Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 233: To ask the Minister for Finance if he will explain the application of section 19 of the 1994 Finance Act; the rationale for the introduction of this section; if this section is still in force or has been subject to amendment; the number of applications made in each year since enactment under this section; the number of such applications approved each year since enactment; the cost to the Exchequer of this provision each year since enactment; the number of persons, businesses or organisations that have benefitted from this provision each year since enactment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [48373/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 19 of the Finance Act 1994 (now section 236 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997) allows a company to make a loan of an art object, being a work of art or a scientific collection, to an employee or a director, without that individual suffering an income tax charge on the loan as a benefit in kind or as a distribution.

The art object must be on display and available for viewing by members of the public in an approved building or garden, as defined in section 482 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, which is owned or occupied by the individual and to which reasonable public access if afforded.

The section was introduced in the Finance Act 1994 following representations made by the Irish Georgian Society who were concerned about the possibility of art objects leaving the country. The Society suggested a tax relief for collections on view to the public in houses approved under section 482 and the then Department of Arts, Culture Heritage and the Gaeltacht supported the proposal.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that only one taxpayer has ever made a claim under section 19 of the Finance Act 1994 and that the income tax exemption was granted to that taxpayer. The cost to the Exchequer of tax foregone cannot be determined as an individual who claims the exemption is not required to establish the cost incurred by his/her employer in relation to the loan of the art object.

The section remains in force.