I move amendment No. 38:
In page 18, line 33, to delete "taxable".
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 5 which provides that taxable services provided within a business may be taxed even where the trader concerned may not be a taxable person.
Taxable services?
We are referring back to amendment No. 5. The Deputy will recall that amendment No. 5 was in relation to the supply of drink in certain circumstances, for example, by vending machines or by restaurants.
I remember it now.
I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in line 40 on page 18 of the Bill there is a surplus comma after the word "which". If the Committee agree I propose to delete it.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 18, line 40, to delete "which," and substitute "which".
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 18, to delete line 49 and to insert the following:
"incapacitated person:',
(b) by the deletion of paragraph (w) of the said subsection (1), and".
I understood we had agreed to adjourn at 12 o'clock.
It was left in the air but in the absence of any other Member of the Opposition I do not think it would be appropriate to continue. Perhaps we could finish the section.
I move amendment No. 39a:
In page 18, line 54, paragraph (b), to delete "section 15 (7)" and to substitute "subsection (6) or (7) of section 15".
The effect of this amendment, which was circulated last night, is to make the making of such regulations subject to the consent of the Minister for Finance as distinct from the regulations being made by the Revenue Commissioners on their own.
This section provides for consequential changes in the powers to make regulations arising from amendments proposed in the Bill. Some of the regulations will require the sanction of the Minister for Finance. The amendment we have just dealt with adds to the list of those which require the sanction of the Minister.
Is this the section which contains the definition on claims-back?
This deals with regulations to be made by Revenue Commissioners but it may include repayments also.
The question of the changing of definition of the type of business has been mentioned to me. I should like to give an example of the situation in relation to a carpet business compared with a building concern. If one is building a 3 per cent VAT flat rate is applied, but if one is selling a carpet it is a 20 per cent rate. If one fits it I understand one can claim 17 per cent back. I would be obliged if the Minister could clarify this situation and give me a proper definition.
I do not think it is a question of a repayment provision; it is a question of what the rate of tax is on the supply of a carpet in different circumstances. The normal sale of a carpet is liable to a 20 per cent rate, including the supply and fitting, because the assumption is that where there is a supply and fitting contract ownership does not pass until the carpet is laid and the job finished. Therefore the supply and fitting charges are liable at 20 per cent. The only exception to this rule would be where a carpet could be supplied in a situation where it might be regarded as the installation of a fixture. The Revenue Commissioners have accepted that if a carpet is stuck down over the whole of its area in such a way that it cannot be removed without being damaged or damage being caused to the building then it comes within the general definition of what are called "fixtures for the purposes of the building provisions of the Act dealing with VAT generally. In that case it would be liable at 3 per cent. If the person, as a result of buying and supplying, finds the tax credits on the purchase of the carpets were greater than the tax payable on the supply and installation, then it would be a routine repayment situation. That is quite common under all building work anyway, where one pays 3 per cent on the output of one business—that is, supply and installing fixtures or doing building work generally—and the building materials are normally liable to 10 per cent or, as in this instance, to 20 per cent. It is common in building operations to have a repayment situation arising as a result of the low rate at 3 per cent.
Is it possible to build in a television at the same time?
For that purpose we should all fasten our carpets to the ground.
I find this a most educating Committee. I do not see why any person would not fasten a carpet to the floor if he can save 17 per cent VAT.
Lest people get carried away, I should like to state that any indication of abuse of this will be viewed with great scepticism by the Revenue Commissioners.
I am sure the Revenue Commissioners will not follow up every claim to see if a person has stuck down a carpet or not.
It may be taken that if there is any evidence of abuse we may have to change the law.
I do not think any Members of the Committee will be paying the 20 per cent.
Our deliberations become public eventually.
