Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 16 May 1945

Vol. 97 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Finance Bill, 1945—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Tairgim go ndéantar an Bille Airgeadais, 1945, do léamh den dara huair.

Cuirtear an Bille seo os cómhair an Oireachtais chun éifeacht do thabhairt in aghaidh na bliana airgeadais ar fad do na Rúin lenar ghlac an Dáil tar éis na Cáinfhaisnéise. Mar is eol do na Teachtaí, toisc téarmaí an Achta um Bailiú Sealadach Cánach, 1927, ní bhíonn éifeacht reachtúil ach ar feadh tréimhse teoranta ag Rúin a ritheann an Coiste um Airgeadas den Dáil ag forchur, ag athnuachaint nó ag athrú cánach, nó ag cur deiridh leo.

Níl foráil ar bith sa Bhille nár cuireadh a brí fé bhráid na Dála cheana sna Rúin Airgeadais nó san Óráid Cháinfhaisnéise. Toisc nár gearradh aon chánacha nua leis an gCáinfhaisnéis i mbliana ní dheanann an Bille ach na cánacha atá ann cheana do choimeád in éifeacht, ach maolaíonn sé ualach cánach áirithe i slite fá leith agus bhéarfaidh mé tuairisc orthu san ar ball.

The main purpose of this Bill is to give continuing effect to the Financial Resolutions passed by the Dáil on the 4th instant following the Budget. As Deputies are aware, these Resolutions have statutory effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. 1927, for a limited period only. The matters provided for in the Bill have all been before the House already in the form of Financial Resolutions or have been referred to in my Budget statement. In the circumstances, it is, I think, scarcely necessary for me to deal with them now in detail. I propose, therefore, with your permission, to refer briefly to the various sections of the Bill as introduced.

Part I — Income-tax.—Section 1 (which corresponds to Financial Resolution No. 1 passed on Budget day) is the customary "charging" section. It provides for the imposition of income-tax, sur-tax and excess sur-tax for the year 1945-46 at the same rates as those in force for the preceding year. It also makes provision for the continuance in force of the existing enactments relating to those taxes.

Section 2 secures broadly, following a point raised by way of amendment to last year's Finance Bill, that losses in transactions, where a profit, if it had arisen, would have been assessable under Case VI of Schedule D, may be deducted in computing for tax purposes any profits from such transactions. The relief, which is made retrospective to the year 1944-45, will apply not merely to the transactions of professional bodies in connection with the registration of members, to which reference was made last year, but to all transactions coming under Case VI.

Section 3, which was foreshadowed in the Budget speech, secures with retrospective effect that exemption from income-tax and sur-tax shall be granted in respect of deferred pay which is credited to the pay account of a member of the Defence Forces. A similar exemption is extended to gratuities granted in respect of service with the Defence Forces.

Part II—Customs and Excise.— Section 4 reduces the rates of excise duty on matches. The reduction amounts to 2/1 on each gross of boxes containing more than 20 but not more than 50 matches. This is the type of box in general use and it is sold by retail at 1½d. The reduction is to compensate manufacturers for the increase in cost of raw materials and overhead expenses and to ensure that the public may continue to be able to purchase matches at the price now current.

When the excise duty on matches was increased from 3s. 8d. to 8s. 4d. in 1941, manufacturers were given to understand by the Department of Supplies that the duty would be adjusted if necessary so as to recoup them for increased cost of materials and increased overheads arising from war conditions. In November last, strong representations were made for such review. The position has been thoroughly examined and as any increase in the price of matches would be most undesirable at the present time, the only alternative, that is, a reduction in the rate of duty, is warranted on the understanding that the position will be again examined on the return of more normal conditions.

The loss of excise revenue in the current year will amount to £53,000 and in a full year to £58,000.

Corresponding reductions have been made in the rates of customs duties but as imports are very small at the present time the effect of the change on customs revenue will be negligible.

Part III—Death Duties. Section 5, which is complementary to Section 3, provides for the exemption from estate duty and legacy duty of the payments for service with the Defence Forces which are covered by that section.

Part IV—Corporation Profits Tax. Section 6 secures that a public utility company which carries on a tramway undertaking shall not, by reason of that fact alone, be deprived of the temporary exemption from corporation profits tax and excess corporation profits tax afforded to public utility companies. The effect of the section will be that the new transport company, Córas Iompair Éireann, will be exempt from corporation profits tax and excess corporation profits tax in respect of the whole of its profits for a period of two years.

Part V—Miscellaneous and General. Section 7 is the customary care and management provision and Section 8 is the usual section relating to the Short Title, construction and commencement of the Bill.

There are some items in connection with this Bill to which I should like to refer. There is one which might have been more properly dealt with on the Budget Resolution, that is, the general disappointment that there was no reduction in income-tax, but, in the circumstances, I suppose, we could not expect it. The relief under Case VI Schedule D is welcome, as is the provision under Section 3, which exempts from income-tax and surtax certain payments made to members of the Defence Forces. Both of these provisions are welcome and desirable.

I should like to refer to the Finance Act of last year, Section 13 of which deals with deductions in remuneration of directors in relation to excess corporation profits tax. It has been pointed out to me that this section is operating unfairly in the case of smaller companies. Under Section 13 (c) of the Finance Act, where the paid-up capital is less than £15,000, the Revenue Commissioners must deduct 3 per cent. of the paid-up capital. I will give the Minister an example. A company has been formed as a limited liability company which was formerly run by a trader and his sons as a family business. The father and the sons have become directors. Pre-war, and during the earlier years of the emergency, the sons were in receipt of a salary or director's fee of £400 per annum each. In 1942 the business was formed as a company and, for family reasons, and in order to give the sons a financial interest, the provisions relating to companies were adopted as the family thought it would be more satisfactory and more successful. The capital of the company is £6,000. The maximum total remuneration allowed to the directors for the purpose of calculating excess corporation profits tax is 3 per cent. of £6,000, that is, £180 a year. I submit to the Minister that in this case the Revenue Commissioners should be in a position to allow at least £1,200, which was the remuneration that the three sons had before the war. The Revenue Commissioners are empowered to do that in respect of companies where the paid-up capital is £15,000 or over. In this case the company is liable to excess corporation profits tax and, after charging full remuneration to the directors, the position is as follows: The amount allowed by Section 13 (c) —3 per cent. of £6,000, is £180; the excess corporation profits tax, at 50 per cent., is £510, less tax at 7/6 in the £—£191. The actual loss to the company in tax is £319.

I think the Minister will realise that in small companies like that where a family are working the business practically entirely by themselves or, at any rate, where they are the board of the company, the provisions of this section operate very harshly. I have received particulars of this case, but I have complaints in respect of other cases, and, in fact, no later than to-day, I was discussing the matter with an accountant who deals with a number of these small companies and yesterday I had a complaint from a solicitor who has had considerable experience of them. I should be glad if the Minister would look into the section and see if he can alter it.

I also wish to refer to the exemption from income-tax applicable to a married man, and to the difference between the allowance granted to a married man and the allowance granted to him when a child is born. As the Minister is aware, the tax is leviable under the Finance Act of 1920, which was extended and modified by various amending Acts. Here, the situation is that if a man gets married at any time during the financial year he is allowed the full rebate of £220. For instance, if he got married on 4th April, which is the last day before the end of the financial year, he would get the full allowance. If his wife died on the following 7th April, that is the second day of the next financial year, he would still be allowed the full allowance for that year. If a child is born on 6th April, no allowance is made until the beginning of the following year. In England, recent legislation has allowed £50 in respect of a child born at any time during the year. Here, of course, the allowance is £60 for a child, reduced for every additional child under 16 years of age. I presume that the argument which the Minister or the Revenue Commissioners will put up is that it will be made up at the other end, when the child becomes 16 years. It has been put up to me that an individual is likely to be in a better financial position when his children are grown up.

I have heard the argument put the other way—that a child is more costly at 16 years.

I am afraid I cannot speak from experience. Anyway, the argument which I have advanced was put to me.

It is an old case. Every year since I became Minister for Finance I had some representations about it.

I should be glad if the Minister would consider it, and also the question of the companies, under Section 13 (c) of the Finance Act, 1944.

I have heard frequent complaints in regard to the allowance for adult dependents. The allowance, I think, is £60 a year for children and £25 for adult dependents. To my mind that £25 seems to be an entirely inadequate allowance. Reference has been made to the cost of the upkeep of children, particularly young children. I definitely think that the upkeep of a baby in the first or second year would be very considerably less than the upkeep of an invalid or an aged person. Of course it may be argued that in the case of children the cost of education has to be taken into account, but there are compensations there, because those who are charged with the upbringing and education of children can look forward to some return in the future, whereas the person who is charged with supporting an invalid, whether it be a parent or any other relative, cannot look forward to any similar compensation. It is a permanent burden. For that reason, I think the Minister should consider increasing the allowance, and bringing it up to something like the same level as the allowance in respect of children. I am not an income-tax payer myself, but I have sympathy with anybody who has to pay that taxation because I know it is always a rather unpleasant duty. I can imagine that in some cases the burden of maintaining relatives might be very severe. There might be two parents to be maintained, or perhaps a brother or a sister who is an invalid. I think a good case could be made for some increase in the allowance.

There is not very much excitement about the Finance Bill this year because, as some Deputies described it during the discussion on the Budget, it is more or less a standstill Order. There are some changes, but they are modest changes which do not affect the major position of taxation to any considerable degree. On the question raised by Deputy Cosgrave in regard to small companies, cases have been made to me personally by deputations from Chambers of Commerce and so on about the position of certain small companies. I have said more than once to some of those deputations that I do not want to be in a position properly to be charged with being unjust or unfair to any type of company, small or large. To those deputations, particularly to certain accountants amongst them who stated that from their professional knowledge and from their colleagues' professional knowledge there were cases where they thought there was injustice, I have said: "Give me the details. Give me the facts. If you convince me that injustice is being done by the present scale of taxation, I will try to remedy it." I have not yet got a convincing case, although that statement was made to those deputations some months ago. I was told a fortnight or so before the day of the Budget that cases would be presented. One member of the deputation said that he had, of his own knowledge, four or five such cases. Some of those cases have since been presented to the Revenue Commissioners, and they are under examination, but I have not yet had conveyed to me, from the official sources at any rate, any intimation that any convincing case has been made. If such a case is made, I can assure the Deputy that it will have sympathetic examination.

As Minister for Finance, I would not stand over what I would regard as unfair or unjust discrimination against any type of company. In regard to the particular case mentioned by Deputy Cosgrave, I should like to get the facts. If he gives me the facts and figures, I will certainly have them examined, and carefully and sympathetically examined. I should like to mention that before any excess corporation profits tax is taken out of that company they have a standard of £2,500 on which no excess profits corporation tax is paid. They have that standard, and that would give a big return on capital without paying any excess corporation profits tax. However, if the Deputy lets me have the figures, I will examine the case carefully.

With regard to the allowance for children, as I said to the Deputy during the course of his speech, that case has been frequently made in this House. I heard it made several times when the gentlemen opposite were the Government. It has been made almost every year that I have been in the Dáil, but, I think, if one takes the long view, it will be seen that it is as broad as it is long. If the person does not get the advantage in the first year, the year during which the child was born, he gets the advantage in the year after the child reaches 16. Some people hold that it would be a greater advantage to get the allowance during the first year, but I have heard people with families, some of them with large families, recently say that when the family is at the more costly stage the £60 allowance is more useful to them. It has been the custom here, at any rate, so long as this Dáil has been in existence, to pay on the present basis. The matter has often been considered by the Revenue Commissioners and their advice is not to alter it.

As an individual, I have considerable sympathy with those who ask that the allowance for dependents should be increased. I should like to increase it. I read an article in a paper recently.—I think it was the Sunday Independent—on this very subject, a well-written, well-argued article. I asked the Revenue Commissioners for figures as to what it would cost to double the allowance. It would cost £80,000 and in these times I would not afford it. I should like to do it, but £80,000 in present conditions would be more than I can afford.

If I can get the permission of the traders concerned, I will supply the Minister with the particulars. I should like to say that, under the law as it stands, no matter what the Minister would like to do, he cannot do it unless he amends the law.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

Is there any objection to taking the Committee Stage now?

The only thing is, when will you consider the matter I raised?

There would be no chance of getting it brought in this year. The cases are being examined, and if I do bring it in, I will make it retrospective to cover this year, at any rate.

Agreed to take the remaining stages now.

Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Is there any danger of a Supplementary Budget and an increase in taxes this year?

I have no present intention.

You do not think it will be necessary?

I do not think so.

Question put and agreed to.
Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.

This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.

Barr
Roinn