Results 1,681-1,700 of 5,388 for speaker:John Deasy
- Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (11 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: It will not be retrospective.
- Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (11 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: One wonders how many cases like this one are outstanding. The number and the amounts of money involved might be reasonably small. Retrospective legislation is not something that the Oireachtas embraces.
- Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (11 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: However, there is a question of fairness. We could make a case.
- Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (11 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: Yes.
- Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (11 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: So it has passed.
- Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (11 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: Fair enough.
- Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (11 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: Reverting to the issue of UCC and Midland Construction, it was live while the legislation was being drafted and passing through the Oireachtas. As the issue has not been resolved, is it the case that the legislation does not apply retrospectively?
- Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (11 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: Could we check?
- Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (11 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: The issue was live while the Act was a Bill. We also asked the IDA to attend the committee.
- Public Accounts Committee: Business of Committee (11 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: To whom did we send the transcript?
- Order of Business (10 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: The most recent Teagasc report indicates that there could be a 50% drop in dairy farming incomes next year. Many young farmers in particular are investing massive sums of money in farm infrastructure. It would be devastating for them and for rural communities around then country if that report were to prove even remotely correct. Will the Government, through the Whips, set aside time at...
- Public Accounts Committee: Investigations by Revenue into Authorised Officers Report (4 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: Let us stick with the 20 Ansbacher account holders who availed of the tax amnesty in 1993. While Revenue was investigating this in 2003, 2004 and 2005, the Chairman had been there for ten years. For example, Revenue was not able to trace the source of moneys, which I understand to have been a major bugbear within the Chairman's organisation.
- Public Accounts Committee: Investigations by Revenue into Authorised Officers Report (4 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: At that time, when Revenue had made its considerations regarding its difficulties with the legislation that had been drafted and had been availed of by 20 particular Ansbacher account holders, did Revenue make its displeasure known to the Department of Finance?
- Public Accounts Committee: Investigations by Revenue into Authorised Officers Report (4 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: How did Revenue do that?
- Public Accounts Committee: Investigations by Revenue into Authorised Officers Report (4 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: What was the response?
- Public Accounts Committee: Investigations by Revenue into Authorised Officers Report (4 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: Was the reason given for that? Revenue obviously spelled out serious concerns with regard to particular individuals because it was precluded from pursuing them.
- Public Accounts Committee: Investigations by Revenue into Authorised Officers Report (4 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: Which one?
- Public Accounts Committee: Investigations by Revenue into Authorised Officers Report (4 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: Did the Chairman state there was no reply?
- Public Accounts Committee: Investigations by Revenue into Authorised Officers Report (4 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: Can the Chairman remember what the Department of Finance said to Revenue?
- Public Accounts Committee: Investigations by Revenue into Authorised Officers Report (4 Dec 2014)
John Deasy: It is an important question. The Revenue Commissioners are and at the time were the administrators of the tax code. They had one hand tied behind their backs with regard to particular individuals. Revenue made its opinion clear that it was not appropriate and that the legislation underpinning all of this needed to be changed but that was ignored.