Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 23 Apr 1958

Vol. 167 No. 5

Financial Resolutions. - Resolution No. 8—Death Duties.

Dr. Ryan

I move:—

(1) That in relation to a death which occurs after the passing of the Act giving effect to this Resolution, any duty which, because it has become payable or has been paid under the laws of any territory outside the State, becomes allowable or is allowed against the estate duty, payable under the laws of the State, by way of relief from double taxation, shall not be allowable under subsection (4) of section 7 of the Finance Act, 1894.

(2) That in relation to a death which occurred before the passing of the Act giving effect to this Resolution—

(a) any duty which before such passing, because it had become payable or had been paid under the laws of any territory outside the State, became allowable or was allowed against the estate duty, payable under the laws of the State, by way of relief from double taxation, shall not be and shall be deemed never to have been allowable under subsection (4) of section 7 of the Finance Act, 1894, and

(b) any duty which after such passing, because it has become payable or has been paid under the laws of any territory outside the State, becomes allowable or is allowed against the estate duty, payable under the laws of the State, by way of relief from double taxation, shall not be allowable under subsection (4) of section 7 of the Finance Act, 1894.

Mr. Sweetman

There seems to be an element of both retrospection and retroaction in this Resolution, but it is rather a technical matter. In respect of sub-paragraph (1) that is clearly a matter for the future, but so far as sub-paragraph (2) is concerned, it deems that the relief shall never have been allowed. That seems to be going too far, though honestly I do not understand exactly how this will operate. I think it would be perfectly fair to say that in respect of any case that has been dealt with and closed it could not be reopened. If this arose because something new had been found there would be a spate of refunds, and I would not object to that being prevented. However, where it happens, as here, that a case is pending, you cut it in the middle and say that the law by virtue of which you are entitled to take this allowance before is now to be changed with retrospective effect to the death of a person who died some years ago. I cannot see the justification for that at all.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know at the moment in how far the retrospective effect will be used. If it were not made retrospective, as the Deputy knows, people who had not paid on the basis that is here — most of them must have paid on this basis — would be reminded of the fact that they could claim back again what they had already paid. I take it the Deputy would not object to that.

Mr. Sweetman

No. I would not mind blocking that case.

Dr. Ryan

In any event it will be coming before us in the Finance Bill.

Mr. Sweetman

I accept the Resolution but I am to be taken as accepting it without prejudice until I see the Finance Bill.

Resolution put and agreed to.