Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I agree with Deputy Danny Healy-Rae that small companies are the backbone of the economy. We need to be very careful the actions we take do not hinder them in trying to survive.

We have seen some of them survive for many years on very little and they have kept many people employed, sometimes to the detriment of the company owner, etc. We need to bear that in mind.

I have not followed this Bill's passage through the Houses so far but it is odd that the Minister is suggesting we go to the pre-2015 mechanism of the High Court. Anybody who has been to the courts or looks in the newspapers can see that the High Court is clogged and one cannot get hearings but the Government wants to transfer this process from the less onerous District Court, where it could be done quite quickly. If the process is transferred to the High Court, there would be a huge cost both for the State, I presume, and also for small companies that cannot afford the expense. We need to be careful with any step we take that there are no unforeseen circumstances.

When the Minister introduced the amendment, she spoke about persistent offenders and companies that continuously file late. There is usually a reason for this but if companies are persistent offenders, there is a way to address the issue. I presume that the State can go to court and argue that it is the first, second, third or tenth time that a company has applied for an extension. An extension would not have to be granted because in a court, a judge can take a decision based on the evidence. If the Revenue Commissioners are not happy with the same companies persistently seeking extensions, they should note that in court.

It is correct that deadlines are onerous and that our tax system is secure. Another recent change in society is the trend towards making everything into a company. Community development projects are now companies, as are sports clubs and charities, although they have charitable status. I do not have a problem with all of those having to comply with the law but it can be very onerous on a community development programme, for example. I am involved with a number of these and I am the treasurer at one of them. It comes up every year and we must comply with the law like everybody else, despite it being so onerous. It is the same with charities, which do not operate at a profit and which cannot necessarily always afford the large fees charged by auditors and accountants. They often try to make do with their own books and when the time comes to file, they may not be in the correct order. The onus is on a small company, charity or community development project to organise its affairs in a proper manner. I am not saying they should not do so. There is the threat of High Court proceedings, with such an extra cost that could end up damaging companies trading with nominal costs, such as charities. It could end up with those companies closing.

Will the Minister bear in mind that she should not move towards a High Court process? The District Court is sufficient, particularly for the smaller companies. With persistent defenders, the State just needs to defend itself and argue that these companies cannot continuously get extensions. Perhaps the Minister should consider giving companies only three extensions in a ten-year period or something of that nature. It could be the mechanism to force companies to get their act together, which must happen. Companies must ensure that files are returned, although there will be occasions when some may not have the wherewithal to do that. Sometimes there are odd incidents where people have not been able to file an account because of sickness, etc. Such things happen and that is why the mechanism is there in the first instance. It is not meant to be as onerous as having the large cost of a trip to the High Court for a small company.

See this speech in context