Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee on the Finance Bill, 1992 debate -
Wednesday, 13 May 1992

SECTION 210.

Question proposed: "That section 210 stand part of the Bill."

On the section, I feel that the report by the High Court inspectors into Greencore, the ongoing inquiries into Telecom Eireann, and the Aer Lingus Holidays affair underpin the reason why the Revenue Commissioners should be given power to take action in respect of returns in relation to foreign accounts. I have little more to say on that because I believe the point is well made.

However, I would like to make an inquiry, on page 212, subsection (3), line 45, the records required to be kept or retained there, have to be in written form in the official language of the State. Would that regulation require a professional body of accountants or indeed a company to translate, say, invoices from a French or German bank into Irish or English. Why not record them in an official language of the Community because that seems to me to be excessive.

In this subsection, an Irish bank, when opening foreign accounts, are required to give details, the name, the address and the tax reference number of the Irish resident on whose behalf they are opening the account.

Is it confined to that set of records? I think it is wider than that.

No, it is not.

If a bank opens an account in France, all the certification relevant to that account will be in French and all the official documentation which will arise from that account will be in French. Is the bank in Ireland which opens the account obliged to translate documentation into English or Irish as the case may be because, if it does, it is excessive.

In a case like that, we are asking them to supply the name of the bank, the name of the individual and the tax reference number.

Is there no other similar provision?

No documentation.

Is there no other similar provision elsewhere which makes the same provision in relation to wider documentation?

No, not integration of——

That is not strikingly obvious from the section.

I would have to concur with the Minister. This point was made separately to me and as we are at the end of a long session, this matter may be reflected upon and further advice may be sought. However, it states at the bottom of page 212, "records required to be kept or retained by virtue of this section shall be kept", etc. What this section says is that Part I of the Fiance Act 1968 is hereby amended by the substitution of the following section for section 6: obligation to keep certain records, etc. The section before us says that "records" includes books of accounts, etc., and then goes on to detail in (a), (b), (c) and (d) of subsection (1) a whole range of activities relating to which records must be kept. The Minister might get over the difficulty if he accepts Deputy Noonan's suggestion that he replace "official language of the State" with "official languages of the European Community". This matter should be looked at. It seems to me, as I read this section, and I think Deputy Noonan read it similarly that the scope for possible interpretation is more extensive than the Minister appears to be aware of.

On the upper part of page 212, sections from 1 (a) to 2 (d) relate to the taking of audits. Subsection (3) refers to how records shall be kept. They are not the same.

It does not read clearly. It says "Records required to be kept or retained by virtue of this section". At the top of the page records are defined as "accounts, books of accounts, documents etc."

Could the words "or such other languages agreed by the Revenue Commissioners" be inserted here?

Would the Minister look at it again before Report Stage?

Section 210 agreed to.
Top
Share