Ms Josephine Feehily:

Off the top of my head, I am not sure if we have the petitions figure. My colleagues will look for it while I am speaking to the Deputy. If I do not have the figure to hand, I will write to the Deputy.

In 2011, there were 4,463 attachment orders. In 2012, there were 4,039, representing a reduction of nearly 10%. Under a previous Finance Act, we were given a new power to attach salary, and we have used that in only five instances. It is a power we use very sparingly. We never use it without having exhausted multiple reminders, all sorts of other avenues, instalment arrangements and time-to-pay arrangements. In the end, we are very conscious of the impact it can have.

The Deputy made a point on our job. In addition to that, I need to make two other points. If we do not act against the non-complier or non-payer, we are creating a very uneven pitch for the payer, the business next door. The second point is that, in many instances, the taxes that are not being paid have been deducted from employees' wages. The impact is not just on tax as there is also an impact on the Social Insurance Fund because PRSI is not being collected. It is not just the deducted PRSI but the employer's PRSI.

I will not talk about cases. The Deputy has referred to a particular case and jobs. If there are many jobs, one can take it that there is considerable revenue from PAYE tax. Where there are many PAYE employees, there is a lot of PRSI at risk. This is a consideration. Certainly, we are very conscious of the level playing field.

In addition to the active instalment arrangements, at the end of 2012 we had 16,052 cases under time-to-pay arrangements. I am pretty certain that there was approximately €102 million in tax represented in those cases. This is evidence that it is not just talk when we say we engage with business. The cases would be moving through; it would be a different 16,000 cases if I gave the committee a figure this time next year.

Last year, when I was talking about this subject, the figure that stuck in my mind was €85 million in tax under time-to-pay arrangements. It might be the figure for 2011 that is in my head but, certainly, I know that the figure in tax under time-to-pay arrangements is now over €100 million.

We consider the cases made by businesses that come in to us. Businesses have to be viable. If they are not, it is an unfortunate feature of the current environment. If a business is not viable and cannot meet its current obligations in a reasonable fashion, and if its current level of economic activity is not sufficient to meet its current tax liabilities, this poses a question. Time-to-pay arrangements can arise for historic debts and even current debts if there is a decent business plan such that the business can show how it is working its way out of its problems. There has to be a viability test in relation to current taxes. If the level of current business or economic activity or sales is not sufficient to support one's current liabilities, there is a question that we must take into account.

We do not seem to have found the number of petitions. I will get that for the Deputy.

Quite often, there are petitions and receiverships caused by Revenue's actions, but we do not petition ourselves. Our action may cause a creditor's voluntary liquidation. That will often happen. We will get the Deputy some data and send it to the committee.