I move the first Section.
FINANCE BILL, 1923. - DAIL IN COMMITTEE.
The Dáil then went into Committee on the Finance Bill, 1923.
SECTION 1.
Income tax shall be charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1923, at the rate of five shillings in the pound, and super-tax shall be charged for that year at the same rates as those at which it was charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1922, under the law then in force in Saorstát Eireann or in the area now comprised therein.
(2) The several statutory and other provisions which were in force in Saorstát Eireann or in the area now comprised therein during the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1922, in relation to income tax and super-tax shall, subject to the adaptations and modifications made or to be made in such provisions by or under the Adaptation of Enactments Act, 1922 (No. 2 of 1922), and subject to the provisions of the Double Taxation (Relief) Act, 1923 (No. 8 of 1923), and subject to the provisions of this Act, have effect in relation to the income tax and super-tax to be charged as aforesaid for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1923.
(3) The annual value of any property which has been adopted for the purpose of income tax under Schedules A and B for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1922, shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be taken as the annual value of that property for the same purpose for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1923.
On a point of order, will it be right to continue the debate or the discussion on the Section prior to the amendments or subsequent to the disposal of the amendments?
Subsequent to the disposal of the amendments.
I beg to move:—
In Sub-Section 1 (1), line 19, and in Sub-Section (2), line 21, to delete the words "comprised in Saorstát Eireann" and substitute the words "within the jurisdiction thereof."
The amendment that I have down is rather a drafting amendment, but I think it is of certain moment. It is to bring the phraseology of this Bill into accord with the phraseology of other Bills and of the Constitution. Sub-Section 1 reads in the last two lines "under the law then in force in Saorstát Eireann or in the area now comprised therein."
Hitherto we have talked of "within the jurisdiction." It will be remembered that in the Constitution discussions the point was made, and the Dáil accepted it, that Ireland under the Treaty and Constitution was Saorstát Eireann. To speak of "the area now comprised therein" goes beyond the limits of the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament. I think the point has been accepted before in other Bills and I would urge that this Bill should be made harmonious with other Bills in this respect.
I would like to join with Deputy Johnson in urging the amendment he has proposed and especially in view of the fact that during the course of this Finance Bill it is quite possible, if not probable, that there may be some amendment of the area within the jurisdiction of the Government of Saorstát Eireann owing to the setting up of the Boundary Commission. If that were to be the case the Finance Bill would be clearly inadequate to deal with any such change as the area now comprised therein, if I understand the wording aright, would be the area comprised at the date of the passing of this Act, and would not be competent to deal with any change of area such as might hereafter come into force. I think the wording Deputy Johnson has suggested is practically the intention of the Bill as it stands, and is slightly, or would be slightly, more accurate as it is more elastic.
I am willing to accept the amendment but I do not quite see how it would fit in in line 19. He means two changes.
Yes.
Does it mean "under the Law then in force within the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann?
"Under the Law then in force in Saorstát Eireann or in the area now within the jurisdiction thereof." That is the new wording. I think Saorstát Eireann should not be deleted in the case of the first Section, but I do not know if Deputy Johnson agrees with that.
It is not intended to delete it there.
The first Section would then read "under the law then in force in Saorstát Eireann or in the area within the jurisdiction thereof."
Really it should read "under the law then in force within the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann."
That would not make it right.
It has reference more particularly to Section 1.
"Under the law then in force in the area now within the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann."
Perhaps it would be better if the President put in words which his draftsman would think suitable. The new wording may be open to the same objection as the original.
Perhaps the Minister would consider a verbal alteration before the next stage.
Very good.
And the amendment will be withdrawn on that consideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I have not moved an amendment to this Section, because I had moved an amendment to the resolution of which the Section is itself the embodiment. I voted for the Second Reading of this Finance Bill, and I must say I thought it regrettable that the Second Reading should be challenged, as I take it that the under-lying principle of the Finance Bill was one that would have carried general agreement in the Dáil, that general principle being that money must be provided for the carrying on of the affairs of this State. On these grounds, therefore, I voted for the Second Reading. I am in agreement with the principle that not only should money be provided, but that all the money estimated under the provisions of the Bill should be found by these provisions. Nevertheless, I do suggest to the Minister that quite consonant with that intention of his, an intention which I fully share personally, he ought to reconsider his determination as to the incidence of Income Tax. This question of Income Tax is one of very great moment, and will be of very great moment in the next twelve months with regard to the determination of our future citizenship, and, therefore, to the personnel on which all taxes—not only Income Tax, but all other taxes—will in the future be charged.
I said in urging this matter once before, that I thought the whole range of taxation ought to be overhauled, and with that principle the President expressed himself in general agreement. When I urged that I suggested that one tax should be dropped to the rate now prevalent in England, that is, 4s. 6d. Income Tax. The President said he could not afford to do that, or to lose an amount of money. I think if it could be proved that the drop in Income Tax from 5s. to 4s. 6d. would mean that the State had to go without a substantial sum of money he would have proved his case, but I suggest to him that it is not altogether true that he would drop a certain amount of money. A drop from 5s. to 4s. 6d. would mean on the figures, if these figures work out correctly, if there are no upsetting calculations to bring in other considerations a loss of £350,000. But there are conditions that upset that calculation. Since the matter arose in the Dáil it is known, for a fact, that a large number of people have removed from this country to another country, because, owing to the different scale of Income Tax in the two countries, their income would be larger in England than in Ireland. It would be very easy to blame such persons. I have heard in conversation people give the most stringent blame to such persons. But, I think that it is generally a common human impulse to try and get the largest possible amount of income, for the twelve months, that can be got, Just the same as a bricklayer, if he could get higher wages in Manchester under the same conditions he would go to Manchester, no matter what the housing shortage would be in Ireland. Exactly in the same way if a person can increase his yearly income by removing to England, and living under the conditions prevalent in England, if he can get a smaller rate of Income Tax in England than in Ireland and a higher result in income he will go to England for that purpose, and that has been occurring in the last month. Another thing has been occurring, as the Minister is aware. Not only have citizens themselves been removing themselves, but even when they remain in Ireland they have removed their banking to England, a thing that is very easy to be done and very simple, and the returns made by the English banks have been returns made at the rate of 4s. 6d. in the £. and that money has been collected, as I know—I am not guessing at these facts— by people resident in England and transferred to their relatives in Ireland, whose money it really is. The consequence is that the State is losing not 6d. in the £ Income Tax, as I urged would only occur if there was a drop from 5s. to 4s. 6d., but it is losing 4s. 6d., because the Income Tax is accruing to the advantage of the English Government instead of to the advantage of the Irish Government. But it is useless to deplore these things. These things occur, and seeing that they do occur I urge the Minister to consider this fact, that although on the figures a drop from 5s. to 4s. 6d. would mean a loss of about £350,000 per annum, actually in the result, conditions being as they are, circumstances being as they are, and must be, that if he were to drop from 5s. to 4s. 6d. he would actually not lose much at all if he would lose one penny piece. Actually he would gain, and I urge him to consider the gain. The gain is this: that while not losing one penny piece of money, as I put it to him would be the case—he may disagree with me, and may disagree and contend that some amount of money would be lost—I think he would hardly put up the case that the loss would be the whole £350,000 because he must know citizens have been removing themselves, and if not removing their households, they have been actually removing their bank balances. And what happens when that occurs? It means this that when a citizen of this State removes his domicile from Ireland to England, as is occurring in large measure, we not only lose their Income Tax, but we lose the entire taxable value in respect of their consumption of taxable commodities, and for these reasons I urge the Minister to reconsider this question of 5s. Income Tax.
He said the other day that he considered Income Tax was probably the most equitable form of taxation. I have myself for a long time been of that opinion. If all taxes could be put in the form of Income Tax, I am inclined to agree with him the greatest amount of justice would be done, but that is not the case at the present moment. It is not true of all taxes, or that Income Tax is the only tax. There are other forms of taxes, and in view of the fact that there is this variety of taxes, I urge the Minister to consider, not on any hypothesis, not on any assumption that the rich must be taxed, or let escape, but on the sheer business proposition that it is ridiculous to lose a citizen from here from whom you collect other taxes, unless you are perfectly sure your resultant is going to bring you more money. I could put it that in the first two or three critical years of the new State it would be most unwise to ask citizens to leave the territory and jurisdiction of the Free State or to invite them to leave or to induce them to leave. I do not put it on this ground. I leave that aside very deliberately, and I put it on a pure business proposition of the amount of money the Minister would collect, and I venture to say this year alone he will collect as much if he drops from 5/- to 4/6, and in this year reckoned in with the next two or three years, with the larger amount of citizenship available for taxation, there is no question that the result would be one of gain rather than one of loss.
Question: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 5 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, the Special Commissioners may, on application made by any person chargeable with super-tax for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1923, make such an adjustment, by repayment of tax or otherwise, as will reduce the amount of super-tax payable by that person for that year to the amount which would have been payable if the provisions of this Act had had the force of law during the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1922, and the adaptations of the Income Tax Acts made by the Adaptation of Enactments Act, 1922 (No. 2 of 1922), or by any Order made or hereafter to be made by the Executive Council under the provisions of that Act, had had full force and effect with reference to income tax for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1922.
(2) The provisions of the Income Tax Acts relating to the statement of a case on a point of law shall apply to applications for adjustment of super-tax under this section.
I move Section 2.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
If the Minister of Finance shall issue any savings certificate under which the purchaser, by virtue of an immediate payment of a specified sum, becomes entitled after a specified period to receive a larger sum consisting of the said sum originally paid and accumulated interest thereon, such accumulated interest shall not be liable to income tax so long as the amount of such certificates held by the person who is for the time being the holder of the certificate does not exceed the amount which such person is for the time being authorised to hold under regulations made by the Minister of Finance.
I beg to move Section 3. It deals with the exemption of interest on Savings' Certificates from income-tax. I have already explained it, and it is not necessary to say any more on it.
I desire to ask the Minister if he is able to tell us anything more about these proposed Savings' Certificates, or is it too soon to ask the question?
It is too soon, except to say that what is meant by them is that a certain sum is paid for them and they are locked up for a certain period. When they are paid in, say, five years' time, they are free from any income tax being charged on them. That is all that is meant.
Question: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
"Notwithstanding any provision contained in any Act of the Parliament of the late United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the interest on all securities issued by the Government of the United Kingdom aforesaid subject to the condition that the interest thereon should be exempt from Income Tax, shall be liable to the Income Tax for the time being charged in Saorstát Eireann, but subject to any arrangement for relief which may for the time being exist with the Government of Great Britain under or by virtue of the Double Taxation (Relief) Act, 1923 (No. 8 of 1923), or otherwise."
I beg to move Section 4.
I beg to move an amendment to this section—to delete the words "or otherwise" in the last line. The section provides for the drawing of Income Tax, subject to any arrangement for relief which may exist with the Government of Great Britain under the Double Taxation (Relief) Act, 1923, or otherwise. I drew attention to this on the Second Reading, and I am still ignorant of what "or otherwise" may refer to, or what the intention of the words is. It seems to me to be too loose an expression to put in a Bill, unless it is intended to give the Minister a complete and unlimited range for arrangements for relief. If that is so, there will be no need to go to the trouble of passing the Double Taxation Relief Act. If the Minister is entitled to make any arrangements for relief he desires, then there is no need to trouble about that particular Act, but now we are asked to consent to arrangements for relief that are being made under that Act "or otherwise." I think we are entitled to some explanation as to what these two words imply, and to ask for some more precise definition before the section is passed.
The first part of this section deals with the Double Taxation Relief Order. It will be remembered I mentioned there were other securities in respect of which, in a strictly technical sense, it might be claimed there was no Income Tax paid; say, for example, the 4 per cent. compounded security. No tax is paid upon that security, but it is included in one's income, if one were liable for super-tax. It is included in your income, not at £4 per cent., but at £5 6s. 8d. We are endeavouring to get an agreement, or to affect an arrangement, somewhat similar to the Double Taxation Relief Order, in respect of this particular security. If there be no arrangement, the alternative for us is to charge Income Tax here on that 4 per cent. security. That would not be fair; it would be an imposition on the person who has investments in that particular security, an imposition which was not contemplated at the time of purchase. We have been advised by our legal advisers that putting in the words "or otherwise" gives us an opportunity of coming to an arrangement in respect of that particular investment. I do not know if there are others besides that 4 per cent. security. The Double Taxation Relief Order does not affect that security, and the British Government at this moment, in essence, gets £1 6s. 8d. on each £100 of that security. We do not get any advantage out of that £1 6s. 8d., but we propose to claim a portion of it. If it be not possible to effect an arrangement, then we want to give notice to those people who hold these securities that, on and after a certain date, we will charge full Income Tax on that investment here, but, meantime, if we could come to an arrangement, it would be desirable that it should be done, and in order that it can be done the words, "or otherwise" are put in this section. They affect nothing else except this one security.
I am sure the intention of putting in these words was innocent, but it is possible, of course under them to do anything else besides making this arrangement that the Minister has now told us about. I do not like this enlargement of powers in the giving of relief, and would suggest to the Minister that he could find a more precise definition to enable him to use such powers as he has now described to us, but under those powers he will admit, I think, that these words, put in an Act, practically mean anything or nothing, just as the Minister decides. I always had an idea that the intentions of the Acts of Parliament were to help people to understand what was intended. In this case that is not done. What is done simply means that you can have a free range, and do anything you like. If the Minister would consider a suggestion or bring in a more precise phrase to illustrate his meaning, I think it would be well.
I think that whatever arrangements be made, a very close examination of this section will show that we are wiping out the condition with regard to these Tax Compound Securities which exist, and which would remain but that we are putting in this section. The method of coming to an arrangement is one that is bound up with certain legal formalities, the absence of which would not entitle us to come to an agreement.
In other words, it must be known what the agreement is before we do it but we get, as it were, an open door there through which it can be done. I will look into it and perhaps give a better explanation of it but I am clear on it that there is not an opportunity for any encroachment on the rights of the Dáil, of any encroachment on the law, by having this particular thing as it is.
I am quite satisfied that it is not an encroachment on the law. It is practically opening the door and abrogating the law. However, it is for the Income Tax payers.
Amendment put and lost.
Question: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) In Sub-section 1 of Section 187 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, the expression "purchase annuity" shall mean the first or original annuity payable before any redemption or statutory reduction.
(2) In sub-section 1 of Section 187 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, the words "the respective surveys and valuations from time to time in force for the purposes of poor rates" shall not apply to the annual value of concerns contained in No. III. of Schedule A, and such concerns shall, for the purposes of Schedule A, be assessed and charged under Schedule D in accordance with the rules applicable to Schedule D so far as the same are not inconsistent with the rules of the said No. III. of Schedule A.
I move Section 5.
I move the deletion of this Section, or as much of it, at least, as is objectionable. That is "In Sub-section 1 of Section 187 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, the expression `purchase annuity' shall mean the first original annuity payable before any redemption or statutory reduction." Now, the reason that there is such a thing as statutory reduction is that recent Acts gave cheaper money than the previous Acts. The Wyndham and Birrell Acts gave cheaper money than the Ashbourne Act. I have no objection at all if it means that the purchase annuity shall mean the annuity payable before the redemption or partial redemption, because I can understand an annuity being reduced or extinguished by redemption. I do not want that to operate, but I say that the annuity named in this Section is based on something that does not exist in law at all. It is either the valuation or the annuity, but reading it as it is at present, it is fixed on something that is non-existent and that has no legal force, and the reason, as I said before, that there is such a thing as statutory reductions is that we have got cheaper money, and for no other reason. Now, if this is going to be based on any legal basis, let it be based on the valuation or on the annuity, but this is neither one nor the other. As a matter of fact, the number of the Ashbourne tenants is very small, and while they should not be put on the same level as the general body of purchasers, I do not see any reason why this should not be. I certainly will oppose it, tooth and nail. My proposal may not count for very much, but there is certainly justice on our side. This is certainly not founded on justice.
This is the famous Financial Resolution that nearly caused the overthrow of the Ministry.
I am sorry I was not here to help.
However we might regret such a catastrophe, still we are opposed to the Clause as it reads. We have no objection at all to letting a man who has redeemed his annuity pay a just amount, but, as Deputy Gorey has just pointed out, you are going to assess as the amount of the farmer's income an amount which does not exist at all. You are going to put something in the law which does not exist, which was the result of cheaper money, as I can explain and which I explained before, and which, although it will bring no revenue to the State, will create a feeling of resentment among people whose desire it is to help the State and to help the present Executive, if they only understood it. For that very reason, and from the fact that it brings nothing, I believe if you would amend this Sub-section, as pointed out by Deputy Gorey, you would be meeting us, you would be doing yourself no harm and you will, at the same time, keep the farmers in good humour.
I do not know whether it is possible to keep the farmers in good humour.
You have not tried very much.
Not some of them, and I am not ambitious in regard to some of them, but I supported this amendment before and I support it now, because it seems to me a very clear and patent question of equity. If it be the case, as we know it is the case, that under the Birrell Act, for example, or the Wyndham Act, certain money was made available, that requires statutory reductions on the Ashbourne Act so as to bring the two sets of purchases on to a parity, then it is perfectly clear that if Income Tax is to be levied on two sets of purchases, that the Income Tax also ought to be levied on a parity. I do not imagine that it will be argued that the statutory reductions under the Ashbourne Act were introduced out of any benevolence. They were simply introduced because of the changed conditions of the two latter Acts. Well, if these reductions were made in answer to a very clear case for equity, that clear case for equity still exists, and I urge that the Government would be wise to recognise that case for equity and to allow Income Tax to be levied on the same parity on which annuities are at present being paid.
Ba mhaith liom cupla focal a rá idtaobh na ceiste seo agus táim ag caint mar dhuine a bhfuil baint aige leis an talamh. Níl sé ceart ná cóir ná feileamhnach do dhaoine anseo heith ag iarraidh buntáiste d'fháil igcóir daoine atá níos saidhbhre na a gcomharsain. I protect strongly, as a farmer, against the effort that has been made here to try to find favoured treatment for a small section of the farming community, people who are in a far better position than their neighbours who purchased under the recent Acts. I know that these men, who purchased under the Ashbourne Act, were envied by their neighbours on account of their favoured position, and I think that it is very unjust to the rest of the taxpayers to try and have this small favoured section exempted from taxation.
Exempted?
Well, to get special treatment.
Special?
Yes, special treatment.
I would like a note to be taken of that.
It is all very well for people to come in and talk about farmers, but there are farmers and farmers, and it is up to those big people, the people who have purchased their huge ranches, to pay their share of taxation as well as the small, poorer people.
Hear, hear; and no more. I think it would be well to point out to Deputy O'Maille that he is rather making a mistake. I do not know whom he refers to. I am one of those who purchased under the 1919 Act, and the majority of the country purchased under the 1903 and 1909 Acts. The legislature came in and said cheaper money ought to be given to people who purchased under the previous Acts. The period was extended, and the annuities became fixed accordingly. If you make two different laws, if you fix the original annuity and the present annuity, you are taxing on a different basis and you make two distinctions between the same class of people. That, I think, is what the Deputy has not seen at all. Now, we do not want them exempted. We want the same treatment as the others, and we do not want any special treatment. The number of people liable for Income Tax under this Clause would not, perhaps, be 200 in all Ireland, and still an exception is made by a Government that claims to be equitable but stands out for this paltry little thing. This is a vexatious and malignant thing that ought not to be there, and I appeal to the Government to withdraw it.
Deputy O'Maille seems to think that those men who purchased under the Ashbourne Act are favoured. I want to submit a small illustration as to the extent to which they are favoured. Take the case of a farmer who buys his farm from the landlord at £1,400. If he purchased under the Ashbourne Act he would pay £56 per annum for the first ten years, which is 4 per cent. If he had purchased under the 1903 Act his annuity at £1,400 would have been £45 10s. The Ashbourne man would have paid 10 years at £56, and after 10 years he would have got 12 per cent. off that, bringing him to about £47; still the 1903 man is paying only £45 10s. all along, consequently for 10 years the Ashbourne man is paying in excess about £14 per annum, and in the second 10 years about £3 per annum, and it takes him to the third decadal reduction to place him on a parity with the man who purchased under the 1903 Act. That is the kind of treatment the Ashbourne tenant has got. I appeal to the Ministry not to insist on this, because we do not wish to have a feeling of resentment in the country against the Executive, especially as the Land Bill is coming to a head, and we want to get the farmers to agree to fair treatment in the Land Bill. If you begin to change the British Law which applied here, it means this is the only law which is being changed, and it applies only to the farmer. Every other portion of the laws have been adapted. We have been adapting all sorts of laws which do not concern the country at all, but when it comes to the farmer he is discriminated against on this particular line which brings practically no revenue to the Government, and which will bring a feeling of resentment on the part of the people whom we want to respect law and order, and whom we will find a difficult job with regard to the Land Bill.
I think there is some misapprehension about the actual meaning of this Section. There was a general acceptance of the fact that in the Act of 1918 the first or original annuity was intended, but one single decision in a court, I think, was against that. It is to obviate any misunderstanding and to settle the matter definitely, once and for all, that we have put forward this amendment, which is the basis of the assessment that has been made in the vast majority of cases, and practically in all cases. Now, the facts of the case have been described by Deputy Wilson, with a certain reservation because it must be admitted that the number of years purchase in the case of the Ashbourne Act, and the number of years purchase in the case of the Wyndham Act were not the same.
As a matter of explanation, the moment a tenant under the Ashbourne Act accepted decadal reduction he began to pay 49½ years, and the result is he may pay 77½ years if he takes the decadal reduction, as against 62 under the 1903 Act.
In the case of the Ashbourne Act a very considerable reduction in the number of years' purchase was the rule—a very considerable number as compared with the Wyndham Act. I should say it would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 15 as against 20, because I recollect after the Act of 1903 was introduced, on all sides it was claimed that the Ashbourne terms were the more favourable terms. Let the Deputy make up what the difference would represent as between one and the other—he mentioned £1,400 in the case of a man buying out under that. Let us take a man getting under the Wyndham Act 20 years' purchase. I think the Deputy will admit that is a fair average price. It will be remembered some people got 24 and 25 years' purchase. 20 years' purchase at £100 is £2,000, and at 2¾ per cent. which was, I think, the percentage at the time it would mean £55.
The percentage was 3¼.
I am afraid that would make my case too good. 3¼ per cent. would be about £65.
I think neither of you knows anything about it.
Yes, a little. At 3¼ per cent. it would amount to £65, as against £1,400 at 4 per cent. which would be £56. We are endeavouring in this particular case to charge on the £56, and the Deputy says it is too much. I am speaking from recollection, because it is a long time since I have seen the figures. I think it will be generally admitted that the number of years' purchase in the case of persons who purchased under the Ashbourne Act was much less than in the case of the Wyndham Acts.
I think Deputy Gorey will agree with my figures, and will agree also that it is a just case. If there be an injustice, which I deny, there is an alternative. This is a case in which the purchase annuity is less than the valuation. If it is proved to us that you are not earning that much money out of the farm, we have no charge against you—absolutely no charge. I think the rest of the Deputies here will admit that when it comes to a question of hard cash, the farmer would be able to put up an excellent case to show he has not the money. I think the farmers themselves will admit that. If anybody has not had experience of their capacity in regard to money matters, let him have a dealing with them, and he will find they know their business all right. In this case, if we were for a moment to admit for the sake of argument that there was an injustice, what is it? Possibly a reduction of 10 per cent., or, at the most, 20 per cent. The £56 Deputy Wilson mentioned would probably be reduced to £41, and the man who bought originally at £56 is now in possession of an estate for which he pays only £41. He is benefitting to the extent of £15. We seek to assess him at £56 at a time when he has a much more valuable holding, when his grip upon it is much better, and when his responsibility to the State is greater. I do not know that any case has been made against our proposal. If the Deputies who spoke in opposition to it would consider the matter over-night I think they will be forced to admit that we have treated them handsomely and they will have a pleasure in paying whatever little amount they may be liable for.
I wish to disabuse the President's mind on some little points. The real reason why this case is put up is because the Income Tax authorities have had a decision delivered against them in a Court of Justice.
That is only one.
Have you ever had a decision delivered in favour of you?
Oh, yes.
The President knows that there is a decision against him, and it is in order to get out of that, that this proposal is made here. There is no other reason. The President makes another mistake. The difference between the Ashbourne purchaser and the Wyndham purchaser was that the Ashbourne purchaser paid considerably more in interest. The reason for the extended period was because the Sinking Fund was reduced from one-half to one-quarter, or from three-quarters to one-quarter. The extended period merely put a man on a level with the 1903 man. The average would be 18½, as compared with 21, but the difference in the interest was the main thing, and the Legislature stepped in, and made the figures equal. It was only in the Sinking Fund that the decadal reduction obtained. If the President goes into the matter more closely he will be able to see those things.
In the particular case mentioned, in which one decision has been given, the Judge stated that obviously a mistake had been made in the Act of 1918 in the draftmanship. I refer to the Income Tax Act of 1918. Now, in the face of that decision surely it is not to be contended by those honest men that there should be any reduction.
Question put: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Uáitéar Mac Cumhaill
- Seán Ó Maolruaidh.
- Peadar Mac a' Bhaird.
- Mícheál de Duram.
- Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
- Liam Thrift.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Pádraig Ó hÓgain.
- Padraic Ó Máille.
- Seosamh Ó Faoileacháin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Fionán Ó Loingsigh.
- Séamus Ó Cruadhlaoich.
- Criostóir Ó Broin.
- Caoimhghin Ó hUigín.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Tomás Mac Artúir.
- Séamus Ó Dóláin.
- Eamon Ó Dúgáin.
- Séamus Ó Murchadha.
- Seosamh Mac Giolla Bhrighde.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Tomás Ó Domhnaill.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Uinseann de Faoite.
Níl
- Donchadh Ó Guaire.
- Seán Ó Duinnín.
- Domhnall Ó Mocháin.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Riobárd Ó Deaghaidh.
- Liam de Róiste.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Darghal Figes.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Seoirse Ghabháin Uí Dubhthaigh.
- Seán Ó Ruanaidh.
- Liam Ó Briain.
- Sir Séumas Craig, Ridire, M.D.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Tomás Ó Conaill.
- Aodh Ó Cúlacháin.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Liam Ó Daimhín.
- Cathal Ó Seanáin.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Domhnall Ó Broin.
- Domhnall Ó Muirgheasa.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
Motion declared carried.
I congratulate the Government on having saved the faces of their Treasury officials.
I accept your congratulations. I now move to report progress.
Agreed.