Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an mBille atá os ár gcomhair inniu. Déileálann an Bille seo le dhá rud faoi leith, sé sin iad siúd ag cuardach achomharc ó thaobh cúrsaí cánach de, agus na rialacha agus regulations ó thaobh prospectus de. Pléifidh mé an dá rud sin i gcoinne a chéile.

Leasóidh mír 5 den Bhille seo mír 4 den Bille a thug muid isteach i 2015, sé sin an Acht um Achomharc Cánach. Sin an Bille a bhunaigh an Coimisiún um Achomharc Cánach ag an am, agus a scrios an oifig a bhí ann roimhe sin. Tá a fhios againn na fáthanna a bhain le cruthú an oifig nua sin ag an am: Bhí sé ann chun cinneadh a dhéanamh ó thaobh na disputes idir iad siúd a bhíonn ag íoc cáin agus iad siúd atá an ceart acu ón Stát seo an cáin a lorg, sé sin na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim. Déileálann an Coimisiún um Achomharc Cánach le cuid mhór ábhair faoi leith ó thaobh cúrsaí cánach de, VRT, capital gains tax, credits, allowances agus a leithead mar sin. Tá a fhios againn go bhfuil fadhbanna san oifig seo. Bhí gá budget níos mó a thabhairt dó i 2015, nuair a mhéadaigh an budget ó €1.6 milliún go €3.2 milliún, agus tá go leor sriain ar an oifig ag an bpointe seo.

I welcome the Bill before us. It deals with two issues, one being tax appeals and the other the prospectus regulation. I will deal with each of them in turn.

Section 5, as outlined in the Bill, amends section 4 of the Tax Appeals Act 2015. That Act established the Tax Appeals Commission which replaced the Office of the Appeals Commissioners. The Tax Appeals Commission was established as an independent body to settle tax-related disputes between Revenue and taxpayers. It covers a wide range of issues as diverse as the refusal of tax allowances or credits, the valuation of assets for the purposes of capital gains tax, the valuation of imported vehicles for the purposes of VRT and much more. When it was first established, it had two commissioners, each of whom was appointed directly by the Minister for Finance. It was then necessary to increase the commission's budget from €1.6 million to €3.2 million, partly owing to the increased number of appeals being made to the commission. It is worth noting that in 2018 the commission closed 1,400 tax appeal cases, with the combined amounts of tax involved exceeding €560 million. The commission does not deal in small change and is dealing with a huge amount of work. It is also worth noting that the work involved and the appeals process can often be very slow, legalistic and increasingly bureaucratic.

The legislation proposes to amend section 4 of the Tax Appeals Act to allow the Minister to appoint a chairperson to the commission on foot of a recommendation from the review of the workload and operation of the Tax Appeals Commission. It will create a mechanism to establish, monitor and enforce standards in the performance of functions of individual commissioners.

Section 5 provides for the general functions of the chairperson who will generally control the overall administration and business of the commission. Importantly, it provides that the chairperson will have specific responsibility to ensure the integrity of the commission's accounting and financial reporting system. Additionally, the chairperson must ensure compliance with freedom of information and data protection laws, which is very important.

Section 12 amends the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 and provides that an appellant to the High Court must state his or her disagreement with the determination of the Tax Appeals Commission prior to the hearing. Section 13 amends the same Act, but requires the appellant to present all relevant exhibits to a case stated to the High Court rather than to the Tax Appeals Commission. While I understand the rationale for these two amendments, it is important that the provisions do not excessively impede the ability of the taxpayer to appeal a determination by the Tax Appeals Commission. It is crucial that there be no impediment to an appeal made to the High Court in good faith and with justification. It needs to be finely balanced. We will examine that issue on Committee Stage.

Without making a premature judgment, there are issues and these provisions are worthy of due scrutiny when the Bill reaches Committee Stage. The ultimate purpose of the provisions is to streamline and hasten the tax appeals process, offering a speedy resolution at minimum cost and optimum outcome for the parties involved. It is a worthy and noble cause, but while it does not concern the immediate provisions of the Bill, it is worth remembering that the Government, with the support of Fianna Fáil, has lodged its own tax appeal with the European Court of Justice. However, in this case, it is trying to ensure it will not receive €14 billion in tax due to the taxpayer.

Moreover, so far the appeal is costing the taxpayer more than €7 million. This appeal does not offer a speedy resolution, does not offer minimum cost and certainly does not provide an optimal outcome for the people. It lies in stark contrast to the aspirations of the legislation the Minister of State has brought before the House. It is not much to assume that the Government's Apple tax appeal is one that the future chairperson of the TAC would find difficult to understand.

On a different issue, sections 15 to 25 deal with the second issue on the legislation, which is the prospectus regulations. These are quite separate from the issue of tax appeals in their entirety. To this end, the Bill will amend Part 23 of the Companies Act 2014, in part to transpose EU regulations, which had a deadline of 21 July this year. A prospectus is a document that issuers have to publish when making a public offer of securities or seeking securities admission to trading on the European market. For this reason, the provisions in the Bill are technical in nature and are mostly concerned with protecting investors in these markets.

Section 15 increases the current offer of securities that can be made without a prospectus from the current sum of €5 million to €8 million. Securities below €8 million, therefore, will no longer be subject to this prospectus framework. While I understand that this provision in the section and the other sections that also deal with it was made to make it easier for small businesses to raise money instead of relying exclusively on the banking sector, it is important that a balance is reached between capital market access for smaller companies and the necessary safeguards and oversight. That needs to be teased out in detail on Committee Stage. A similar prospectus threshold in Germany, Austria and Sweden is set at €5 million, which is the current level in Ireland, and they have not seen fit or identified the need at this point to increase it to the €8 million figure that is suggested here.

In conclusion, tuigim go bhfuil an Bille seo iontach teicniúil, agus caithfear é a scrúdú go mion nuair a théann sé go dtí an choiste. Déanfaimid ár ndícheall i Sinn Féin mar go mbíonn níos mó sonraí soiléar nuair a thagann sé os comhair an choiste. Beidh deis againn ansin, in éineacht leis an Aire agus oifigí na Rinne, mionscrúdú a dhéanamh ar na rannóga agus na hábhair difriúil atá á phlé anseo. Beidh muid in ann na hábhair teicniúil a tharraingt amach agus a mhíniú níos mine, sa dóigh is go mbeidh sé intuigthe ag gach duine, ní amháin cén fáth go bhfuil muid á dhéanamh seo agus go bhfuil an Rialtas á iarradh, ach go dtigfidh daoine go bhfuil cosaintí ansin, agus go bhfuil siad mar is ceart. Caithfimid cinntiú nach bhfuilimid ag déanamh athruithe don reachtaíocht ar thaobh amháin ach ag tarraingt siar cuid de na cosaintí sin ar thaobh eile. Go raibh maith agat.

See this speech in context