Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The surcharge issue as an incentive has not worked. That is why the people who, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are involved in tax avoidance schemes are prepared to go the whole way to the Supreme Court. It is a doubtful proposition that doubling the surcharge would be an added incentive. Much of the time these people are playing for time. They get a lot of time if they go through the court process. Sometimes at the end of the process they have cleverly disposed of assets and there is nothing for the Revenue Commissioners to get. The Revenue Commissioners only form a view that a tax avoidance scheme is illegal at a point in the process and at that point when they go to collect they are taken to court by the person or persons involved.

Revenue is independent under statute. When Revenue advises me that it thinks there is a better way of doing business then I feel under an obligation to agree with what Revenue wants to do. This is not the Government coming up with policy positions, as the Deputy suggested. This is Revenue saying we are not doing very well in pursuing some people for tax avoidance who have decided to challenge us in court and to use the delays and expense of the court system to defer a result, and sometimes to avoid liability, while they dispose of their assets.

The Revenue says this is a better way to pursue the matter in the first instance. If those people do not come out with their hands up and be frank about their tax avoidance scheme, then they will be pursued to the end through the courts system. If they do come out they will still be liable for all the tax they avoided but they will also be liable for 80% of the interest rate. The opportunity is time limited. We are not changing the tax code to make this provision a permanent fixture. I am disposed to take Revenue's advice on this matter and I do not have better advice.