Colley, George

Wednesday, 22 November 1978

Dáil Eireann Debate
Vol. 309 No. 9

First Page Previous Page Page of 46 Next Page Last Page

Order of Business.

It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 2, 5, 9, 10 (resumed), 11, 12 (resumed) and 13 (resumed). Private Members' Business, No. 22 (resumed), will be taken between 7.00 p.m. ...More Button

The sale of?More Button

No doubt the Deputy will inform me if I require information. The Deputy is aware that the Government have been dealing with this matter and that a Bill——More Button

Deputy Kelly cannot afford to open his mouth on this topic. The Deputy may take it that a Bill will be coming before the House in the not too distant future.More Button

I cannot tell the Deputy the precise date on which it will be introduced but it will be quite soon.More Button

If the Deputy finds that we do not do that, then it is time to talk.More Button

As the Deputy indicated, he appreciates that I have no notice of this matter and therefore cannot respond immediately. I will have inquiries made into the matter. Until it is proved otherwise, I wi...More Button

I appreciate the Deputy's point.More Button

Value-Added Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1977: Report of Special Committee.

I suggest that Report Stage be taken tomorrow week, Thursday. 30 November 1978.More Button

Capital Gains Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1978: Financial Resolution.

I move: That provision be made, in the Act giving effect to this Resolution, for imposing charges to capital gains tax, income tax and corporation tax. Question put and agreed to.More Button

Capital Gains Tax (Amendment) Bill, 1978: Committee Stage.

There is a misprint in section 1 (4) on page 2, line 20. The word “references” should read “reference”. Line 20 should read “reference to some other enactment is intended”. I wish to draw the atten...More Button

Yes. I am trying to check the position in response to what Deputy Barry said. There may be a few additional amendments, but it would be my intention to explain the reasoning behind them when we come...More Button

“Excluded” might be a better word than “exempted”.More Button

The definition of “development land” is taken from paragraph 17 (1) (b) of Schedule 1 to the Capital Gains Act, 1975 which excluded such land held on 6 April 1974 from the benefit of time apportionmen...More Button

What the Deputy says would be correct except for this fact. If the price paid is the normal market value, then that does not arise and the tapering rates are available. I cannot visualise a situatio...More Button

As I indicated we are not aware of any case in which this complaint has been made. If one takes a valuation of property in relation to its current value, there could be some room for argument above o...More Button

I do not think there is any great problem regarding the sale of property in respect of which there is planning permission for development, although if it were sold in such a case at the ordinary marke...More Button

If the Revenue Commissioners decide that it is the sale of development land, then the tapering rate is not allowed but there is indexation for inflation. I find it difficult to visualise a situation ...More Button

The case described is unlikely to arise but the Revenue Commissioners are extremely unlikely to treat it as the sale of development land.More Button

I have received representations on this matter from Deputy Connolly and from some other people as well. I want to give notice to the House that it is my intention on Report Stage, probably by way of ...More Button

In regard to the son or the daughter, under this Bill if, as Deputy Connolly visualised, the property passed on the death of the father to the son or the daughter no liability for capital gains tax a...More Button

In the case outlined by Deputy Callanan the base value is deemed to be that of 1974 and the difference between that and the price at which the land is disposed of subsequently is deemed to be the gain...More Button

The relevant section indicates that the multiplier to be applied in the type of case outlined by Deputy Callanan is 1.8, that is, between 1974 and 1978. That means that the base cost—the value at 197...More Button

That is correct but the provision should apply to a husband. It refers to the surviving spouse.More Button

It would not.More Button

It is not quite clear to me what Deputy Connolly is seeking. Either he is seeking that the son or daughter should get the benefit of the period of ownership of the deceased father, or he is seeking a...More Button

Yes.More Button

I think they will be acquiring the liabilities too. There is this special tax status for a married couple. The existing position is that in the case of a gift the receiving spouse can obtain the bene...More Button

They will get the indexation for that period, of course.More Button

If there is negligence on the part of their solicitor that causes the hold-up I am sure they could consider a claim in negligence against the solicitor for any liability incurred.More Button

I am not quite sure I understand the Deputy's reference. I know what his question was, but he made a reference to some criterion other than the consumer price index.More Button

If I might deal first with the point made by Deputy Callanan, I would say that in the case he described—and I agree with the kind of sentiments he expressed—normally the son who had been on the farm a...More Button

The short term rate, now the standard rate, is 30 per cent. After three years that would be reduced to 25.5 per cent. Therefore, in the case of a delay in administration, which is what Deputy Connol...More Button

I will consider it but I cannot hold out much hope. Question put and agreed to. SECTION 5.More Button

I move amendment No. 1: In page 5, subsection (2), line 44, after “those assets” to insert “and to the original assets”. Although this is purely a technical amendment, I am afraid the explanation is r...More Button

I move amendment No. 2:More Button

I move amendment No. 3: In page 7, line 39, after “granted” to insert “, whether before or after the commencement of the Capital Gains Tax (Amendment) Act, 1978”. The purpose of the amendment is to en...More Button

When it is a disposal on or after 6 April 1978 on the assets transferred by the parent, this will apply even though the original transfer might have been made before or after 6 April 1978.More Button

Yes, that is so.More Button

Yes, I think so.More Button

Yes.More Button

If he is under 55 this would not apply to him. It is a special provision for retirement. Deputy Barry is correct in saying that the gain on the additional portion of land which had not been held for...More Button

I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing. If the Deputy is talking of the additional portion added on—the only part which would be liable—being worth £150.000 then the remainder of the fa...More Button

I appreciate the problem but there are difficulties in all these matters. One that immediately strikes you is that if we were to make some kind of special provision for this it could be wide open to a...More Button

This is one of the problems. I shall give further consideration to it before Report Stage but my immediate reaction is to see tremendous possibilities in it for abuse. But I shall look at the situat...More Button

I move amendment No. 4: In page 8, lines 5 and 6, to delete “sections 3 and 4 of the Capital Gains Tax (Amendment) Act, 1978” and to substitute “section 3 of the Capital Gains Tax (Amendment) Act, 197...More Button

No, in respect of the old assets the amendment would freeze both the amount of the gain on disposal of the assets and the period of ownership of the assets. That is so that they could not be given th...More Button

In that situation with the old assets disposed of but the money invested in new assets—let us keep it simple and keep it to that situation and not mind any additional changes—the money which had been ...More Button

Each of the assets would be treated separately for the purpose of determining whether it was entitled to tax rates and if the ownership of each asset were less than 21 years then there would be a liab...More Button

That is right. Amendment agreed to. Section, as amended, agreed to. SECTION 10.More Button

I move amendment No. 5: In page 8, line 30, after “person” to insert “in such circumstances that if a gain accrued on the later disposal it would be a chargeable gain”.More Button

I move amendment No. 6: In page 8, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following paragraph: “(b) Where relief was given under this subsection in respect of a disposal to a person of an asset, bein...More Button

I have indicated that I would consider that. Question put and agreed to. Sections 12 to 14, inclusive, agreed to. SECTION 15. Question proposed: “That section 15 stand part of the Bill.”More Button

It is bringing it into line with income tax and corporation tax. Question put and agreed to. Sections 16 to 18, inclusive, agreed to. SCHEDULE 1.More Button

I move amendment No. 7:More Button

I move amendment No. 8: In page 11, line 59, paragraph 2 (4), to delete “those subsections” and to substitute “that section”. Amendment agreed to.More Button

I move amendment No. 9: In page 14, lines 24 and 25, paragraph 6 (3) (a) (i), to delete “, and immediately re-acquired,”. This is a technical amendment. The words being deleted are not required. The ...More Button

I move amendment No. 10: In page 14, line 27, paragraph 6 (3) (a) (i), after “securities” to insert “and that thereupon, in case those assets were used for the purposes of the company's trade, they ce...More Button

I move amendment No. 11:More Button

I move amendment No. 12: In page 15, after line 62, to insert the following subparagraph: “(7) (a) The reference in subparagraph (1) (a) (ii) and in subparagraph (3) (a) (i) to a company shall includ...More Button

They could be assets. If the close company had acquired quoted shares, as the Deputy postulates, after 6 April 1978 they would be part of the relevant assets as defined in this. I do not think the f...More Button

I move amendment No. 13: In page 16, after line 36, to insert the following paragraph: “Rate of capital gains tax applicable to chargeable gains accruing on the disposal of qualifying units 9. Sectio...More Button

I move amendment No. 14: In page 16, after line, 36, to insert the following paragraph: “Part disposal before the 6th day of April, 1978. 10. (1) Where, on or after the 6th day of April, 1974, but be...More Button

The taxpayer in the kind of case visualised by Deputy Barry does not have to claim this relief. The Revenue Commissioners have to determine whether he is entitled to it or not. That is one of the rea...More Button

No, the Revenue Commissioners have the obligation to apply it if it is applicable to the case. That means that there is very considerable administrative cost and difficulty involved when, as I believ...More Button

That would not be any good to her in the case the Deputy has in mind.More Button

The Deputy may be right but I would remind him that they do not have either tapering or indexation in Britain.More Button

In a way Deputy Connolly may be getting close to what I was about to say. First of all, there is an exemption on the first £500 gain so that small cases of the kind visualised by Deputy Barry would b...More Button

It is important, if one is talking outside the range of acquisition within one year, to remember that the alterations being made in this Bill would have the effect of substantially increasing the valu...More Button

The £500 exemption, as I pointed out, is effectively being increased where indexation applies.More Button

But I have indexed the gain.More Button

Let us suppose that there is a gain of £1,000 on some transaction. If one did not index it it would be £500 over the exemption limit. By indexing it it is possible, depending on the period concerned...More Button

Surely the Deputy would not contend that I should index both the exemption limit and the gain.More Button

That would be giving relief on the double. The mere fact that one indexes the gain is taking account of inflation and restoring the position to what it was in 1974 or whenever this was introduced. I...More Button

I would accept that if there were not indexation of the gains but I certainly could not accept the proposition that one should index both the gain and the exemption.More Button

Written Answers. - Barristers' Fees.

The answer is in the form of a tabular statement which, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to circulate with the Official Report. Following is the statement: Fees paid to each Senio...More Button


Last Updated: 14/09/2010 14:34:09 First Page Previous Page Page of 46 Next Page Last Page