Special Committee on the Finance Bill, 1992 díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 13 May 1992

SECTION 192.

Mr. Quinn

I move amendment No. 133:

In page 200, subsection (1), line 4, after "them" to insert "or transferred between adults who are living together as brother or sister or who are living together as husband and wife and who have been in continuous occupation of the property in question for a minimum of two years".

This is a point of view similar to that argued at the earlier Stage in respect of the whole question of common law marriages. The arguments that were made on day one are as valid now as they were then. Is the Minister indicating, that, in respect of the main income tax provision and this provision which has a certain, separate but related, logic, he is in a position to come back at Report Stage with a proposal on this issue? Waiting for the White Paper, which was the argument produced before, was a valid explanation once, but the advice from the parliamentary draftsman and the Attorney General's office would be to the effect that, until the White Paper becomes law, the taxation code still cannot lead the social law in this respect.

The problem is going to become more acute. It is a philosophical question of getting citizens' support for the legal system that reflects reality rather than one which reflects an ideal state. There are various ways of implementing this. It is a political decision that has to be taken. I do not see any opposition to it and I believe it could be done without doing overall damage to the legal code.

Section 201, to which I have a similar philosophically related amendment on the same issue, refers back to the amendment put down by Deputy Rabbitte in relation to income tax. It is the same issue and it will not go away. All the evidence is that it is going to become more acute and will continue to surface in areas such as this. The point has been made and I am not going to repeat it.

Mr. Roche

Like Deputy Quinn, I feel that, as the issue has come up, logically, we must address it. There is no point sticking one's head in the sand in an ostrich like fashion hoping the problem will go away. I see the Government's difficulty with this matter as they are committed to a White Paper. I presume this and other issues will be referred to in the White Paper. I am not sure what Deputy Quinn meant by his reference to a brother or sister. This was new to me.

Mr. Quinn

I am referring to a brother and sister sharing a property, living as brother and sister. I have not discovered some new, unique position or union.

Mr. Roche

I was a little lost. We are agreed on the general principle. The sooner this anomalous situation is brought into line with reality the better. The reality that exists in modern Ireland should be reflected in the tax laws as well as the social welfare laws, otherwise Ireland will be portrayed as being conservative. We will simply have to wait for the White Paper.

Mr. Quinn

We have already allowed this exemption in relation to property transfer between husband and wife. It is being argued now that it should be allowed in relation to sons of farmers. My point is not necessarily related to common law marriages but to situations where people share the beneficial use of property, not necessarily in a conventional marital relationship or cohabiting but in any kind of physical relationship of proximity. Where they wish, for reasons of efficiency or whatever, hold commonly shared proeprty and then to transfer the legal ownership of their portion of it from one to the other without incurring a cost of stamp duty, they should be able to do so. The Minister may have more discretion in this area than he would have in the main one. There is precedent in relation to stamp duty. Transactions do not take place because money is not paid out. There is no loss of revenue.

Mr. Martin

I think a valid point was made by Deputy Quinn when he talked about arrangements which are other than marital. The first day's debate was a bit narrowly focused and identified two categories, i.e., married couples or couples cohabiting. Many other variations and arrangements can occur. The people involved may, in pursuit of their own rights, make the point that they should be entitled to similar rights. It is a bigger question than we think and needs further examination.

Mr. B. Ahern

I think Deputy Quinn knows that my answer to this would be. I am certainly not against it.

Mr. Quinn

I have a fair idea what your answer is; I want to know what the official answer is.

Mr. B. Ahern

Deputy Quinn will find my official answer quite amusing: unfortunately his amendment would have some practical difficulties because the amendment is potentially very broad in scope and it is an incitement to make false declarations.

Mr. Quinn

We have given extraordinary powers to the Revenue Commissioners earlier on. The citizen would be too terrified to do anything — talk about turning logic on its head! You have just been given Third Reich powers—

Mr. B. Ahern

I think Deputy Quinn has, singlehandedly, over the last two years, turned this into a debate. I raised these issues at the Cabinet table. Because of his involvement in this debate last year, the Taoiseach is genuinely interested in trying to get some movement here. I am not sure precisely what can be done and how it can be done. How does one define cohabiting couples and what periods of time are involved? All of these questions will have to be looked at. The Government view, as of now, is that we should wait for the Marital Committee Report. I do not think we will have too long to wait. It will be a matter of getting on with it then, otherwise we could be waiting indefinitely for a referendum Bill. From my part, as soon as we get a White Paper I will examine it. What we can do and how we can do it I am not sure, but at least it will allow us to move the debate a stage further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 192 agreed to.

Sections 193 to 195, inclusive, agreed to.