Brian O'Shea (Waterford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 73: To ask the Minister for Finance the number of breaches detected of the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act 1993 in respect of each year since 1994; the number of prosecutions initiated and convictions secured arising from such detections; if he has satisfied himself that the law is being applied in the manner intended; if his attention has been drawn to comments made by the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners at the meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts on 2 December 2004 in which he referred to the difficulties faced in initiating prosecution for breaches of the Act; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13353/05]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that there are two ways in which a taxpayer may have been in breach of the amnesty: first, in making a false declaration or, second, in not making a declaration. I am informed that the Revenue Commissioners do not have figures for the number of detected breaches of the amnesty. Due to the confidentiality conditions built into the 1993 amnesty legislation, such breaches are difficult to identify and prove.

Individuals and companies have been successfully prosecuted in recent years as a result of Revenue Commissioners investigations and, although these investigations have in some instances involved consideration of possible amnesty breaches, it has not generally been possible to obtain the evidence necessary to meet the required standards of "beyond reasonable doubt" from an amnesty perspective. However, following a Revenue Commissioners investigation, one individual has been successfully prosecuted for failure to comply with the obligatory provisions of the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act 1993 and is currently awaiting sentence. There was also a conviction in the Circuit Criminal Court earlier this year for tax offences related to the amnesty and a six month jail sentence was handed down. This followed an investigation by the Criminal Assets Bureau.

The Revenue Commissioners' criminal investigation programmes have been refocused recently with the establishment of an investigations and prosecutions division, one of whose functions is to increase the number of prosecutions for serious tax evasion. Many of the cases currently under investigation relate to tax offences committed in recent years and do not, therefore, involve consideration of amnesty issues. However, a number of cases have been identified which could involve offences under the amnesty and they will be investigated with a view to taking a criminal prosecution.

I am aware of the comments made by the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners at the Committee of Public Accounts in December 2004, when he was responding to questions on the 2003 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, on the issue of the tax amnesty. He referred to the serious difficulties the Revenue Commissioners had in obtaining admissible evidence, due to the confidentiality safeguards enshrined in the amnesty legislation. He went on to say that there were two cases coming before the courts in the near future and that much would depend on the outcome of these, as to whether the other cases being investigated would go for prosecution. I can confirm that one of these is the successful Revenue Commissioners conviction mentioned earlier.

In view of this, I am satisfied that the Revenue Commissioners are making every effort to ensure the law is applied in the manner intended by the legislation as passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas.