John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Before I call on Deputy Healy-Rae, I will just take up a point made by Deputy Griffin because it is a broader question now than just being confined to Kerry Co-operative. The Revenue Commissioners have written to 400 suppliers. They have put their toe in the water and established the technical fact that is being pursued and then the amounts of money thereafter, but there are other co-ops and a previous speaker said they might have a similar type of share structure in place. Out of regard for the co-op movement itself and the various companies that have developed, would it not have been better for Revenue to do a scoping exercise throughout the country and establish the extent to which this practice was going on and to alert the farmers, their representatives and the professionals to the fact that Revenue has now established that there are a certain number of individuals who have not been compliant with their tax? If Revenue had come at the situation from that angle, people would have been informed of the manner in which Revenue was reaching its assessments rather than picking 400 and putting its toe in the water and being obliged to take a test case.

Mr. Phelan said the number of days can be extended to 60, but that is only if the taxpayer triggers engagement with Revenue. What Senator Kieran O'Donnell wants is a suspension without engagement in order that those concerned can react to the letter, which appears to be a demand of payment. Revenue must clarify the 60 day situation, whether it is on engagement or after engagement or if Revenue accedes to the wish of the committee that activity would be suspended for the 60 days. I believe the letters to be letters of demand.

Another point made by speakers is that accountants and financial advisers have always engaged with Revenue. Deputy Ferris was keen to point out that the issue has only now arisen. Why has Revenue not engaged in the past with the accountants representing the farmers or the co-ops in order that a fuller picture could be established for the public in the situation? That is the nub of the issue. Why write to 400 farmers when Revenue should have clarified the full picture first, informed the co-op and the other businesses associated with the co-op and then assist the farmers and their professional representatives to understand that something was wrong? Mr. Phelan said it came as a surprise to him and Revenue that the co-ops did not know. If the professionals representing the farmers did not know, how in the name of God could Revenue expect the farmers to know? Revenue is applying the tax law as laid out by this House in terms of its approach to collecting the money, but this is a very unusual set of circumstances and it is very unusual that professionals would not be aware of what has been described to us today and that they would not inform their clients.

The final point that needs to be clarified for members is that what Revenue is asking in terms of the Tax Appeals Commission, which is an independent body, is that it will require a number of cases to be adjudicated upon by Revenue, with a clear indication that there are followers. It is not just one case. Is it correct to say there has to be a number of cases and there has to be a clear line of sight saying there are followers and therefore there will be a test case? Members asked the question but I think the answer is being misunderstood. It is not that Revenue is allowing a test case. Revenue is encouraging the taxpayers to take this course of action to lead to a return of a number of taxpayers and to lead thereafter to an independent adjudication from the Tax Appeals Commission. Having listened to the witnesses from Revenue, it is not as straightforward as it might seem to members. There is much that needs to be done by the taxpayer to trigger all sorts of things to answer the questions that have been posed to Revenue. I am just setting out the situation for members and trying to clarify the confusion about some of the questions that have been answered in respect of the situation.