asked the Minister for Finance if he will now agree to grant a certificate under section 17 (7) of the Finance Act, 1970, to a company in Dublin (details supplied).
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Company Certificate.
43.
The Minister for Finance has no responsibility for the issue of certificates under section 17 (7) of the Finance Act, 1970. A subcontractor who wishes to obtain a certificate under section 17 (7) of the Finance Act, 1970, enabling him to receive payments without deduction of tax for work done on a subcontracting basis must satisfy the Revenue Commissioners that he has complied with the statutory requirements, one of which is that he must have an established place of business.
The Revenue Commissioners inform me that the company in question, the principal in which was an individual who carried on the trade of plasterer, commenced trading on April 1st, 1974, and applied for a certificate on April 4th, 1974. As the company did not show that they had an established place of business a certificate was not issued by the Revenue Commissioners.
In the event of the company now being able to show an established place of business, will the certificate issue?
It is a matter of showing it to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners, not to the satisfaction of the Minister for Finance. If a contractor shows to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that he has an established place of business he must get the certificate—the Revenue Commissioners could not withhold it if they were satisfied the person has complied with the Act.
Is this requirement not superfluous? A person engaged in plastering would have to move from site to site. Requiring him to establish that he has a place of business is asking him to undertake unnecessary expense in renting an office and putting his name over the door just to get this certificate.
The purpose of this section was one which I am sure commends itself to all reasonable people.
Agreed.
That is, that it is an anti-avoidance device. When this matter was queried in the House before—as it was in the days of my predecessors, even by Members of their own party—the Minister of the day, quite rightly, justified this provision because avoidance by some people means that those carrying the load have to pay more. In each case, it is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners to assess, on the facts, whether or not a person is in such a position and way of business and has such stability of location and so on as to enable them obtain payment of the tax due. As I understand it, there is no evidence to indicate that the Revenue Commissioners have been unreasonable in the use of this section. But, if Deputies are aware of any particular cases in which the section has been applied unfairly, I shall be only too happy to refer the matter to the Revenue Commissioners.
I thank the Minister for his consideration here. The fact that any employer could indicate to the Revenue Commissioners that he had three or four men employed by him, that he has submitted an address, that he is a registered company should surely be accepted by the Revenue Commissioners as an indication of his bona fides?
The answer is "no".
I am sure it would be one component in adjudicating on the person's bona fides but there are several factors which have to be borne in mind. No doubt, longevity of business is one of these. In the light of experience I would hope that the group the Deputy has in mind would be able to get a certificate in future years but each case has to be considered on its individual merits.
Question No. 44 postponed.