Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputies Michael McGrath and Pearse Doherty for their amendments on the reinstatement of the Circuit Court stage of the appeal process. Let me put forward the Minister's arguments as to why we are not in a position to accept them. On amendment No. 26 proposed by Deputy Pearse Doherty, it is clear the Deputy intends that the status quoon the Circuit Court stage be retained. However, it has been pointed out to me that the provisions contained in his amendment appear to be based on the Taxes Consolidation Act as it was first consolidated in 1997 and not on the current version of the Act as amended in the intervening years. The relevant section, which is section 942, was amended by the Finance Acts 2005 and 2007 in some important respects. However, I take the substantive point the Deputy is making and I want to address his amendment and the others as presented. The current appeals process provides for an appeal by a taxpayer against a determination of the appeal commissioners to a judge of the Circuit Court. This Circuit Court stage is a complete rehearing of the appeal. The proceedings do not take any account of what may have transpired at the appeal commissioner stage and it is the determination of the Circuit Court judge that prevails. Prior to taking a matter to the appeal commissioners, taxpayers have the option of looking for a review of a Revenue decision. This can be sought with either a Revenue officer who was not involved in the decision or an independent external person who has appropriate expertise. Such reviews are available to all taxpayers who have a dispute with Revenue before the appeal commissioner stage of the process.

I thank, as does the Minister, the Deputies for their contributions on Second Stage but I refute strongly the assertion that there is a policy pattern within Government to remove the right of access to the Circuit Court for citizens and that the intention behind the proposal is to prohibit people from appealing. Rather, it is the case that the Minister is not persuaded about the necessity of having an appeal to he Circuit Court and considers that the disadvantages significantly outweigh the advantages. Reforms in the Bill will ensure a more robust, transparent and streamlined procedure under which a route of appeal to the Circuit Court is no longer necessary or one over which the Minister can stand. The appeal commissioners are a specialist expert tax tribunal and the Minister is determined that this status be acknowledged and strengthened where possible.

Under the new appeals regime, the Public Appointments Service will select candidates for appointment as appeal commissioners based on the specific requirements of the job and will look for appropriate tax and legal expertise, experience and qualifications. This is absolutely no reflection on the expertise of the current and former appeal commissioners but merely a statement of the strengthened provision to ensure that appellants continue to get high levels of professional service. All appeal commissioners will require the appropriate tax and legal experience and qualifications, which has not been the case before albeit that being no reflection on the expertise and skills of current or former appeal commissioners. The Bill contains provisions that will underpin this specialist expertise with a clear independence from Revenue and a fair and impartial appeal proceedings. The reform is intended to produce a better-resourced, more efficient and transparent appeals commissioner stage. It will see more flexible and active case management as we have already discussed by appeal commissioners, publication of written determinations in a mandatory fashion, and a streamlined case-stated procedure for appeals to the High Court. In contrast, the modus operandiof Circuit Court rehearings appears anomalous and the continuation of the Circuit Court stage of the appeals process has the potential to undermine much of the proposed reform.

The current tax appeals process is out of step with the procedures of many other expert appellant tribunals. Some examples of decisions by public bodies that can only be appealed by way of an appeal to the High Court on points of law are decisions made by An Bord Pleanála, the Financial Services Ombudsman, the Office of the Information Commissioner, the Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal, the Labour Court, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, the rent tribunal, the social welfare appeals office, the tenancy tribunal of the Private Residential Tenancies Board and the valuation tribunal in respect of commercial rates. Unfair dismissals cases were previously appealable from the Employment Appeals Tribunal to the Circuit Court but this process has ceased following the recent establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission. As such, this is in no way out of step with a number of other expert tribunals and how they interact with our courts system.

I appreciate completely that it can be expensive to take a case to the High Court. We do not believe it is necessarily as high as the €100,000 minimum mentioned in some quarters. While I appreciate that the high cost may be a barrier to participation, should the Circuit Court stage be retained, it would be open to Revenue to appeal a Circuit Court determination against it so that taxpayers may find themselves before the High Court in any event. The Bill is intended to provide for an efficient expert tribunal to address disputes that may arise between taxpayers and the Revenue. Retaining the Circuit Court stage in a reformed and streamlined process which will be better resourced is not a position over which the Minister can stand. The appeals process is one of a range of avenues of redress open to taxpayers who feel aggrieved at decisions made by Revenue officials or, indeed, by their behaviour. Taxpayers also have access to Revenue's internal and external review processes as well as avenues such as judicial review and to the courts, up to an including the Court of Justice of the European Union in relevant cases. By providing for the recruitment and selection of suitable experts and for streamlined procedures for the making and hearing of appeals, the Bill aims to ensure an efficient and cost-effective use of public resources and, indeed, the costs incurred by a taxpayer in bringing an appeal. The proposal to allow rehearings before the Circuit Court runs contrary to this objective. Retaining the Circuit Court stage of the appeals process has the potential to unnecessarily delay the resolution of tax disputes.

A great deal has rightly been made of the importance of transparency.

When matters go before the Circuit Court, no record is created, and a decision or determination is not necessarily published. In terms of ensuring that specialists with the legal and tax expertise have an opportunity, independent of Revenue, to assess an appeal, that arrangement is in place. The transparency process is in place. We therefore do not see the Circuit Court process as necessary in that regard. It follows a long line, which Deputy Doherty acknowledges or possibly does not agree with, in terms of a number of other expert appeal tribunals which operate in a similar fashion.