Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Regarding otherwise high-earning individuals, in addition to the €50,000 cap, those claiming the exemption that also avail of other specified reliefs, continue to be subject to the high earners' restriction, which limits the amount of tax relief that can be utilised in any one year to €80,000 before the restriction begins to apply. It is now a more limited scheme targeted at supporting artists on low incomes and individuals who, without the exemption, may have to earn their income elsewhere to continue in their artistic field. The point is that there is a high earners' restriction in respect of the amount of specified reliefs that can be claimed by an individual. People cannot combine different levels of exemptions and have each one treated separately. To that extent, there is a cap on the total amount that can be claimed because of the high earners' restriction.On that basis, it is not necessary to further limit the relief to those who had a particular income outside the scheme in any of the three previous years and, accordingly, I cannot agree to the suggestion that a report is required as proposed in the recommendation before the House.

I will provide one or two further pieces of information and elaborate on why I believe this is a fair and reasonable approach to take. There was a written question which Senator Mullen mentioned the last day. He asked if the Arts Council complained to Revenue about exemptions for ghost written biographies and political memoirs. One might say it is a small point. There was no issue between the Arts Council and the Revenue Commissioners at any stage. Revenue operated the scheme in accordance with the advice given to it by the Arts Council in respect of biographies rather than autobiographies. The wording of this guidance was, however, ambiguous and the Tax Appeals Commission, which is independent of Revenue, took a different view in its interpretation of the guidelines. This resulted in the determination at the appeal stage that the exemption should be granted, despite having previously been refused by Revenue. Revenue did not make this determination. It went with the scheme guidelines from the Arts Council but, on appeal, the commission granted the exemption, independently of the Revenue Commissioners, in that particular case.

My other point relates to the criteria for autobiographies or biographies. The conditions are that the work must be a biography or an autobiography that, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, incorporates the author’s unique insight into the subject matter and is regarded as a pioneering work and also makes a significant contribution to the subject matter by casting new light on the person or by changing the generally accepted understanding of the person. That is the rule.

The real reason I believe it is not necessary to accept this recommendation - and I was of this view previously but have had it confirmed - relates to the number of claimants who had an income of more than €100,000. This could apply to any year but I will give the Senator the details for the year for which I have figures. With regard to the specific information requested in the recommendation, while it is not possible to identify the public officeholders and public servants specified in the first part of the recommendation or to pick out those groups, I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that, in 2018, there were 266 taxpayers who claimed the exemption and who received income in excess of €100,000 which was chargeable for tax in the 2017 tax year. The figures are from 2018, based on the 2017 tax year. Some 266 people in that category had received income in excess of €100,000 but that cannot be broken down into groups such as retired public servants and retired politicians. That is the overall figure. The associated tax costs of the artists' exemption for these 266 cases in 2018 was approximately €1.7 million, which represents an average of €6,390 per person.

I have been in the Houses a while and, in my view, the information the Deputy seeks is available through the normal parliamentary process. A recommendation on the Finance Bill 2020 is not required. As I have said, I am here a while and I know that this can be examined through parliamentary questions or through questioning the Revenue Commissioners when its representatives appear before a committee of the House, including the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach. Even the Arts Council would be able to obtain this information. All I am saying is that obtaining the information I have just provided did not require a report. It is available from Revenue.

If people look at the income tax returns people make, there is a special line under which the artists' exemption is claimed. I do not know the line number off the top of my head, but there is a specific line. The Revenue can immediately provide figures as to how many people claimed an exemption under that heading. In 2018, there were at least 266, but probably a whole lot more as this only includes those with an income of more than €100,000. This figure popped right out of the computer. A report is not needed. The Senator does not need to wait six months, he could follow up on this next week if he chose to do so. It is not necessary. That information can be obtained from Revenue.

With regard to any issue arising in a detailed assessment of its annual report, Revenue has excellent computers which will allow this issue to be followed up. How else could it handle all of the employment wage subsidy scheme or the temporary wage subsidy scheme? It has really up-to-date computers and can produce that information to Members of the national Parliament, whether Deputies or Senators, if they choose to pursue the matter. There are also several avenues within the Houses through which this can be followed up on by individual Members without the need to provide for a report under the Finance Bill.

Perhaps an official could someday interpret the provision as allowing him or her to refuse to provide such information to Members of the Dáil because he or she is required to provide it in the six-monthly report under the Finance Act and that Members must wait until that report is ready. In a strange way, this recommendation could slow the flow of information currently available to Senators and Deputies. For that reason, it is better not to proceed with this.