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. I am not in a position to say what the impact of the representations may be, but if the need arises I will, of course, bring it to the attention of the House on Report Stage.

The section as drafted brings into charge to corporation tax, foreign interest and dividends arising to a nonresident bank, insurance company or other person carrying on a business of dealing in stocks, shares or securities in the State through a branch or agency where the foreign securities are attributable to the branch or agency. In the absence of such a provision, income exempt from income tax in the hands of non-residents under section 50 or section 462 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, would be exempt from corporation tax because section 11 exempts from corporation tax any income which is exempt from income tax.

The section also provides for a restriction of expenses in computing profits or losses or management expenses where interest on certain Government securities is excluded in computing income or profits for corporation tax purposes and the expenses are attributable to those securities.

Is this something new in relation to the corporations tax code?

It brings in something which would not otherwise have been charged before? Is that correct?

Where is the reference to carrying on business through a branch or agency?

It is implicit in the phrase, " carried on in the State ".

Let me revert for a moment to the major point which was raised yesterday in regard to foreign corporations not having a branch or agency here and the method of getting at their profits. It seemed to me that this section was doing this on a limited scale in relation to the kind of businesses involved—banking, insurances or businesses consisting wholly or partly in dealing in securities. The Minister says it is implicit that we are dealing here with a company which has a branch or agency. I wonder if that is so. I would be rather disappointed if it is so because I thought that we might have a method here of dealing with the problem we were talking about yesterday.

I can understand Deputy Colley's anxiety here but I am assured that unless a company is trading here through a branch or agency there would be difficulties in trying to charge its trading profits to tax.

I could see difficulties, too, because a lot of this kind of business is dealt with on paper. The purpose is to try to bring some of this business here.

The intention is to make foreign dividends liable to corporation tax when those dividends are attributable to the branch here.

The Minister appears to be saying that unless the banking or insurance business concerned has a branch or agency within the State, liability will not arise under this section, even though it does not say so on the face of the section.

I have just explained that it is necessary to have a branch or agency here before trading profits are charged to tax. For income tax purposes the position is covered by section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1967 which reads:

A non-resident person shall be assessable and chargeable in respect of any profits or gains arising, whether directly or indirectly, through or from any factorship, agency, receivership, branch, or management, and shall be so assessable and chargeable in the name of the factor, agent, receiver, branch, or manager.

I mentioned that unless there was a branch or agency here, it would be futile to be charging a tax because you would have nothing against which you could charge it. If the branch or agency is here, you can at least charge it to the branch or agency.

There is a new area to be covered. The Minister says that it may be necessary to consider this and review it on Report Stage. In that case, and possibly in other cases too, might we ask the Minister whether a simple Report Stage amendment might not be appropriate and he would be prepared to recommit it, even if it was in the House?

Could the Minister throw a little more light on this? As far as I am concerned, I am somewhat in the dark. The charge involved in this section is a new one. If that is so, could he give us any idea of the amount of revenue that might be expected from the application of this section? Furthermore, if the effect of section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1967, which the Minister quoted is as I understood the Minister to say it was, how is it that this charge to tax has not arisen in the past?

I cannot say what the likely income will be. If such business is conducted by a branch or agency at present, of course tax would be received from it.

This is why I am somewhat at sea. I would have assumed that the position was, as the Minister says, if such business was conducted through a branch or agency it would already have been liable to tax. If that is so, what is new about this section?

What we are dealing with here are cases where interest could arise abroad but the interest would be attributable to the branch or agency here. There is a weakness in the present position and it is considered desirable to remedy the matter in this legislation.

An obvious one that might come under the purview of this section would be these things known as back to back arrangements dealing with negotiable instruments. They place a payment or contract and the arrangements would be dealt with by a foreign bank. This is the situation. I see what Deputy Colley is trying to get at and I think it is fair that they should be subject to tax. These foreign institutions should be on the same basis as any native finance house. I am wondering if the meaning of the word " securities " is clear enough. I have an idea that possibly things like mortgages and other securities might be specifically mentioned in this section.

Securities would include mortgages. It would also include, of course, stocks and shares. A mortgage by its nature is a security and it would be included without requiring it to be spelt out.

Might we not spell it out in the nature of a property interest that would be covered by these transactions? Is it sufficient?

I will examine that. I might mention another new provision in the section which is obviously desirable to prevent avoidance and that is the restriction of expenses in computing profits or losses, or management expenses. At the moment there is no restriction.

Have you got adequate machinery to enable you to obtain the necessary information to deal with this type of situation? Is there machinery to give people who will be in this field sufficient information?

Few people complain about the inadequacy of the powers of the Revenue Commissioners. They have a very simple remedy open to them if they feel they are not getting adequate information and that is to make an assessment which is likely to provoke the correct reaction.

It is sometimes very hard to deal with these matters. We are aware of what has been going on for the past number of years in this field.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share