Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 4 July 2017
98. Deputy John Brassil asked the Minister for Finance further to the meeting with the Committee of Public Accounts and the commitment to deal expediently with a matter (details supplied), the progress to date; when he expects the committee to report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31195/17]
View answer99. Deputy John Brassil asked the Minister for Finance when a case (details supplied) will be heard; the reason the Revenue Commissioners are contesting the proposed test appellant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31196/17]
View answer100. Deputy John Brassil asked the Minister for Finance if the Revenue Commissioners are objecting to persons taking the test case in respect of a matter (details supplied); if so, the reason therefor; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31197/17]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 98 to 100, inclusive, together.
I am assuming that the reference to the meeting with the Public Accounts Committee is in fact the meeting on Wednesday 7 December 2016 with the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach where Revenue participants discussed matters pertaining to the issue with that committee. I am not aware of whether the Committee will report further on the matter.
Revenue is statutorily independent in administering the tax code and is also statutorily required to maintain taxpayer confidentiality. The Deputy will therefore understand that I cannot be appraised of the circumstances of any individual case.
I understand tax assessments were raised on individuals affected by this matter and that these are under appeal. The forum to have these appeals resolved is the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC), an independent body tasked with hearing tax appeals.
I am advised it is proposed by the TAC to take a test case. There is a provision in Section 949AN of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, which allows the TAC, where cases involve common or related issues, to have regard to a determination made by them in one case, to determine other appeals without the necessity of holding a hearing for those other cases. It is a matter for the TAC to apply this provision. The timing of any appeal is also a matter for the TAC.
I am advised that agents acting on behalf of appellants have proposed a case they believe is suitable for application across all appellants. Revenue has expressed its view, on the request of the TAC, on the suitability of this proposed case as a representative case. The decision on whether to take the case as a representative case is one for the TAC. I am assured by Revenue that it remains committed to facilitating the proposal for a test case approach.
