Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I understand the reason the Deputy is proposing that the date for the implementation of this measure be brought forward. However, we have estimated a yield of €30 million in the budgetary arithmetic for the measure in 2017. If insufficient time is given for the initiative to work then any change in the date could prove counterproductive in that regard. In addition, when dealing with measures of this nature, sufficient time must be afforded to the affected individuals to assemble the necessary information, documentation and so forth to make the disclosure and arrange for the payment of tax and interest, which will probably involve engaging tax advisers, agents and accountants.

I would be particularly concerned if the date were to be brought forward to 1 January as that would be likely to create problems for agents. The income tax return filing date is 31 October, or 12 November for the Revenue online service, so the agents are now in their busiest time of the year. Bear in mind that the Christmas period could also contribute to making it very difficult for them to get submissions in to Revenue for clients with offshore matters.

I also remind the committee that the success of this initiative is predicated on its voluntary nature. In terms of the cost and efficiency of the collection of taxes by Revenue, it is better that such processes are voluntary. Once the window of opportunity expires, whether it is on 1 May or any other date, then these disclosures will cease. Revenue is fully committed to the pursuit of such cases based on information coming on stream under the various automatic exchange-of-information agreements. Such pursuit is likely to be a more drawn-out process, with additional tax revenues only coming on stream incrementally, albeit with increased penalties.

I emphasise that this measure is not in any way a concession to those who have evaded tax through the use of offshore accounts or who failed to disclose offshore assets or income sources. On the contrary, the measure is a very significant withdrawal of an incentive that is currently available to all tax defaulters, that is, the opportunity to significantly mitigate penalties and avoid publication in the defaulters list by making a voluntary disclosure to Revenue. This, in effect, means that offshore defaulters will face a harsher regime than those whose defaults occur exclusively within the State. On balance, I consider that the date of 1 May next should be left unchanged and, therefore, it is not proposed to accept these amendments.