Amendment No. 100 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.
SECTION 126.
Chairman
Amendment No. 100 not moved.
Chairman
Amendment No. 101 falls because Deputy Michael McDowell is not present to move it.
Amendment No. 101 not moved.
Section 126 agreed to.
Section 127 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 102:
In page 124, before section 128, to insert the following new section:
"128. — (1) In this section—
‘marketing costs' means any direct costs incurred solely in the promotion of products or services outside the State which are deducted in computing the amount of profits or gains chargeable to tax under Schedule D;
‘training costs' means any direct costs incurred solely in the provision of training to employees for the maintenance or improvement of job skills and which are deducted in computing the amount of profits or gains chargeable to tax under Schedule D.
(2) Where, in the computation of the amount of the profits or gains of a trade or profession, a person is, apart from this section, entitled to any deduction (hereafter in this subsection referred to as the 'first-mentioned deduction') on account of marketing costs or training costs, he shall be entitled in that computation to a further deduction equal to the amount of the first-mentioned deduction.
(3) Any claim under this section shall be made in such form as the Revenue Commissioners may from time to time prescribe.".
I tabled this amendment last year as well as a result of my experience as Minister for Tourism and Trade. Its effect would be to give for a limited period of time a double allowance in the computation of a company's profits for whatever marketing costs they incur. The Minister opposed it last year.
It looks like I will oppose it again. I am told I am unable to accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 128 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 103:
In page 125, before section 129, to insert the following new section:
129. — Section 4 of the Casual Trading Act, 1995, is hereby amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (2):
‘(2A) (a) For the purposes of the assessment, charge, collection and recovery of any tax or duty placed under the care and management of the Revenue Commissioners—
(i) a casual trading licence shall not be granted unless the application for a casual trading licence contains the applicant's tax reference number, and
(ii) the local authority concerned shall, upon the grant of a casual trading licence, or as soon as may be thereafter, notify the Revenue Commissioners in writing of the name, address and tax reference number of the person to whom the licence was granted and the conditions (if any) contained in the licence including the duration thereof.
(b) In this subsection, "tax reference number", in relation to an applicant for a casual trading licence, means
(i) in the case of an applicant who is an individual, the identifying number, known as the Revenue and Social Insurance (RSI) Number, and
(ii) in the case of any other applicant, the identifying or reference number,
stated on any correspondence, including a notice of determination of tax-free allowances, return of income or return of profits form or notice of assessment issued to the applicant by an inspector of taxes appointed under section 161 of the Income Tax Act, 1967.'.".
This relates to the Casual Trading Act, 1995.
This is a legal belt and braces requirement which relates to the Casual Trading Act, 1995. When that Act was originally published it required applicants for casual trading licences, including Moore Street dealers, to comply with tax clearance requirements. Following further consideration of the matter the Bill was amended on Committee Stage to remove the tax clearance provisions, which were to be replaced by an administrative requirement for applicants for casual trading licences to merely quote their RSI numbers on their application forms.
When the form of the casual trading licence application was being drafted in consultation with the Data Protection Commissioner, the Commissioner queried the legality of requesting RSI numbers on an administrative basis and the Attorney General confirmed that there must be a statutory basis for this procedure. I do not know if Members need any additional clarification.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 104:
In page 125, before section 129, to insert the following new section:
129.—The Revenue Commissioners shall not charge interest to any taxpayer whose payments are in arrears as a result of the failure by another party to deliver relevant C45 certificates.."
We had a brief discussion yesterday on the proposed amendments to section 70 of the Finance Act, 1970. I want to ensure the Revenue Commissioners do not charge interest to a taxpayer whose payments are in arrears as a result of the failure of another party — namely, the principal contractor — to deliver relevant C45 certificates. I and other accountants have found it is not the fault of C45 subcontractors that they cannot get the relevant C45s from their principal contractors and that they must pay interest and late payments of tax, etc. That is not equitable or fair.
We are not convinced that there is a need for it. Deputy McCreevy appears to have specific experience of this, that interest was properly and duly charged and that it was a liability and not an administrative mistake.
The person had to pay tax on 1 November and, as result of C45s, he was be credited on that date. However, he was not able to produce a C45 until well after that date because he could not get them from his principal contractor. The Revenue Commissioners said that it was his tough luck, which was not very fair.
I will come back to this on Report Stage as we are not very clear. If the Deputy has specific details, perhaps he might furnish us with them. We are not clear why or whether this is necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 105:
In page 125, line 41, after "Commissioners" to insert "and Sheriffs collecting Revenue for the Commissioners shall account to the Commissioners for all interest accruing on such collected Revenue in their hands prior to disbursement to the Commissioners".
This section has long been a cause of concern to me, that is, how Revenue Sheriffs account for their money. Until a few years ago a warrant went to the Revenue Sheriffs to collect £20,000 from a person as a result of his income tax. He entered into an arrangement with the Revenue Commissioners to pay the amount over a certain period. If it was ascertained by the Collector General's Office that he only owed £8,000, which he had paid to the Revenue Sheriff, one might find that the amount had not been remitted to the Collector General's Office because the Revenue Sheriff was waiting for the final payment of the warrant.
That procedure was changed because it was ridiculous. The money would stay in the Revenue Sheriff's account and would attract interest, although interest rates are low at present so nobody is making a fortune. However, the Revenue Sheriffs would have a large amount on deposit which they would only need to hand over to the Revenue Commissioners every so often and they would earn a considerable amount. This was discussed with the previous Minister on Committee Stage of a Finance Bill. It was considered to be one of the attractions of the Revenue Sheriff scheme and the reason some people took it up. This was before we made a change in relation to handing over the money more quickly. That was the excuse given by a former Minister, perhaps ten years ago. The Revenue Sheriffs should account to the Commissioners for all interest accruing on collected revenue prior to disbursement to the Commissioners. It is the State's money paid by the taxpayer and the change should be made.
The Deputy will be happy to hear that new administrative arrangements currently being drafted by the Revenue Commissioners, which have yet to come to the Department of Finance for agreement, will require all moneys collected to be lodged into the equivalent of a solicitor-client account; but it will be the Revenue Commissioners account which will be monitored monthly. The question of interest was previously deemed to part of the remuneration package or reward. With the drop in interest rates, it is not as lucrative as it was. That is now being addressed. We are not sure if we should put this into legislation. I assure the Deputy that the process is being changed and that moneys will not be kept in the private accounts of the Revenue Sheriffs and that they will be lodged into a separate account which will be comparable to the solicitor-client account which will be transparent.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 129, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
As regards the care and management provision, I was obliging a colleague in the House and, therefore, I was not present to move amendment No. 101 in my name. I would be loath to put any of the new measures into the care and management of the Revenue Commissioners unless I had sufficiently mentioned the contents of amendment No. 101 to allow me to raise the matter on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.