asked the Minister for Finance whether a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary is liable to pay income tax on the annual cost of £3,850 in respect of a State car assigned to him; if not why; and if, having regard to the liability of other persons to pay income tax in respect of emoluments and services related to their employment, steps will be taken to apply such liability to State cars.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Income Tax Liability on State Cars.
18.
The facilities to which the Deputy refers are not liable to income tax because they do not fall to be regarded as income. As to the concluding part of the question, benefits received by virtue of the holding of an office or employment which do not take the form of cash in the hands of the individual concerned and which cannot be converted into cash are taxable only where the provisions of Part IV of the Finance Act, 1958, apply. Those provisions were introduced to prevent avoidance of tax by directors and the more highly-paid employees of business concerns and I am not aware of any developments which would necessitate any extension of their scope.
Will the Minister say how it is that the 1958 Finance Act is regarded as applicable to directors of private companies and to private persons, but as not applicable to privileged Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries in respect of their cars and chauffeurs?
Because it was enacted in that form, with that sense, and for that purpose.
So Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are privileged persons?
No.
They are the only people who are getting away with it.
If Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries were paid highly enough to have to pay tax on £3,850, we would be glad to accept that liability.
Other people are being stung.
They have a proportionately higher income.
They would be glad to hear it.
That is a very large presumption for the Minister to make.
On the other hand, the provisions of the 1958 Act are very specific. I think they were approved by the House generally because of the tax avoidance that was being effected prior to the enactment of that section.
It is a very large presumption to say that no one is paying income tax on a motor car provided by way of amenity who is in receipt of a salary less than that of a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary. I am not prepared to say I think Ministers should be charged income tax on this, but there does seem to be an anomaly. Would the Minister not agree that he appears to be under an illusion if he imagines that no one pays income tax on a motor car provided as an amenity who has an income less than that of a Minister?
All these persons can claim allowances in respect of travel, subsistence, and other things, that would be properly chargeable for the purposes of their employment.
Far from that being so, they are required to pay income tax on the car which is provided. If the Minister is under any illusion, he should consult the Revenue Commissioners.
Because it has got a monetary value, it is assessed as part of the employment.
Like a State car.
The suggestion here is that a State car is, too.
The same as Deputy J.A. Costello. He has a car.