Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 3 March 2005
6 Ms B. Moynihan-Cronin asked the Minister for Finance the number of persons, companies and trusts being investigated by the Revenue Commissioners arising from the Clerical Medical Insurance-NIB inquiry at the latest date for which figures are available; the number of cases in which settlements have been agreed; the amount paid; the number of cases outstanding; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7187/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraI am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that arising from the Clerical Medical Insurance-NIB inquiry, 466 cases have been targeted for investigation. To date, 297 cases have been settled on payment of tax, interest and penalties amounting to a total of €49.51 million. A further 116 cases have been finalised with no additional liability arising. The remaining 53 cases are the subject of ongoing investigation, in respect of which €4.38 million has been paid on account.
In the course of 2003, three cases were prosecuted, with fines being imposed in two cases and a suspended sentence imposed in the other. The individuals concerned have also settled their tax affairs and paid the outstanding tax together with interest and penalties. A further case is under investigation with a view to prosecution.
Aggregate results of the ongoing investigations have been published each year since 1998 in the annual reports of the Revenue Commissioners. Individual details of settlements have also been published where the provisions of section 1086 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 applied.
Given the increase in cases identified compared with previous answers — it now stands at 466 as opposed to 452 and there are now 53 cases not yet dealt with — will the Minister reconsider his proposal in yesterday's discussion on the Finance Bill effectively to dilute the provisions that he promised to introduce in the Bill regarding those who aid and abet tax evasion? In particular, does the Minister agree with statements by Mr. Daly, the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, that not only is a tightening up of the aiding and abetting offence required, we should also have a clear reference to putting money offshore? That is the net point where the Revenue cannot successfully prosecute. The Minister has himself stated that in 2003 only three prosecutions took place, two of which resulted in fines. Compare that with a person who defrauds social welfare, is prosecuted and receives a sentence or suspended sentence. Will the Minister reconsider his proposed amendment on Report Stage to dilute the aiding and abetting offence in this year's Finance Bill?
I find that most unfortunate, and I ask people and the press to check the record of the House yesterday regarding the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. In an effort to make some sort of political point, presumably in the context of the by-election campaign, the Deputy has continually misrepresented my position. That is the second successive such question from the Deputy. She was listening to me very intently yesterday in committee, but she has sought to misrepresent my position, and I find it most unfortunate. The purpose of Question Time is to clarify matters and provide factual information to the House on any matter that any Deputy wishes to raise with me, something that I gladly do. I find it unfortunate to have to come back with a reply that has to retrieve a situation after inaccurate and untrue assertions made by the Deputy in her question.
There is no question of diluting the aiding and abetting section. What is involved, as is the normal course in such matters, is ensuring that we have sufficient clarity and understanding on the part of everyone involved, including the Revenue Commissioners, the taxpayers, tax advisers, the Law Society and accountancy bodies, and that they all understand precisely what the extension of section 1078 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 involves. The problem hitherto has been that one could prosecute only on the basis of providing or assisting in providing incorrect information on a tax return. We are broadening that to try to ensure that in future — prospectively, since to do so retrospectively is unconstitutional — where there has been a direction, policy or practice not by those on the front line and accountable but by others higher up in management, they will be amenable to prosecution through the creation of the new offence created by the Finance Bill 2005.
I made it very clear on the basis of legitimate questions asked by Deputy Bruton that there was no question of any dilution involved. It was a matter of clarifying the extent and extension of the existing range of offences available. I also made it clear in our discussion with Deputy Burton in committee that the wording being used covers the specific situation raised by the Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners and that the facilitating of fraudulent tax evasion covers the specifics that she mentioned, recognising that putting money offshore is not in itself an offence. Doing so without notifying the Revenue is the offence. I made it very clear in our discussions on what I did in section 133 of the Finance Bill that the issue in question is covered.
I have no problem, and the Deputy is quite entitled to put her point of view if it is different. However, I ask her, in the interests of fairness and accuracy, to desist from seeking to misrepresent my position, which is quite clear.
In light of the recent takeover of National Irish Bank by Danske Bank, is the Minister confident, with the change of ownership and whatever alteration in management might have taken place since, that corporate responsibility for the malfeasance that occurred in that bank will be properly prosecuted and that individuals in the new company will not slip through the net?
As is normal regarding the law on mergers or takeovers, existing liabilities of the bank remain current. People can still sue in the event of malfeasance against them under the auspices of the National Irish Bank. People buy both the assets and the concurrent liabilities of businesses when they acquire them. As I understand it there is no question of a person's right to sue or to claim recompense for any wrongdoing regarding any of these matters being put at risk as a result of the acquisition taking place.
May I ask a brief supplementary?
We are over time. The Deputy must be very brief.
Will the Minister explain the reason for the increase in the number of cases under investigation from 452, the number he gave me on 1 February, to 466, an increase of 14? Will he explain also the increase from 40 to 53 of the unsettled cases he indicated in earlier replies are likely to be the ones which involved tax evasion and the possible commission of offences?
I understand from my note that the number of cases under investigation has increased from 452 to 466, an increase of 14, as a result of some supplementary information provided by NIB during the final clean-up phase of the investigation.
