I hope all officials respect Members who are trying to serve constituents. The matter has been the subject of two parliamentary questions by the Deputy and concerns an application by a person to the Revenue Commissioners last September to register her car without payment of vehicle registration tax.
Under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1992, all vehicles in the State must be registered with the Revenue Commissioners and the appropriate vehicle registration tax paid on them. However, section 134 of the Act permits a vehicle to be registered without payment of vehicle registration tax if it is the personal property of a private individual when he or she is transferring his or her normal residence from a place outside the State to a place in the State. Regulations define a person's normal residence as the place where he or she lives for at least 185 days in each year because of personal and occupational ties. This relief is, however, subject to the individual having had possession and use of the vehicle for at least six months outside the State prior to transfer of residence.
I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the person concerned applied at the Vehicle Registration Office, Naas, County Kildare, on 1 September 1993 for relief from payment of vehicle registration tax on her car under the transfer of residence provisions. In her application she declared that she had transferred her residence from the UK to the State on 6 August 1993 and that the car had been in her possession and used by her outside the State for at least six months prior to the date she transferred her residence.
She produced certain documents in support of her claim that she had possession and use of the car in the UK. These consisted of the UK vehicle registration document for the car which showed that the car came into her possession on 27 January 1993 and was registered in her name in the UK on 15 February 1993. An insurance certificate was produced which indicated that the car was insured in the UK from 27 January 1993.
She was requested to produce evidence of day-to-day living in the UK from the date she took possession of the car up to the time she transferred her residence to the State. She was also asked to produce evidence to establish the date she transferred her residence.
To support her contention that she took up residence in the State on 6 August 1993 she submitted a letter from her husband's employers in Dublin stating that he took up employment with them on 9 August 1993 having been previously employed by them for three years in the UK. However, when his UK P45, which would confirm the date he ceased employment in the UK, was requested she said she could not produce it as he had been self-employed in the UK.
She produced a statement from an agent of a building society stating she had taken out a mortgage on a house in the State on 2 July 1993. Since she had stated that the transfer of residence took place on 6 August 1993 an explanation was asked for as to how the mortgage had been acquired one month earlier. She replied that she arranged the mortgage while on holiday in the State.
The Revenue Commissioners were not satisfied on the basis of the evidence produced that the person concerned had transferred her residence on the date alleged and considered that further investigations were necessary.
As a result of local inquiries it was established that she had made a claim for unemployment assistance to the Department of Social Welfare on 10 March 1993. The records of the Department of Social Welfare show that she went to work on 22 March 1993 but made a repeat claim on 4 April 1993 when she qualified for unemployment benefit. She continued to receive unemployment benefit without interruption up to 29 September 1993 when she transferred to disability benefit. This clearly contradicts her assertion that she had been living outside the State up to 6 August 1993 and that she only paid short visits to this country during the period February to August 1993.
An examination of her husband's income tax records revealed a written statement by him dated 28 May 1993 to the effect that he returned to live in the State on 4 February 1993.
All this clearly indicates that the person concerned had been living in the State and had been claiming social welfare continuously from 10 March 1993 and that her husband had been living, also continuously, in the State from 4 February 1993. Consequently, since they had acquired the car in late January, neither she nor her husband could have had possession and use of it for the required six months outside the state prior to transferring their residence to the State. Accordingly, she clearly could not qualify for relief.
A decision to refuse the application were conveyed to the person concerned in writing on 4 November 1993. She was again written to on 23 December 1993 in which it was explained to her in detail the grounds for the refusal of her application. In that letter it was clearly stated to the applicant that if she failed to have the car registered immediately and the appropriate vehicle registration tax paid or the car permanently removed from the State, it would be liable to seizure without further warning.
By failing to register the car the person concerned was committing an offence which rendered the car liable to prosecution and to a fine if convicted. The car was also liable to seizure and forfeiture. On 1 February 1994 the car was seized by officers of Customs and Excise. The persons concerned have agreed to release terms of a payment of £400 on the car and the Revenue Commissioners will, therefore, not proceed with a prosecution. The person concerned now has two options; she can export the car permanently from the State or register it with the Revenue Commissioners and pay the vehicle registration tax. The Revenue Commissioners have also advised me that if they do neither the car is liable to seizure again.
I am also advised by the Revenue Commissioners they are satisfied that the person concerned sought to deliberately mislead them with regard to her residential status prior to August 1993 in an attempt to evade the payment of vehicle registration tax. This is an offence under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1992 and is punishable on conviction by a fine and imprisonment, or both. The person concerned has now given a true statement of the facts and the Revenue Commissioners will not, therefore, proceed with legal action in respect of the attempted evasion of tax.
I assure the Deputy that the person concerned was afforded every opportunity to establish that she qualified for the relief claimed. When she was unable to do this the Revenue Commissioners had no choice, because of the statutory obligations imposed on them, but to refuse the application. The Commissioners had given the person concerned ample warning that her car was liable to seizure if she failed to meet her obligations immediately regarding the car.
