Mr. Des O'Leary:

In dealing with our proposals we are conscious that in an era of greater transparency and increased reporting it will be necessary to have more resources for case management and reporting. We anticipate this. The six appealed cases were appealed mainly by the individual taxpayers, not by Revenue. The capital acquisitions tax is the only tax in respect of which Revenue has scope to appeal. Mr. Smyth may wish to comment further on this.

On the issue of maximum assessment, if one were to decide that certain cases could go to the Circuit Court and that other cases would have to go before the appeal court, there would be a reverse equality issue as one would be giving less favourable terms to a taxpayer in dispute with Revenue over a much greater amount of tax. This person is also possibly more likely to be someone using the system to his or her maximum advantage.

On Senator Aideen Hayden's suggestion of setting, at Appeal Commissioners level, an assessment level below which any issue could be dealt with in camera, we have left scope within the legislation for the commissioners to decide, on various unspecified grounds, if a case should be held in camera. There may be a case for having a specific limit. However, if an amount is specified, we will automatically have to deal with cases with figures slightly below or above it and how to revise the level over time. However, there is scope for looking at the issue further.

The possibility of there being a constitutional issue was mentioned in respect of the Circuit Court. There is no constitutional reason requiring a Circuit Court appeal, nor is there a constitutional ban on removing it. There is also the issue of assets disposed of and the amount in dispute.