Martin Mansergh (Tipperary South, Fianna Fail)

This is only correcting very minor points. It is crossing t's and dotting i's so a particular date will not be taken from a pedantic legal point of view as not being covered by the legislation. There are no implications except those that apply at precedent.

This section is required because the Revenue Commissioners received counsel's opinion in a case involving a clawback of the capital gains tax credit allowed against capital acquisitions tax. In that case, counsel advised that, because the clawback provision referred to a period within two years after a gift or inheritance, the clawback did not apply where the disposal arose on the date of the gift. This is the way folks seem to interpret the law. I have always had a bit of an objection to that type of pedantic interpretation. However, that is the position and, therefore, provisions must be absolutely explicit or our learned brethren will find a way around them.

Related difficulties arise with the provisions for clawing back agricultural relief or business relief on gifts and the inheritance of development land. Section 64 amends the relevant sections to ensure that a disposal of the gifted inherited property, on the date of a gift in the case of CGT credit and agricultural relief or on the sixth anniversary of a gift or inheritance in the case of agricultural or business relief on development land, triggers a clawback of the relief in question. In other words, the measure is combating a pedantic interpretation of the clause. It is not contrary to the spirit of the measure. It is only aimed at those who might exploit a legal loophole. As we know, loopholes sometimes appear in law after the enactment of legislation without their having been in any sense the intent of the legislator. Anybody who operated the relief as intended would be unaffected by this measure. It has no particular implications for roll-over relief in the case of the NRA or in any other case.

See this speech in context