asked the Minister for Finance (a) why a farmer (name supplied) has been assessed for income tax; (b) if any other persons known to have qualified under the small farmer's incentive bonus scheme have been previously assessed; and (c) the reason why this person has been classified as a specialised market gardener.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Income Tax Assessment.
18.
(a) The person in question has been assessed to income tax in accordance with section 54, Income Tax Act, 1967, in respect of the profits or gains from market gardening. (b) As payments under the Small Farm Incentive Bonus Scheme were not made until 1969-70 no information is yet available to show whether or not any recipient of such a bonus has been assessed to tax. (c) Section 54, Income Tax Act, 1967, defines "market garden land" as land in the State occupied as a nursery or garden for the sale of the produce (other than land used for the growth of hops) and "market gardening" is construed accordingly. The land occupied by the person in question is regarded as being within that definition.
Is the Minister aware that this man applied under the Small Farm Incentive Bonus Scheme and had his application granted by the Department of Agriculture? This man has seven acres of land. He worked so hard he made enough money to buy another 32 acres and, as a result of that, the Revenue Commissioners came down upon him.
We cannot have a debate on this.
This is very important because it affects small farmers in County Dublin.
It affects small farmers outside County Dublin too.
Deputy Foley does not come into the category of small farmer.
I have given the legal definition under which the assessment is made. I am sure the Deputy is aware that the person in question appealed to the Appeal Commissioner and the Appeal Commissioner stated in his decision:
I have arrived at a clear conclusion that the full 6¾ acres is predominantly occupied for one purpose, the production of garden produce.
On that basis the Appeal Commissioner made his decision.
This man inherited seven acres from his mother. What other way had he of earning a living to support himself and his family? We penalise him when we bring the Revenue Commissioners down upon him because he saves enough money to buy another 32 acres. May I ask the Minister to give further consideration to this? The arbitrator on the appeal board is a retired senior counsel and the other is a retired legal adviser to the Revenue Commissioners. Surely this was not justice?
We cannot have a debate on this.
It is very important to the small farmers in the county.
The Appeal Commissioners are appointed to do a job which, as far as I know, they do quite competently. I have no power to interfere with their decisions. The only remedy would appear to be to change the law in order to ensure that market gardeners did not become liable to income tax. But that raises a very big issue, one on which I am not prepared to comment.
Would the Minister not consider it desirable to have such a description of market gardening as would exempt persons who, through their own industry and enterprise, provide themselves with a living on a small acreage?
I am afraid I find it difficult to see the distinction between a market gardener and someone who has a small acreage of land and, by hard work, builds up a market garden business.
Does the Minister intend to change the law?
That raises a much bigger issue, an issue on which I am not prepared to comment in reply to a question.
Could the Minister explain to the House why a 1,000-acre farmer has not to pay income tax and a seven-acre market gardener has?
That raises another issue altogether.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to raise this matter on the adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.