Senator Sharon Keogan has said that a private warning issued by Revenue officials that the family referendum could force tax changes “should be a national scandal,” with the Independent politician decrying a lack of accountability in Irish politics.
Senator Keogan, speaking to Gript, was responding to the revelation that officials warned of “consequential legislative change” that could be required if definitions were left up to the courts to decide.
As reported by The Irish Times, revenue officials issued a caution about potential tax changes resulting from the defeated referendum on the family before government Ministers claimed the proposal had no tax implications. The information was obtained through newly-released files which have sparked new questions about the government campaign.
Ahead of the March referendums on family and care, which were both heavily defeated, campaigners for a No vote, including Lawyers for No, argued that a Yes vote would have long-term consequences for tax, property, and family law. The legal group, which included Senator Michael McDowell and Barrister and commentator, Maria Steen, said accepting the referendums would mean “major uncertainties” for people in short-term relationships, and long-term consequences in areas of family, property, and tax law.
However, the government, when asked whether it had considered the tax implications of the proposed amendment, said there would be no tax impact.
At the time, the government said that “the proposed amendment will not affect taxation, succession or family law.”
Yet, Revenue files, released under Freedom of Information request by the Department of Finance to The Irish Times, reveal that the tax authority pointed to a lack of clarity “on the extent and scope” of how the proposed change to the constitution would “interact” with tax law.
“In the absence of a proposed definition for ‘non-marital family’, it is not possible to consider the impact of any proposed approach on tax legislation,” a summary of Revenue observations reads, as reported by The Irish Times.
“If it is the case that the proposed Constitutional change would leave the definition of a Family to the courts, there may be some uncertainty for a time while this definition is settled,” it adds.
“This may require consequential legislative changes to tax law at the outset of any constitutional change or subsequent to same to reflect the broader policy intention.”
Revenue submitted the document to the Department of Finance last June, as part of referendum preparations, the newspaper reports.
Commenting today, Senator Sharon Keogan said it was “an inescapable fact” that the government had misled the public on the referendums.
“Today’s disclosure, in addition to the Interdepartmental Minutes and the leaks by Gript and The Ditch earlier this year, make it an inescapable fact that this government misled the Irish public on the Constitutional referendums.
“This should be a national scandal – if this were a different period of time in which we didn’t have so many journalists seeking Special Advisor roles. The legacy media would be asking government ministers, ‘when are you going to resign?’
“We have less accountability than ever in Ireland, and I would urge anyone appalled by this to register their discontent by voting independently in the upcoming elections. If you keep voting for more of the same, you will never see any change,” she said.
In addition, separate files obtained by the newspaper show how Finance officials then set out the possible need for “consequential legislative changes to tax law” to the Department of Equality. Revenue declined to comment on the files.
It follows the revelation, as reported by Gript last month, that senior officials in the Department of Justice, which ran the referendum, believed that amending Article 41 of the Constitution to include non-marital families, as proposed by the Government in a recent referendum, would undermine, or even outright destroy, the ability of the State to operate an effective immigration system.
As reported by Gary Kavanagh, one email seen by Gript shows senior officials in the Department being told that “The State has been able to maintain an immigration system so far precisely because Article 41 is applied to a small, tightly-defined group of people. The State will not be able to regulate immigration if this protection is applied any more widely.”