Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs díospóireacht -
Thursday, 25 Apr 1996

SECTION 52.

Question proposed: "That section 52 stand part of the Bill."

As an accountant, I believe that if the capital gains tax rate was reduced, it would lead to a better enterprise culture. A lot of time is spent by tax advisers trying to devise methods to reduce capital gains tax liability. I am convinced that if the tax rates were reduced, the yield to the Exchequer would be greater. Tax evasion is part of this issue. The Minister may have heard me arguing this point in another forum. Business people know that the yield would be greater if the capital gains tax rate was reduced. Perhaps some political philosophies would be on edge if that happened.

When the betting tax rate was 20 per cent I, with my colleague, Deputy McGahon, advocated that there would be a better yield if it was lower. Credit must be given to the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Dukes, who took a chance and reduced it from 20 per cent to 10 per cent, despite the advice of the Department of Finance. That move increased the yield to the Exchequer. I am convinced that if the rate of capital gains tax was reduced, the same thing would happen. There are various reliefs and allowances for reinvesting, but the high rate of capital gains tax means that tax advisers have spent a lot of time trying to devise ways to legally reduce it. I presume there are a large number of "under the counter" payments to keep it at a lower level. Lowering the rate of capital gains tax would lead to a better enterprise culture and show that Ireland is a good place in which to do business. There would also be a spin-off for the Exchequer from the increased amount of capital gains tax collected by the State.

Perhaps the committee could discuss this issue at a later stage outside the context of the Finance Bill because there is strong support for the views expressed by Deputy McCreevy. The counter view ——

Is there one?

Yes. Having regard to the issue of equity in the tax system, not everyone is in a position to manipulate their income between income tax and capital gains. A lot of capital gains could be derived from trading activities within companies or between one company and another, which are owned by the same group of directors or equity owners. Deputy Michael McDowell will probably say he told us that. Part of the difficulty is that if the marginal income tax rate is at 48 per cent, we cannot look at capital gains tax rates in isolation; we must also look at the effective marginal rate of income tax. If we wish to reduce personal income tax to 27 per cent, it could in some instances give rise to exposure. Maybe we should try to do some exploratory work with the Revenue Commissioners and others to see the extent of the exposure. Some people would open up the opportunity to convert passive and locked in assets into substantial gains. The enterprise culture per se would not necessarily get a bonus or stimulus of new investment but individuals would get potentially fairly generous windfall gains which, in the context of demands for the reduction of income tax for the broad range of PAYE people, would be hard to sustain. It would cost £9 million to reduce the CGT rate from 40 per cent to 27 per cent.

In a full year?

Yes. It is tempting and I am not opposed to it. There is a very compelling argument to reduce capital gains tax it if we are trying to stimulate the BES and people investing in that type of thing but it does not make sense if we are trying to promote enterprise and company formation.

I have walked myself into enough trouble without walking the Minister into trouble with his party. My view on capital gains tax may not be universally shared by the Opposition. I am sure the Minister's views are not universally shared by Members of his party.

My party will share them.

I did not know the estimated cost of reducing the CGT rate from 40 per cent to 27 per cent was so low. The Revenue Commissioners spend a great deal of time each year writing sections into the Finance Bill to counter avoidance techniques. Practitioners spend time trying to find loopholes to avoid the full rate of capital gains tax and a number of people have used the residency rules to avoid tax. We should also consider the level of evasion at the lower end of the market among farmers, shopkeepers and so on with liabilities of £30,000 to £50,000, people who would not be involved in making big deals. People with capital gains tax liabilities of approximately £1 million usually use avoidance techniques arising from tax loopholes.

I am convinced this would give the impression that Ireland is a good place to do business. I recognise that it is tied up with the marginal rate of income tax. When capital gains tax was introduced people in the higher income bracket had the opportunity to change what was regarded as income in order to minimise their tax liability. I am convinced that there would be a greater yield to the Exchequer and it would better for everyone concerned if it was reduced.

It is music to my ears to come into this room and to hear those comments. I said as much this time on last year's Finance Bill. The capital gains tax regime is a ridiculous tax, which is only defensible in that it is a means of propping up the income tax system. Its only rationale is that people cannot order their affairs so they constantly make capital gains do not profit by way of earnings and they must pay some tax. We all know people who have left this country because the capital gains tax system is so severe.

If we had any sense, we would say capital gains tax should only be there to the extent necessary to stop the equity argument which Deputy McCreevy made, to stop people avoiding what would be their income tax liability. Capital gains tax on property prevents people who own flats, houses and premises from trading in them because if they make a profit, 40 per cent will be taken by the Exchequer. We have a very stiff stamp duty system which would benefit from much more transactions in property but we throw the baby out with the bath water on this issue by saying that on equity grounds, we must have heavy capital gains tax.

That is why in our recent policy document on taxation, we proposed the reduction of capital gains tax to the standard rate. I would be happier to go further in relation to business assets and reduce the rate even further for the genuine disposal of business assets. I do not see any argument for keeping the capital gains tax system in its present form, particularly when we hear about the tiny yield from it. The leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Bertie Ahern, said residential property tax yielded less than VAT on ice cream. The difference between 40 per cent and 27 per cent is of the same order. Like RPT, this tax is a waste of time.

Before 1973 we managed without capital gains tax. I acknowledge the country was less fair than it is now and some 1.7 per cent of taxpayers then paid above the standard rate. By 1987 that reached 43 per cent when the tax revolution was complete. I argue strongly for the abolition of capital gains tax. It tends to make capital and investment more difficult and results in ridiculous behaviour such as emigration, to avoid its consequences. A system which allows a rich man disposing of a large business to evade tax by going to live in London or Amsterdam for a few years, is crazy.

Chairman

While this debate is interesting, somebody must speak up for the PAYE worker. If we abolish capital gains tax and RPT, we will load it back on the people who are being crucified. We cannot have it both ways and that is why I am committed not to a reduction of property tax, but to its extension and to making it fairer.

I will convey your views to your constituents.

Chairman

I would be happy if you did, because if we are honest about how best to turn economic growth into jobs, which is the most urgent need, we must realise we over tax the dynamic and under tax the static, namely property.

Deputy McCreevy wondered about my attitude and that of my party and my responsibility as its deputy leader, spokesperson on finance and Minister. My concern about the capital taxation issue is that the PAYE tax-payer is being taxed to raise something of the order of £100 million per year to make grants available through Forbairt for many industries.

I am committed to an enterprise culture and to enabling people in business to retain the benefit of the wealth they create and further utilise it to develop society. I hold no brief for a person who cashes in their chips, buys a yacht and sails around Ireland. If that is what they wish to do, they should pay through the nose for it.

Capital gains tax was not introduced before 1973 when, probably for the first time in the history of the State, scandalous windfall gains were made through land speculation in Dublin City. One would have to refer to Grattan's time and consult with Cormac O'Grada, the only economic historian who could provide chapter and verse in this regard, to gain a full appreciation of this matter. The late city manager, Mr. Jimmy Molloy, who is remembered with much affection, stated that, at the time, elected members of Dublin County Council made more money on a property speculation deal in one afternoon than he made in his entire life. None of that money was subject to taxation and it was a scandal of outrageous proportions.

I am making a clear distinction between people who put money at risk and establish a business which creates net additional wealth through an enterprise culture being obliged to pay capital gains tax, and people who had the good fortune to be born on the right day, in the right bed, in the Rotunda Hospital whose grandfather happened to purchase a piece of land which had a drain, sewer or motorway built within a developable distance. There is a major difference between these categories of individuals. People who purchase houses beside motorways adjacent to land formerly owned by a property speculator are paying for a capital windfall gain through an additional cost on the price of their houses.

Given my architectural background and political activism during the 1960s, I can state that the scandal of property speculation ultimately led to the introduction of capital gains tax by the Fine Gael/Labour coalition in 1973. The tax was resolutely opposed by people who had become instantly wealthy through no creditable action of their own. I am making clear distinctions in my philosophical approach to capital gains tax. A person who invests capital in business and sees that business flourish due to his own enterprise should be encouraged, not penalised.

We must create a capital gains tax regime which differentiates between legitimate investment and speculation. The current system does not make that differentiation. If capital gains tax were reduced to the 27 per cent rate, much development land would be treated in the same way. I am opposed to such an eventuality. The Kenny report suggested various ways of dealing with the question of development land which is again beginning to fetch extraordinary prices in and around urban areas.

Deputy McCreevy opposed this section in order that we might focus upon it. Let me clarify my attitude to the matter. Money is being raised off the backs of ordinary people to give grants to others to develop businesses through Forbairt, the county enterprise boards, etc. If we had a better enterprise culture where people could invest their money and keep more of it in the event of their business being successful, I would encourage that kind of approach for that use of capital. However, a distinction must be made between that mechanism of taxation and that type of capital deployment as distinct from passive capital which is merely cashed in.

The Minister's opinions are quite similar to my own in relation to this area. The Chairman's statement must also be taken into account. The problem with the taxation system is that successive Governments have narrowed the base from which tax is collected over a number of years. This why the burden for PAYE sector workers is so great. I have no problem if society decides that it does not want certain levels of services. However, if we decide on certain levels of services, they must be financed by way of taxation. I do not believe in current budget deficits except in the most exceptional circumstances. The Chairman is correct that the narrowing of the base created this anomaly.

The Minister for Finance set out his broad philosophy on the matter. I am glad he did so because people's comments can often be taken out of context. My philosophy is somewhat different from that of the Minister. Reform means reduction within the income tax system in order that people would not be permitted to make extraordinary gains from work which is not very productive. In my opinion there is a spin-off in having a lower capital gains tax rate which is not generally taken into account and leads to a "get up and do it" philosophy. That is the way I do business. More market investment would be yielded as a result.

I thought this provision would represent a greater step into the dark, but the Minister has informed us that the estimated cost of the reduction from 40 to 27 per cent is quite small. If lower tax rates apply to everything, anti-avoidance procedures can be removed because people will not go to such extraordinary lengths to discover loopholes.

I will undertake some work with my officials in relation to this area and we can return to it at a later date.

Chairman

It will make for a very interesting discussion.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 53 agreed to.
Barr
Roinn