Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 20 May 1936

Vol. 62 No. 6

Financial Resolutions—Report Stage. - Resolution No. 2—Income-tax—Local Authorities Employees.

I move that the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 2.

This Resolution, as the House is aware, arises out of the Local Services (Temporary Economies) Act, 1934, which provided for deductions from the remuneration payable to officers of local authorities for the year which ended on the 31st of March, 1935. Section 3 of the Finance Act of 1934 provided that, for the purpose of computing an assessment in regard to income-tax for the year 1934-35, a person who was an officer within the meaning of the Local Services (Temporary Economies) Act should be allowed a deduction equal to the amount of the deduction to be made in respect of that year, under the Local Services (Temporary Economies) Act, from the remuneration paid to the officers of the local authority concerned. It happened that Section 9 of that Act also provided for adjustments in the amount of the cut up to the end of the year 1935 and, accordingly, the amount of the cut which was to be made under the Local Services (Temporary Economies) Act was not necessarily determined finally in all cases up to December, 1935. Now, of course, the operations of the income-tax code could not be suspended in respect of these officers of local authorities until December, 1935, and it happened that, while in general the assessments on the salaries actually enjoyed by these officers of local authorities were made equitably, in a small number of cases, taking the assessments for 1934-35 and 1935-36 together, the allowances in respect of the cut were either too little or too much. Thanks to the courtesy of the Opposition, I had not an opportunity to explain this matter fully on the Committee Stage, and I am explaining it now. The purpose of this Resolution is to provide for any adjustments which may be necessary in view of the fact that, in some cases, the assessments were either too little or too much. In other words, the purpose of the Resolution is to make an equitable assessment on all the officers of the local authorities concerned.

Is the Minister in a position to give any example of cases where the assessment was, in fact, too low? I am sure the Minister will understand what I am getting at, because I can envisage a case in which a man's outgoings would approximate pretty closely to his income, and, having made his assessment too low in the first case, that man might be considerably embarrassed now if there were any wide difference between what he actually paid and the amended assessment proposed under this Resolution. Of course, if the proposed alteration only involves a difference of a pound or two, it would not matter very much, but I should like to know from the Minister whether there is any danger that any official will be called upon to pay any substantial sum in the form of an amended assessment.

On that question, I am not in a position to say, because naturally I take the advice of my advisers in regard to these matters. They say this provision is essential in order to deal equitably with all assessments. No person will be called upon to pay any more than he would be in equity bound to pay, in view of the purpose for which the special provisions were inserted in the 1934 Act. If any person will be found to pay more, I also believe that there are some other persons called upon to pay less than the amount of the assessment. This is merely necessary to put all officers of local authorities upon the one basis. I do not deal with individual cases, because individual cases are not brought to my notice, as a rule. I have not the information that the Deputy asked for.

The Minister will ordinarily ensure that a general resolution of this sort will not work any very severe individual hardship.

I assume that it will not work any individual hardship. It may be that some persons may have to pay a trifle more than they pay as the law stands. On the other hand, some persons may pay less than they might be called upon to pay as the law stands. This puts every person on the same basis in regard to income-tax during the years affected.

So long as it is confined to what can be described as a trifle there will be no serious objection.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn