Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 20 Jun 1974

Vol. 273 No. 9

Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Japan) Order, 1974: Motion.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Japan) Order, 1974

a copy of which Order in draft was laid on the table of Dáil Éireann on the 31st day of May, 1974.

Copies of the draft orders relating to the conventions with Japan and Pakistan for the avoidance of double taxation on income generally were laid before Dáil Éireann on 31st May, 1974.

The conventions have been signed on behalf of the respective Governments. Subsequent to the signing of the conventions two White Papers setting out the terms of the conventions were laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas by the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

In this country the law provides that an arrangement entered into with a foreign Government to afford relief from double taxation in respect of income tax, sur-tax, corporation profits tax and any taxes of a similar nature, shall have the force of law here if the Irish Government makes an order accordingly. Prior to the making of such an order however a draft of the order must be laid before Dáil Éireann and a resolution passed approving it.

Deputies will find the text of the conventions scheduled to the draft orders now before the House. For the convenience of Deputies a separate memorandum has also been circulated with each draft order explaining the effect of the articles in each convention.

The main object of conventions such as these is the avoidance of double taxation on income flowing from one country to a resident of the other country. To this end their provisions secure that such income will be taxable in one only of the two countries, or that if it is taxable in both, the aggregate of tax payable will be appropriately reduced.

The convention with Japan provides that as regards certain classes of income arising to a person resident in one country and not resident in the other double taxation is avoided by confining the right to tax to the country in which the person is resident. This treatment applies as respects trading profits not arising through a "permanent establishment", shipping and air transport profits, professional profits not attributable to a "fixed base", pensions other than Government pensions and certain earnings and receipts of temporary residents, for example, teachers, researchers and apprentices.

Where none of the exemptions referred to applies income arising in one country to a resident of the other will continue to be taxable in both. The latter country will however relieve the double taxation by reducing the tax which would otherwise be payable to it in respect of the income by means of a "credit system".

An important provision in the convention is that, where an Irish company pays a dividend to a Japanese company which has a stake of not less than 25 per cent in the Irish company, the Japanese Revenue will give credit against the Japanese liability for the Irish tax paid by the company on the profits out of which the dividend is paid. In a case where the Irish company has been wholly or partly relieved from tax under the incentive measures designed to promote industrial development in Ireland, the credit given will be the amount of Irish tax which would have been payable if the Irish tax had been charged in full. Thus full "matching credit" is provided on these investments by Japanese companies. Interest and royalty payments arising in one country and payable to a resident of the other country may be taxed in the country of source up to a rate of 10 per cent.

The convention will enter into force on the thirtieth day after exchange of instruments of ratification and have effect as follows:

(a) in Ireland:

(i) as respects income tax (including sur-tax) for any year of assessment beginning on or after the 6th April of the calandar year in which the convention enters into force;

(ii) as respects corporation profits tax for any accounting period beginning on or after the 1st April of the calendar year in which the convention enters into force and for the unexpired portion of any accounting period current at that date.

(b) in Japan:

as respects income for any taxable year beginning on or after the 1st January of the calendar year in which the convention enters into force.

The convention with Pakistan will enter into force upon the exchange of instruments of ratification. It will have effect in Ireland, as respects income tax (including sur-tax), for the year of assessment beginning on 6th April, 1968, and subsequent years of assessment and, as respects corporation profits tax, for any accounting period beginning on or after 1st April, 1968 and for the unexpired portion of any accounting period current at that date. It will be effective in Pakistan as regards income tax and super-tax for any one year of assessment beginning on or after 1st July, 1968.

Each of the conventions will continue in force indefinitely but may be terminated by either this country or the other partner country giving the appropriate notice of termination prescribed by the respective convention.

The provisions of the conventions with Japan and Pakistan are broadly similar to those contained in the conventions which this country has concluded with other countries. In this respect I might mention that conventions are at present in force with Austria, Belgium, Britain, Canada, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United States of America and Zambia. The main benefit which this country derives from the conclusion of such arrangements is the removal of a disincentive to the investment of foreign capital in Ireland.

I recommend that Dáil Éireann approve these draft orders.

It is of course very important that we should have conlands ventions such as these with as many countries as possible with whom we do any substantial degree of trade. It is particularly important that we should have them with countries from whom we can expect industrial investment. I know from personal experience that the existence or non-existence of a convention on double taxation can be of vital importance in negotiations by the IDA to bring about investment in this country because the consequences of having a convention in force can in many cases make all the difference to the decision of the proposed promoting company whether or not it is economically feasible for them to invest in this country. For that reason I welcome these two conventions and the motion before the House by the Minister at present.

I had the pleasure in 1972 of bringing before this House motions in respect of similar conventions with Belgium, Italy and Luxembourg, thereby ensuring that we had such conventions in force with all the present EEC countries. The Minister has indicated the countries with which we have such conventions. I wonder if he could indicate, when replying, the countries with whom we are in negotiation for the establishment of further conventions and perhaps he could indicate to some degree the stage that such negotiations have reached and whether we are likely to have such conventions concluded quickly or in the longer term. I know that the negotiations for these conventions can be very difficult and tedious and certainly can take a good deal of time. I would particularly welcome information, if the Minister has it, of the position concerning a convention with Australia.

In regard to the convention with Japan I should like to refer the Minister to Article 14, which appears to deal with a capital gains tax situation. In the light of that I should like to refer him to Article 2, paragraph 1, which says:

The taxes which are the subject of this convention are:

(a) in Ireland:

(i) the income tax (including sur-tax) and

(ii) the corporation profits tax

I should like to know, since Article 2 seems to define the taxes which are the subject of the convention, how Article 14 can purport to deal with capital gains tax which does not appear to come under the heading either of income tax, including surtax, or corporation profits tax.

I presume the introduction of the corporation tax as distinct from the corporation profits tax will be covered under Article 2, which provides for the inclusion of taxes identical or substantially similar to those specifically dealt with in the convention, those introduced in addition to or in place of existing taxes. It does appear from Article 14 that a capital gains tax here would be applied on a much narrower basis to a Japanese citizen than it would to an Irish citizen. I am not sure if my interpretation is correct, but it would appear that that is so. If it is so perhaps the Minister would confirm that it is so. May I take it also that a similar narrow base would apply to an Irish citizen in Japan—in other words, that the Japanese resident in Ireland or the Irish resident in Japan would be taxed less and on an easier basis in regard to capital gains tax than would the native of the particular country?

I should also like to know, if the proposed wealth tax, gift tax and inheritance tax are introduced, whether all or any of them will in any way be affected by the terms of this convention. On the face of it the answer would appear to be "No" because of the definition in Article 2, paragraph 1, that the taxes in question apply only in the case of Ireland to income tax, surtax and corporation profits tax but, in view of the term of Article 14, apparently bringing in the capital gains tax, I am not so sure these other taxes would not, in fact, be subject to the terms of this convention and I would be glad if the Minister would clarify that point.

With regard to the convention with Pakistan, I would refer the Minister to Article 22, paragraph 5, which says: "The term taxation as used in this Article means the taxes which are mentioned in Article 1". The taxes mentioned in Article 1, so far as Ireland is concerned, are income tax, including surtax and corporation profits tax. Therefore, looking at the convention with Pakistan on its face, and ignoring for the moment the terms of the convention with Japan, one would take it that capital gains tax, wealth tax, gift tax and inheritance tax would be excluded from the operation of this convention with Pakistan. Is this, I wonder, correct? It is not clear to me, having regard to what appears to be happening in Article 14 of the Japanese convention, whether Article 1 in the convention with Pakistan means what it says.

I should also like to know in relation to Article 22, which is the nondiscrimination Article and which sets out the particular Acts of the Oireachtas which are intended to operate as incentives and are specified here so that they will not be deemed to be in breach of the nondiscrimination Article 22, whether corporation profits tax on profits from trading within Shannon Airport are excluded from, if I may put it this way, the "exclusion" in Article 22 in the convention with Pakistan while, on the other hand, there is provision in the convention with Japan to cover that particular provision, which is the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1958. That is specifically dealt with in a letter exchange between the Irish and Japanese authorities and which, in effect, forms part of the convention with Japan. Among the list of Irish statutes specifically dealt with there is, as I say, the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1958, but there is no reference to that in the convention with Pakistan and I would like the Minister to explain why that is so. On the fact of it, it would appear that trading within Shannon Airport can benefit under the convention with Japan but not under the convention with Pakistan. Perhaps the Minister would explain why that is so.

I should also like to refer the Minister to the explanatory memorandum in regard to the convention with Pakistan which says, in relation to Article 22: "The following reliefs, however, are specifically excluded from the scope of this Article"— this Article being the non-discrimination Article—"the tax reliefs allowed by Ireland to Irish companies engaged in the mining of coal and certain nonbedded minerals". There is no reference in the convention with Japan or, I think, in the explanatory memorandum to coal and I would like to know under what provision is the reference to coal brought in in the explanatory memorandum on the convention with Pakistan. Could the Minister indicate also what relief is, in fact, available at present in respect of coal mining?

Subject to clarification of the points I have raised, I welcome the concluding of these two conventions and I believe they will be to the advantage both of our trading relationships with Japan and Pakistan and also to the industrial development programme of this country.

I must compliment Deputy Colley on his detailed examination and analysis of these conventions. He realises, I think, that there have been occasions in the past when these have not been so carefully scrutinised. He has raised a number of matters in detail which, quite frankly, I would not be in a position to reply to immediately. I will certainly have them examined and I will communicate with him later. He will appreciate that these matters are very specifically and directly negotiated between the two countries and the Revenue Commissioners of the two countries. They are very technical and on some of the specific points I would not be able to reply.

On the whole question as to whether or not there are other double taxation agreements in the pipeline I would hope that there are, but at present there are no negotiations sufficiently formal or advanced to anticipate what other country or countries might next be coming before the Dáil. The Deputy mentioned Australia. We have mentioned to the Australians the possibility and the desirability from our point of view of having such an agreement with them and we are hopeful that this will materialise.

The forms of the conventions are basically as recommended by the OECD, subject to whatever specific amendments are thought desirable having regard to the tax laws of the individual countries. As the Deputy will appreciate, all taxation is in a state of flux in all countries at all times, and double taxation agreements will relate only to such tax laws as are in operation at the time of the signing of the conventions. That is why some of the potential taxes in Ireland have not been spelled out in these agreements. When the new capital taxation proposals are formalised in our legislation, negotiations will take place not only with Japan and Pakistan but with all of the countries which have double taxation agreements with us.

If we look at these two documents themselves we see several differences which have been identified by Deputy Colley, which is an indication of how very directly connected with the tax regimes of all these countries all these conventions are. It is not possible or, indeed, desirable, to draw up a convention now which would be forever binding in future. We could not have a situation in which we were unable to amend our own domestic law because we were tied to conventions which had already taken place. The practice is to have discussions with countries with whom Ireland already has double taxation agreements when amendments are made to our domestic law or to the law of the countries with whom we have conventions so that any matters of difficulty can be identified. Of course, the reliefs can be retrospective if necessary so that the residents in the respective countries do not suffer by reason of any delay in the completion of the conventions.

Deputy Colley mentioned the question of tax relief on coal mining. The taxation relief which is referred to there is in respect of marginal mines. The Minister for Industry and Commerce may certify that a mine is in a situation which requires that it should be given relief from taxes in order that it would be kept operative. Off-hand I cannot think of any other tax relief on coal mining——

Is the Minister referring to the provision in the Bill we are about to discuss or to an earlier one?

There is existing law which enabled relief to be given in respect of coal mines. The other relief is on similar lines to what already exists in relation to coal. Why this should be written into the agreement with Pakistan I do not know. I assume that this was some matter which was identified in the course of the negotiations and that our Pakistani colleagues decided that this matter should be specifically referred to.

I will pursue the other points and I will communicate with Deputy Colley if he will be good enough to endorse the approval of these conventions now.

Question put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn