Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Corporation Tax Bill, 1975 debate -
Wednesday, 25 Feb 1976

SECTION 98.

I move amendment 30c:

In page 92, between lines 46 and 47 to insert a new subsection as follows :

" (4) subsection (1) shall not apply to—

(a) loans made to persons who are not resident in the State and where no person resident in the State would become liable to tax if distributions were made to the non-resident person who received the loan;

(b) loans in excess of a company's distributable income;

(c) loans made out of profits which have been relieved from tax under Parts IV and V of this Act or under Part XXV of the Income Tax Act, 1967".

The proposal under the Bill is that where a closed company gives a loan to a shareholder, tax at the rate of 35/65ths of the loan granted, while the standard rate of tax is 35 per cent must be paid to the Revenue Commissioners. There is provision that when the loan is repaid to the company the tax will be refunded by the Revenue Commissioners. In principle there does not seem to be justification for imposing such a charge on a close company where no additional taxation would arise if the recipient of the loan received a distribution in the form of a dividend. Examples of such circumstances could be: (1) loans to non-residents who, under tax treaties, are not liable to income tax in Ireland in respect of dividends at rates in excess of the tax credit available; (2) loans in excess of a company's income, that is where the source of the cash was from the realisation of assets which had not been reinvested or paid out as a reduction of share capital; (3) loans made out of tax holiday profits.

In regard to companies with tax holiday profits, only some of our double taxation agreements provide for a measure of relief for foreign share holders in respect of tax relief on dividends received by them from Irish companies which have qualified for relief under the tax exemption scheme. It is not in the interests of this State to put pressure on this type of investor at this time, where payment of a dividend would not benefit this country. In this connection, the United Kingdom Revenue did not apply their shortfall provisions on close companies where 90 per cent or more of the ordinary share capital that was owned by non-residents.

It is clear what I am looking for here. I want to exempt loans which are made to persons who are not resident in the State and where no person resident in the State would have become liable to tax on the redistribution made to the non-resident person who received the loan and loans which are in excess of a company's distributive income and loans made out of office which have been relieved of tax under Parts IV and V and under Part XXV of the Income Tax Act, 1967.

If accepted, the amendment would involve discrimination between the resident and non-resident in that in certain circumstances the non-resident could obtain a loan from the company without deduction of tax. This would be an undesirable form of discrimination as it favours the non-resident. Furthermore, it might be argued that in excluding such cases the Irish Revenue was conniving with the non-resident in the reduction of his tax liability in his own country by allowing him to withdraw by means of a non-taxable loan something which is essentially income. This could, of course, have serious complications so far as double taxation agreements are concerned. We must maintain good faith with our partners in such agreements.

There would, in addition, be a practical difficulty in the implementation of the amended section. It would be necessary to verify that no person resident in the State would become liable to tax if distributions were made. This would involve examining the taxation position of the remaining shareholders. Of course, there could be large numbers of such shareholders.

If I understand Deputy Haughey correctly, he has in mind under the proposed subsection (4) (b) that the section would not apply to a loan which exceeds the company's distributable income and, therefore, is in effect, a loan of the company's issued capital. The section as it stands does not prevent the company from making a loan in excess of its distributable income. If the amendment is accepted, the section would enable a participator to take chargeable gains out of the country by way of loan without incurring liability to tax because distributable income does not include chargeable gains. If the Deputy intends that the amendment would apply to loans in excess of a company's accumulated profits, this would require the introduction into the Bill of a whole new concept, that is, that of distributable profit and the sole purpose of this would be to enable a person to extract money from the company in a non-taxable form.

The making of a loan out of capital, as distinct from accumulated income, of a company could have serious effects on the viability of that company and it is felt that the Revenue should not appear to be facilitating such an operation. The fact should not be lost sight of that, if the loan is genuine, the company obtains repayment of the tax when the loan is repaid.

That could be very serious.

After all 35/65ths— if it is a genuine loan they have to hand that amount over to the Revenue and then get it back maybe three, four or five years later. That would be a considerable imposition. I recognise this would be probably a major introduction into the Bill of distributor profits. The Minister is concerned here with income being distributed in the form of loans. I wanted to deal with the situation where a loan was made which clearly was not a distribution of income but was a genuine loan.

Yes, but we know that most tax avoidance in this area is in the form of giving loans. It would be very difficult to close off that means of avoidance and yet leave free the very unusual type of loans Deputy Haughey has in mind which, I agree, can genuinely occur but they are most unusual and I am sure that would-be borrowers under those unusual arrangements would be able to make alternative arrangements without our having to open the floodgates to a very simple avoidance practice. I have seen some examples of really horrific loans being issued at ridiculous rates of interest in the course of schemes of tax avoidance. If it were not for tax avoidance the perpetrators would not participate in it.

What about the situation where a company makes a bona fide loan at a favourable rate of interest to an employee to purchase a house?

That is excluded. Subsection (3) provides that subsection (1) is not to apply if the borrower works full-time in the company, or an associated company, and he has not a material interest in the company as defined in subsection (7).

What would that material interest amount to?

Five per cent of the ordinary share capital.

So, if I am an employee in a company and, as part of good social policy, they advance me money to buy a house at a reasonable rate of interest, provided I do not own more than 5 per cent of the shareholding I am all right?

Yes. It should cover most bank employees.

I do not suppose an ordinary clerk owns more than 5 per cent of the shareholding. What about the situation of the foreign resident?

The suggestion by Deputy Haughey would mean that we would be discriminating in favour of such foreign resident and correspondingly against the Irish resident.

We do that anyway in nearly all business. The foreign resident subscribes to our national loan.

I do not think that is relevant.

What I am concerned with here is if the company pays a dividend, if we have not got this tax sparing agreement with the foreign country, that dividend will be liable for tax in his hands, under his domestic relief.

We have no interest in it one way or another. We have no fiscal interest in it. Our Revenue would not gain if it is a dividend but, if it is a loan, we would succeed in maintaining our position that the tax on it would be spared in his case. Do I make myself clear?

In some cases we have tax sparing arrangements with companies so that, if a dividend is payable out of exempt profits here, it is treated as having paid tax in the recipient country. In cases where we have not that, why does the Minister prevent the company here doing it by way of loan to a non-resident? There is nothing in it for us one way or another.

We certainly have to maintain a situation which will not encourage people to engage in avoidance practices vis-�-vis other friendly countries with whom we have double taxation agreements. If people could escape liability to tax under such an arrangement, we would be facilitating avoidance practices not merely in our own environment but in fact in other countries as well.

There could be a great many loopholes.

I am advised acceptance of this amendment would cause specific difficulty between ourselves and other fiscal authorities who would see this as circumventing arrangements, something they would find unacceptable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
Business suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.

Deputies Conlan and Lalor are deputising for Deputies Dockrell and Crowley for this meeting of the Committee.

Top
Share