Brendan Griffin (Kerry, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for allowing non-members of the committee to ask questions. As he knows, I have been in touch with him in regard to requesting this meeting, and I appreciate the work of the committee in bringing the Revenue Commissioners before us. I welcome the witnesses. From the outset, I acknowledge the importance of the work of the Revenue Commissioners and thank the witnesses for coming before us. They do not always have a popular job but someone has to do it.

I do not pretend to be an expert on taxation and this is quite a complex area. I am working off the advice I am given from the Revenue Commissioners and from other advisers. I can see the red book on taxation on the table before us. It is like some sort of extended version of War and Peace, so it is a bit intimidating even to look at it. I am only going on what I can decipher in terms of the information available to me. However, I would concur with previous speakers on many of the points made.

In particular, my colleague, Senator Kieran O'Donnell, eloquently made the case for some leeway here, for scope to be given to those concerned on the time demands that have been put on them. I will put it straight to the officials. I cannot recall anything in my constituency in Kerry that has caused so much upset. I have literally had grown men and couples crying in my office and sobbing over the phone about this, very distressed and very worried. Particularly in the lead up to and throughout Christmas, constituents will be worried about this, wondering what will happen. People already under enormous pressure are feeling a huge mental strain as a result of these letters having been issued.

Therefore, I reiterate the calls that have been made by numerous previous speakers to look at whether something can be done and whether a letter can issue to the original recipients at least to assure them that there is time being given, that this matter is being considered, and that test case would be allowed to take place. That would give people some solace and at least ease some of the acute pressure that is on them, both financially and mentally. I cannot say that it would remove it but it would be a help. I call on the officials to do that as a matter of priority. It is something that would be important to do because I cannot emphasise enough how distressed constituents are as a result of this, in all parts of Kerry and in surrounding areas. That is something that I would first ask the officials to do as a priority.

Will the officials clarify further for me whether they envisage that there is potential liability they can pursue in respect of 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010? Listening to some of the discourse today, that is something that I am quite worried about.

Deputy Brassil about 2011 shares being issued in respect of the 2010 milk production. The officials might clarify whether that is outside of the four-year remit. Perhaps I missed the answer, but they might repeat it.

In dealing with other Departments, for example, the Department of Social Protection, there is a general principle regarding a member of the public who has been advised one way or another such that the person does not avail or is not aware of an entitlement or is not able to apply for something. Does a similar principle apply with Revenue? If a person has advice or has something from Revenue that says one thing but later Revenue comes looking for a rebate or whatever else based on something different, does a person have the right to produce whatever evidence he or she has to say that he or she was informed or advised in a particular way on a particular date, and does that work in favour of the citizen? The officials might advise me on the position there.

From speaking to advisers, my reading of this is along the lines of what Deputy Michael Moynihan was saying. It seems there is virtual value and it is a virtual income that is being assessed here and it is not real until a benefit is derived from it. It seems to go against all the principles of taxation that I am aware of. It is quite a fundamental question. In my view, if this principle holds, it is a fundamental change in our overall tax policy. It means that there are many other things that all of a sudden are taxable or perhaps subject to back tax, which will be incredibly worrying for a significant number of people.

What is the overall amount due to Revenue in the Kerry Co-op issue in respect of the years we are talking about and what is the overall amount in other cases that the officials are not looking at currently? Will they give us a rough idea of the figures involved?

What if taxpayers have a liability outstanding and it is found that they need to pay back money? What are the implications, for example, for someone who might have applied for a college grant in respect of 2012 for his or her child to go to college, was over the threshold but, had this liability been paid at the time, would have been under it? What are the implications for such issues, for medical cards and for other potential benefits that the citizen may have accrued? What does it mean also for areas of tax offsets and for different other areas of taxation that they were not able to benefit from because of this matter not having been included? If the officials could answer some of those questions, I would be grateful.