Special Committee Value-added Tax Bill, 1971 debate -
Tuesday, 13 Jun 1972

SECTION 7.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 3 :

In page 9, subsection (1), line 42, to delete " paragraphs (iv) and (x) of ".

The reason for this amendment is that, when you come to look at the First Schedule, it lists a number of activities and the purpose of the section is to enable people to opt into the system where this would be more beneficial to them than being exempted, but the only cases where this applies are those in paragraphs (iv) and (x) of the Schedule, that is to say, the letting of property and services rendered in the course of their professions by solicitors, accountants, actuaries and veterinary surgeons. I am not clear as to the reason for excluding from the opportunity of opting in people in any other professions. Solicitors and barristers strike one straight away because they are in paragraphs (x) and (xi). Just why a solicitor should be allowed to opt in while a barrister is not allowed to opt in I cannot follow and the same is true of other services, such as banking and insurance services. I recognise that my amendment is too broadly cast because it would cover services given in terms of wages and salaries, but the purpose is to test this out and to provide an opportunity for discussing who should be allowed to opt in and why it should be confined to these professions and not given to other professions and activities.

Mr. Colley

The thinking behind this is that as far as possible the option should be confined to those services which could enter directly or indirectly—directly certainly—into the cost of taxable goods or services. If you take a person such as a doctor or dentist, or the extreme case, as Deputy FitzGerald said, in that it could cover an employee earning a salary, their particular remuneration in the normal sense would not directly enter into the cost of the taxable goods or services. I hope that Deputy FitzGerald will not follow up on the basis of the employee I have mentioned because that is covered elsewhere, but if we take the doctor or dentist as an example——

Dr. FitzGerald

Could we take banking and insurance services, or barristers?

Mr. Colley

Let me take barristers, first of all. Any charge they make would, in fact, be part of the solicitor's charge.

Dr. FitzGerald

Why.

Mr. Colley

They do not charge directly. They are not allowed to deal directly with their clients. The solicitor's bill includes the barrister's fee.

Dr. FitzGerald

I understand that, but the barrister's service is not being rendered by the solicitor, although he charges for the service. We are not talking about charges made by solicitors but of services rendered by them. I do not see any reason for excluding the services rendered by a barrister and I do not think they are in by virtue of the fact that the solicitor puts them in his bill. I think the Minister has misled himself on the point.

Dr. O'Donovan

Does the solicitor not render the barrister to the client?

Mr. Colley

On a practical level, the question from the point of view of a barrister is what advantage would there be to him? What tax would he have that he could pass on?

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not know.

Mr. Colley

I think it would be virtually nil.

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not see a reason for a distinction between that part of the legal expenses of undertaking this activity rendered by a solicitor being included and those rendered by a barrister being excluded, when the two are complementary. The Minister's first reply to me, that he thought he had included barristers——

Mr. Colley

I do not think it is of importance to them whether they are in or not.

Dr. FitzGerald

If it is worthwhile putting in solicitors——

Mr. Colley

Yes, because in the case of solicitors, they are running offices. Most solicitors would not opt at all, but it is conceivable that some of them could have such a burden of taxation on the items they would be supplying to their offices that it would be worth their while.

Dr. FitzGerald

Why would that be true of a solicitor and not of a barrister in Chambers or in court?

Mr. Colley

They do not run the kind of offices solicitors run, with the kind of equipment, furnishings and so on.

Dr. O'Donovan

Many solicitors are, in fact, businessmen, as nearly as might be.

Mr. Colley

That could be, but——

Dr. FitzGerald

: Could we be clear on what the Minister's intention is? If he intended to include barristers on the ground that the solicitor's bill furnished includes their services and that is the purpose of it, I do not think it has been achieved and if it was not the purpose of it, I do not understand why he made the point. I think we ought decide whether if a solicitor is employed and he employs a barrister to advise on a particular point, we want to exclude that part of the solicitors' expenses or include it. We should make up our minds about it anyway.

Mr. Colley

I think we can waste a great deal of time on this because frankly I cannot visualise any barrister to whom it could conceivably be worthwhile to exercise this option, but in fact, for the record, I am advised that the barrister's fees being included in a solicitor's bill, on that basis the solicitor would be able to charge the tax on the basis of his total bill which would include the barrister's fees, but I think we are going after something that is not of importance to a barrister.

Dr. FitzGerald

I do not press the particular point but could we come to banking and insurance services? These have offices—some of them palatial—and why should they be excluded? What difference in kind is there between insurance and banking services and legal and accountancy service?

Mr. Colley

In this we are in a grey area and it is very difficult to know precisely where the line should be drawn. What we have done is to draw the line as far as possible on the basis of what has been done in the countries which operate the value-added tax and of their experience.

Dr. FitzGerald

It is not a very conclusive argument.

Mr. Colley

May I add another point of which I have been reminded? I did make it clear at the beginning that we were trying as far as possible to avoid changing the incidence of taxation and at the moment banking and insurance, for instance, are not subject to turnover tax. Again, this is in the grey area and we cannot stick to it completely.

Mr. Gallagher

To my own knowledge, quite a number of professional people such as doctors and lawyers, including barristers, are engaged in extra-professional activities to a large extent and one of the particular areas in which I know that to be true is building activity.

Mr. Colley

But in that case they could register, if they wished, as builders, but a barrister registered as a barrister is really what we are dealing with here. I am saying that there is nothing in it for him but if he is in building, he would register as a builder, not as a barrister.

Dr. O'Donovan

It seems to me that the banks are like the Revenue Commissioners in that rules applying to other people do not apply to them. It is clear on the general logic of it that banking and insurance should not be included in the exempted list.

Dr. FitzGerald

We will come to that point later.

Mr. Colley

There are technical difficulties about the banking as to what do you apply the tax to, to determine what is the turnover of a bank.

Mr. Tully

That is easy enough. It is ascertainable now. It was not before.

Mr. Colley

No, it is not.

Dr. FitzGerald

The service rendered by a bank is almost indistinguishable from that rendered by a solicitor to the bank. He might advise, for example, on investments so we might want a solicitor's advice in the same way. The bank may have a solicitor who may advise the clients.

Mr. Colley

What we are dealing with here is the option. I do not know if Deputy FitzGerald is making the case that banks should have the option of coming in under this.

Dr. FitzGerald

What harm is it for them to have it?

Mr. Tully

I think the Minister made a statement a few minutes ago that I was trying to pin him up on, that is he said he did not want to broaden the field which was covered by tax. I thought what the Minister said earlier on was that he was trying to have the same amount of tax collected but I could see no reason why people who should be taxed and are not being taxed should not be included in this. It would ease the burden on the general taxpayer.

Mr. Colley

You must remember again that in the case of value-added tax, if you had banks in this it would not cost the banks money. It would cost their customers money.

Mr. Tully

That is a debatable point because they appear to be the only people in the country who are making huge profits at the present time and they might be persuaded to pay some of the tax out of their profits.

Dr. FitzGerald

The Deputy is an optimist.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Do I take it that solicitors’ fees will be more costly than accountants’ fees? Will they be passing on a certain charge?

Mr. Colley

No. All that is provided here is that a solicitor may, if he wishes, opt in to the value-added tax system.

Dr. FitzGerald

For how long?

Mr. Colley

If he wants to get out, he can get out, but if he is getting out he can only get out after he has paid to the Revenue Commissioners the equivalent amount of tax which he has gained. In other words he gets no benefit if he opts out. He cannot be opting in and out to his benefit.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): He will only opt in because it is of benefit to him?

Mr. Colley

Yes.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): He will then get certain rebates?

Mr. Colley

That is right.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): That is the only reason he should opt in?

Mr. Colley

Yes. If the bulk of his business is done with accountable persons to whom the tax can be passed on then it might be worth his while but otherwise certainly not.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): If he is renting an office and paying rent is that subject to value-added tax?

Mr. Colley

Again, we discussed that in the House but it is only in certain circumstances that would arise. It need not necessarily happen that the rent he is paying is subject to tax.

Dr. FitzGerald

I can see that many conversations in the future will be prefaced by : " Are you an accountable person?"

Mr. Colley

It is not as complex in that sense as it seems because at the moment we are operating turnover and wholesale taxes in which we deal with accountable persons.

Dr. FitzGerald

This adds further complexities.

Mr. Colley

Some, but I do not think there will be all that many new people accountable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Dr. FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 4 :

In page 11, after subsection (3), to insert a new subsection as follows :

"() Where a person becomes a taxable person by virtue of commencing to engage in the delivery of taxable goods or the rendering of taxable services he shall be entitled to reclaim tax paid by him prior to that date in respect of goods or services purchased in preparation for his engagement in the above-mentioned taxable activities."

This amendment is put down to cover the case which does not seem to be covered, where a man decides to set up in business and starts to build a factory. He spends two years building a factory and then he goes into business. If in fact he has bought the factory from scratch he will be covered. If he builds it for himself and the building goes on for some time before he goes into business and starts selling anything he would appear to be excluded from getting a rebate on the materials going into it which he would get the benefit of if he simply bought the factory. To people starting in business this could be quite important because their transactions prior to starting to trade, which can go on for a long time if there are long preparations for going into business, are not covered here. The purpose of my amendment is to cover a case like that.

Mr. Colley

I hate to do this, but I have to refer forward to another section to deal with this.

Dr. FitzGerald

Not section 10 (8), I hope?

Mr. Colley

No. In section 9, subsection (1), there is power given to the Revenue Commissioners to register a person who may become an accountable person. This is the same wording as is used at present in connection with turnover tax and wholesale tax. We find that it is working quite well. As it operates what happens is that any person who has made a bona fide start to commence taxable activities will be registered and thus he can obtain his supplies for the business free of tax. It is intended to operate the value-added tax on the same basis.

Any person who has actually commenced to carry on taxable activities will be eligible for registration and he can obtain repayment of the tax in the interval between his commencement of the business and the time when his taxable turnover starts to flow. I would fear that this amendment proposed by Deputy FitzGerald could introduce an uncertain element because it would be necessary to decide, and in some cases perhaps long after the event, whether certain expenditure was or was not in preparation for his engagement. It seems that the better arrangement would be to allow him to become registered at the commencement of his preparatory period under section 9, subsection (1). I think it actually meets the point Deputy FitzGerald has in mind.

Dr. FitzGerald

I am not quite sure that it does. The Minister justifies this on the grounds that it is done now in regard to turnover tax and wholesale tax but the position is quite different. A person, as far as turnover tax and wholesale tax is concerned, will only become interested when he starts to trade and acquire stocks. Now, with the value-added tax he becomes interested at the point where he starts to build his factory or his business as the case may be. Therefore, the time scale is now much longer than previously. I would have thought that the Revenue Commissioners would be a little bit unhappy about the gentleman turning up and saying : "I have in mind building a factory and I wonder could I get my building materials free from tax" and in a couple of years deciding he is not quite ready to build the factory. Surely from the revenue point of view it would be preferable that this benefit should only accrue when the man has started in business and it is quite clear that he was not just codding about building the factory, that he was quite serious about it. My amendment seems from every point of view to be much preferable and would evolve a much greater element of certainty at the point where you are starting business and you then say : "I am in business. This is a genuine operation. I have built a factory. Here are the costs of the materials which went into the factory and I want to get my tax back." The Minister's subsection, if applied liberally, would probably be more beneficial to the taxpayer but I have doubts as regards the liberality with which it would be applied given the degree of doubt and uncertainty that must be present in the Revenue Commissioners' minds about such applicants. Secondly, I am not too sure that it is not, from the revenue point of view, a bit loose and that my amendment is not preferable.

Mr. Colley

From the point of view of Deputy FitzGerald's fears for the Revenue——

Dr. FitzGerald

I am looking ahead.

Mr. Colley

——let me tell him that the Revenue Commissioners do not share his fear because in the kind of case he visualises, suppose a man goes ahead and builds a factory but does not commence business at all, he will eventually dispose of that factory and at that point the Revenue Commissioners will get the tax.

Dr. FitzGerald

Supposing he does not build the factory at all?

Mr. Colley

Supposing he does not build it at all, then we are dealing clearly with a case of fraud.

Dr. FitzGerald

He might change his mind.

Mr. Colley

We can deal with it on that basis. It is pointed out to me that if he does not build the factory he will not have suffered much tax. The kind of situation that Deputy FitzGerald envisaged was the extreme case where he orders materials which could be appropriate for building a factory and in fact does not build the factory at all. He is not in the course of business. He is not a registered person at all. That is clearly a case of fraud.

Dr. FitzGerald

It becomes clear after a time that it is fraud, but why should we open up that possibility instead of operating on the clear-cut basis that when a man starts business and only then he gets his tax back?

Mr. Colley

It depends on what you mean by " starts business ", if he starts by building a factory or by trading.

Dr. FitzGerald

He must start by selling something.

Mr. Colley

That would be much less liberal for the vast majority of taxpayers, who, while they may not be anxious to pay their tax, are at least reasonably honest about it. We would be penalising the vast bulk of taxpayers in order to catch the man who is really going to be guilty of fraud.

Dr. FitzGerald

At present it is left to the discretion of the Revenue Commissioners. No one has any rights in the matter and if the Revenue Commissioners do not agree to register a man in time and he has to go ahead and build his factory, he will get no money back.

Mr. T.J.Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): The Revenue Commissioners would have money belonging to a man who is building a factory. It would take two years to commence business. As the purchases for the factory are taking place he will be paying taxes on the goods. Under the Deputy’s amendment he could not claim what he had paid on the various goods he had bought, so the Revenue Commissioners would have this money.

Dr. FitzGerald

I see that defect. I am not convinced that my amendment is the best way around it, but what I am unhappy about is the fact that under section 9 (1) a person is at the mercy of the Revenue Commissioners who may stall and say: " Let us see the colour of your factory. Let us see the foundation stone." Then he can get nothing back on the money he has spent. We want to be sure that anybody who decides to set up in business will automatically and immediately be brought within the scheme and be able to recover his taxes. Perhaps the amendment required is: " The Revenue Commissioners shall set up and maintain a register of persons . . . and shall be required to register any person who states that he is about to build a factory and go into business " or something like that.

Mr. Colley

That would be going a bit far.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): These goods would be no good to him. They would just be lying there. No other builder would buy them because they would not be able to claim back the value-added tax.

Dr. FitzGerald

I think we are on a different point. It is left entirely to the discretion of the Revenue Commissioners. If they do not agree to register a man who says he is going to build a factory and he then has to go ahead and buy materials, there is no way in which he can get the tax back retrospectively. Under my amendment, if they refuse to register him, and he goes ahead and builds the factory. he can get the tax back when he starts in business. I am not convinced that my amendment is not a useful addition to the normal procedure which would meet the case of somebody who was badly done by as a result of the Revenue Commissioners' decision.

Mr. Colley

Is the Deputy suggesting there could be circumstances in which the man would not get the tax back at all?

Dr. FitzGerald

If he is not registered he cannot get it back. He cannot get it back more than two months beforehand. Is there not a time limit?

Mr. Colley

Not in this.

Mr. E. Collins

What about a person who does not pay the tax during the period he is building the factory and is subject to the payment of interest? I consider that an undue hardship on a person who is entering into trade by virtue of building a factory.

Mr. Colley

I cannot visualise how this could arise. It seems to me that in the normal way what would happen is that a man is going into business and having a factory built for that purpose. He enters into a contract with a contractor who is a registered person under this and who will pay the tax to the Revenue, and the first indication the man we are talking about will get about the tax is when he gets a bill from the builder. To take it a little further, he may have to pay instalments, say, when the building goes to the top of the wall, or something like that. At this level he will get a bill for so much, which will have value-added tax added on to it. When he has paid the builder that amount, he has paid the tax, so the question of interest on non-payment would not arise.

Mr. E. Collins

Supposing he does not pay the tax portion of the bill?

Mr. Colley

It is a matter for the builder whether he is paid or not. If the man who starts in business wants to claim this tax back, he has to get an invoice from the builder showing the tax paid to the builder.

Dr. FitzGerald

To came back to my point, could I refer to section 12 which says that the tax deductible by the person paying tax is only such tax as was charged to him " during such period ", and such period is the taxable period in which he has paid. How can a man, when he is registered, reclaim tax more than two months back? Maybe there is another provision I have missed, because I understood the Minister and his advisers to say a few minutes ago that somebody building a factory, if he is not registered in good time by the Revenue Commissioners can, when he is registered, get the money back for the whole period since he started building. What provision makes that possible?

Mr. Colley

In the present situation the first thing a person starting a business must do is to get registered because if he is not registered he will be charged turnover tax or wholesale tax or both. Traders know this, and somebody erecting a factory——

Dr. FitzGerald

That is not my point. My point is, supposing a person who is going to build a factory is not accepted for registration and has to go ahead without registration: I was told by the Minister that if he was subsequently seen to be serious about building the factory and is registered, he can get back the tax for the whole period of building. I said I did not think it was possible, that there was a two-months limit, and the reply I got from the Minister was that there was no such two-months limit. I am pointing out there is a two-months limit in section 12. Am I wrong?

Mr. Colley

As I understand the effect of section 12, the question of accountability is a question of fact and if he is, in fact, an accountable person, in other words, if it is proved that he has taken steps to start in business, then he can go ahead under section 12.

Dr. FitzGerald

Under section 12 it is stated in all the subsections that the amount he can deduct in respect of tax charged to him is only such tax as is charged " during such period ", and such period is the taxable period during which he is paying it, which limits him to tax which is charged to him during any two months. When I said that earlier on I was told there was no two-months limit. It seems there is such a limit and therefore the risk we face is that if somebody started building a factory the Revenue Commissioners would not regard him as a serious character and that he would lose out.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Deputy's main point is not correct. The phrasing of section 9 (1) is " The Revenue Commissioners shall set up and maintain a register."" Shall set up ".

Dr. FitzGerald

" May become an accountable person ".

Dr. O'Donovan

" Shall set up ".

Dr. FitzGerald

They must have a register but the people on that register are those who, in their opinion, may become accountable persons.

Dr. O'Donovan

You must read the whole thing: " and every such person so registered. . ."

Dr. FitzGerald

And they must register those who they think may become accountable persons and such persons must be entered on the register which the Revenue Commissioners shall maintain.

Mr. T. J.Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): Is there a two months period?

Dr. FitzGerald

If you are paying tax back and the fact that you pay it beyond the two month period——

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): That is something we would want to have a look at. Two months is very short.

Dr. FitzGerald

The answer may be to amend section 12 in order to make it possible for a person to recover tax for a longer period where he is starting in business. I would accept that.

Chairman

Perhaps we should keep to section 8 for the moment.

Mr. Colley

May I go back to the point made by Deputy FitzGerald. The fact is, as Deputy O'Donovan said, that section 9 (1) says :

The Revenue Commissioners shall...

Therefore, if they do not do it they can be compelled to do it by mandamus but that is just a theoretical approach. The practical approach is that the same wording is being operated, at the moment, satisfactorily, as far as I know. I have heard no complaints about the way it is being operated. There are no complaints that the Revenue Commissioners are unreasonable in refusing to register people.

Dr. FitzGerald

The reason for that is that it is only where people start buying stocks at the moment that the issue would arise at all and that is shortly before they enter business, not several years before, and there is not any recovery of tax involved. The issue does not arise.

Mr. Colley

I do not think the Deputy is right in that because at the moment a person could buy materials for a factory and go ahead and build it himself. The normal way would be to do it by way of a building contractor but he could get his own material and do the building himself. If he does the building himself, how does the question arise at present, for him to become a registered person? Deputy FitzGerald says there is no comparison between the two situations, that as this operates at present the only time it happens is when a person is actually buying stock-in-trade for his business.

Dr. FitzGerald

There is no provision at the moment for a person to recover. Therefore, it is not necessary for him to register two years in advance because there is nothing to recover.

Mr. Tully

Surely the way to solve this is to leave it until we reach section 12 and attempt to have the period lengthened which would solve the problem for everybody.

Mr. Colley

I think there is a misconception here. At the moment under turnover and wholesale tax, if a person is not registered, he is liable to the tax and that is it.

Mr. Tully

It is collected from him when he buys the goods.

Mr. Colley

Yes.

Mr. Tully

Therefore, he is not involved in the same way as he will be under VAT.

Mr. Colley

If he is not registered he will have to pay for the goods plus the tax. If he is registered he only pays for the goods, not the tax. Therefore, as of now, he has an incentive to register. The situations are comparable. This provision is operating, as far as I know, satisfactorily. I have had no complaints, and I doubt if any Deputy has had, about the way it is done. The Revenue Commissioners want to register people who are going to commence business and it would be very unusual for somebody to want to be registered who did not intend to carry on business. We should have some regard to how this operates at present because that is a test of how it will operate in future.

Dr. FitzGerald

If a man who is going to build a factory registers for turnover tax, though he is not in trade at the time, can he buy building materials without paying tax on them?

Mr. Colley

Yes.

Dr. FitzGerald

Whereas otherwise he must pay tax at 5 per cent?

Mr. Colley

Yes.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): What about a group of people like St. Canice’s who build, say, three or four houses together. They are not registered people, they are not going to carry on business but they are going to build their houses. Under this Bill obviously they will be charged wholesale tax and turnover tax within the VAT. Is there any provision under which they can claim an “ Out ”?

Mr. Colley

Offhand, I cannot see why they should.

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): The builder can claim because he is a registered person.

Mr. Colley

He passes it on and the consumer pays it.

Dr. FitzGerald

He pays 3 per cent.

Mr. P. Barry

He collects it from the person he sells the house to.

Mr. Tully

The fellow who is going to live in the house finally pays for it. It does not matter whether he builds it himself or not.

Mr. Colley

UnderVAT the tax they will pay will amount to 3 per cent.

Dr. FitzGerald

They will buy the inputs and the extra tax on the inputs will amount to 3 per cent of the value of the house?

Mr. Colley

Yes. May I come back to the point being made on section 12 (1). Deputy FitzGerald said there is a time limit under section 12 and, if there is, he asks how does a man recover his money if, say, there is two years spent in the building of a factory before he commences trade. There is a time limit but it is ten years from the end of the accountable period. Within that period a person is an accountable person. To understand this one must realise there is a difference between an accountable person and a registered person. An accountable person has a right to the deduction of the tax he suffers in any accountable period. That is a right which can be exercised within ten years from the end of the accountable period. The time limits are contained in section 20 (4).

Mr. T. J. Fitzpatrick

(Dublin Central): What is the difference between an accountable person and a registered person?

Mr. Colley

It is a question of fact. If somebody has eluded the Revenue Commissioners for some time he could still be an accountable person. A registered person is an accountable person whom the Revenue Commissioners have registered. What length of time has the registered person to recover tax?

Dr. FitzGerald

How does one reconcile what this section 20 purports to do with section 12 which says that the only tax that can be deducted is that charged to him during the taxable period. He can raise the claim any time he likes but the tax he can recover is only that charged to him during the particular period.

Mr. Colley

Section 20 puts the limit—ten years from the end of the taxing period to which the claim is related. The importance of the distinction of his making between an accountable and a registered person was in the context in which Deputy FitzGerald was visualising a person who applied to be registered and was refused registration and is, therefore, not a registered person because he was refused registration, but by showing that, in fact, he had suffered tax in the building of the factory and, as Deputy FitzGerald visualised, he goes on in a bona fide way to commence a business, he thereby establishes that he is an accountable person and under section 20 (4) he could claim back as an accountable person.

Dr. FitzGerald

He asks to be taxed for the earlier periods and if he is taxed at nothing, he says " But for the other period, I paid so much tax and I get it back", but he must demand to be taxed first.

Mr. Colley

To be registered means not just that you are being taxed but that there is a right to claim a set off.

Dr. FitzGerald

The point is that section 12 talks about computing the amount of tax held in respect of the taxable period. It only arises there.

Dr. O'Donovan

He may pay a lot of tax without being either a registered or accountable person.

Dr. FitzGerald

Unless he gets to the stage at which somebody is computing the amount of tax payable by him for a particular period he cannot claim any tax charged during that period. Section 12 (1) refers to the method of computing the amount of tax payable by somebody, and one's right to a refund only arises out of somebody computing the tax payable by him. It is only then he is entitled to claim the tax charged. Claims for refund of tax charged only arise out of a claim for tax against you.

Dr. O'Donovan

No.

Mr. Colley

If the Deputy looks at section 20, relating to refunds of tax, he will see that the person concerned is given the right to claim a refund of any excess of tax paid for a period of up to ten years.

Dr. FitzGerald

I will not press the point but I cannot reconcile sections 12 and 20. I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Committee adjourned at 7 p.m. until 7 p.m. on Tuesday 20th June, 1972.