Mr. Charlie Phelan:

I will try to respond to the comments in the same way I did previously.

First, regarding a straight answer to the question of the Tax Appeals Commission, as I said, it is an independent body, but I know for definite that it will need an assessment before an appeal can be made. If it wants a group of assessments to do a test case, we will facilitate that as much as we possibly can by getting it to that stage.

There are two real issues in the entire matter. One is the technical element, that is, whether Revenue is right or wrong. We do not take lightly the decision to treat shares purchased at a discount as a taxable income. We think it is absolutely correct that the difference in the value should be added to one's trading profit and loss account. We are certain that we are right in this regard. In the event that we are wrong, the only way of getting a different opinion is through the Tax Appeals Commission.

The second issue Deputy Neville raised concerns the difficulties farmers face and the difficult year we have had. We published a document concerning results in the farming sector. We are well aware of the trends in farming. It is quite a good document and concerns the position of farming within the overall structure in Ireland. It is available on our website. Our collector general's office, particularly during the recession, has got very good at making phased payment arrangements over a number of years and months for businesses. Whatever people want, we can accommodate them. I agree that the technical element may require a test case. We have some agents who agree with our position and are considering making voluntary disclosures and paying the amount of tax due, albeit that if a test case is taken, they want the same treatment as would result from the test case. We can guarantee this will happen for those who engage and get rid of this matter and we will certainly arrange the phased payment. If we get over the technical matter, the difficulty with payment is not a problem for us in making long arrangements.

As I said earlier, the interest on penalties is statutory. In many cases a penalty does not arise. Our approach to this has been to minimise the penalties because the letters went out as aspect queries. We did not try to carry out audits. We tried to keep the penalty at the cheapest possible level under the code of practice. Again, it is administratively easier for us to carry out bulk inquiries under the aspect query regime. It is also very cost-effective for everybody concerned and eliminates or minimises the penalties in many cases.