When speaking on this Vote on Friday last I dealt with the distinction which seemed to be made by the Revenue Commissioners between the income tax payers of small amounts and of large amounts in respect of dividends. There is another matter to which I hope the Minister will devote his attention in connection with this Department, and that is the apparent discrepancy between the total assessment for the income tax and the amount of income tax collected. The assessments for the years 1923-24 and for 1926-27 amounted to something like £34,500,000. According to replies which he gave in this House, the income tax collected has fallen short of that amount by something like £10,000,000. We are anxious to know whether the Minister can give a satisfactory explanation for that deficiency. Some of it undoubtedly may be due to the fact that large amounts have been written off. I believe there is a prevalent opinion that a considerable proportion of that sum is represented by income tax assessed upon the larger incomes, and which for one reason or another the Revenue Commissioners have not been able to collect.
When land annuitants default in payment of the land annuities their names are given to the public. Some time ago I put down a question asking the Minister if he could disclose to the House the names of those people or firms who were defaulters for the largest amounts and the Minister said it was not within his power to give such information. Well, I think it is only fair if land annuitants are to be held up, as they are more or less, to public odium when they default by having their names published, that income tax payers, particularly those who have been assessed for a large amount and from whom large amounts are properly collectable, ought similarly to have their names disclosed to the public, because the fact that they do default in that way imposes an additional burden on the whole community. If arrears are allowed to stand out from year to year, arrears by people who can perfectly well pay them, then there is only one of two things going to happen. Either the Minister has to increase his taxation, or he has to reduce his expenditure, and invariably the experience in this House has been that when the Minister has to reduce expenditure the services which he curtails are those which the community can least afford to be without. For that reason I think every possible means ought to be used to compel income tax defaulters to pay who can.
There are limits to the pressure which can be exerted beneficially. I do not think it would be for the benefit of the State if firms which now find themselves in difficulties were compelled to pay income tax and go out of business, but there are certainly a considerable number of people who could pay income tax with a trifle of inconvenience, but who somehow or other manage to escape. The Minister I think on one occasion disclosed the reason. He said Deputies and others interest themselves on behalf of their friends. That, of course, is very wrong on the part of Deputies, but I do not think it is any less wrong for the Minister to yield to such representations.
The question of income tax I think should be overhauled from the point of view of returns and of the machinery for collection. I should like if the Minister would disclose to the House the amount of tax collected under Schedules A. and B. I believe that the amount might be called large, but I think the net proceeds to the State is very much less than the amount collected; that, as a matter of fact, large sums are collected under these heads, because the tax must be paid in respect of all property, but absentees can and do claim allowances if their income does not reach the required figure and repayment is claimed and has to be made. The question arises under this head whether there is really a revenue to the State derived from income tax assessments under Schedules A and B. It seems to me that is a position that warrants very close investigation because what we are faced with is this: First of all, we have one staff to assess tax in respect of property on which the annual income may be very large; we have another staff to collect the tax in respect of that property, and we have a third staff, I think, to refund to people who make claims for repayment. Surely, if the net proceeds to the State upon the tax collected in this way is not a significant figure it might be advisable to consider even its abolition. There is one other point that I would like the Minister to give some information upon; that is the practice which has been adopted to recover arrears of income tax under Schedules A and B. I believe that up to recently, at any rate, the practice was either to attempt to recover those arrears by distraining or by threatening to distrain. I understand the matter is under appeal with the Revenue Commissioners. I think it has since been held that we are not entitled to proceed under that. If that is so, I think, as I said before, we are entitled to use every possible and legitimate means we can to collect this tax. If at the same time the Commissioners exceed their legal powers and harass the citizens in this present distasteful and inhuman way, the Minister ought to put a curb upon such unjustifiable proceedings.
