Eamon Scanlon (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State.

I understand from the Revenue Commissioners that in many cases examined to date it has not been possible to obtain the evidence necessary to meet the required standard of beyond reasonable doubt in amnesty non-compliance offences. It is generally the case also that where a taxpayer agrees to co-operate in an investigation and Revenue cannot otherwise access relevant evidence, the taxpayer's rights against self-incrimination will restrict the potential for a prosecution.

Apart from the amnesty aspect, however, Revenue has been successful recently in collecting outstanding tax and interest and imposing civil penalties on many tax evaders in its ongoing investigations. Individual tax evaders have made considerable retribution for their offences as a direct consequence of the large monetary settlements resulting from investigations.

Revenue's criminal investigation programmes have been refocused recently with the establishment of an investigation and prosecutions division. If, in the course of investigations, amnesty offences are identified and the necessary evidence is available, they will be investigated with a view to taking criminal prosecutions for such offences.

On the matter of the prosecution of officials from financial institutions who may have assisted in placing funds in bogus non-residential accounts, the primary responsibility for ensuring that a tax return is correct rests with the individual making that return. There is a statutory offence in the tax code of knowingly aiding or abetting another person to make an incorrect tax return. In the case of third parties generally, however, the standard of evidence required to incriminate them for alleged wrong-doing by a taxpayer who has failed to declare correct income or gains is very difficult to meet.

I understand from the Revenue Commissioners that while in their experience aiding and abetting offences are notoriously difficult to prosecute, it will be their general policy to pursue such cases if such evidence becomes available.

As Senator Fitzgerald mentioned, it should also be noted that no Minister for Finance in the history of the State has given the Revenue Commissioners more powers in Finance Acts to preclude tax evasion than the current Minister, Deputy McCreevy. The Finance Act 1999 in particular gave the Revenue Commissioners a host of powers that were not previously available to them, and the Minister has added to those powers in other respects.

Tax avoidance is the legal use of sections of the Finance Acts or other legislation for purposes for which they were not intended. No Minister has acted as quickly as the current Minister for Finance to close off the unintended uses of legislation. He acted in this manner in the recent Finance Bill and in announcements he has made since the publication of the Bill. The Revenue Commissioners are charged with operating the tax code and are currently engaged in the investigation.

Having been a self-employed business person for many years and having taken out loans in various banks, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s, I am aware that when one inquired about borrowing money there was no mention of the tax man. However, if a self-employed person tries to borrow money from a bank today, the first question they are asked is whether they are fully compliant in terms of their tax affairs. That is a welcome development. From personal experience of the people I deal with in business on a weekly basis, I do not know anybody who is not fully compliant with the tax code.