I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 22, 24 and 35 together.
The Revenue Commissioners' essential function in collecting taxes is necessarily dependent on events having occurred which given rise to a liability to tax. However, in certain circumstances in order to facilitate taxpayers, the commissioners are prepared to give an opinion, in advance, on the possible tax consequences of a proposed course of action. In replying to such representations the conditional nature of the opinion is made clear. This is because the final determination of the tax liability rests upon the facts as they are revealed to the Inspector of Taxes, or on the hearing of an appeal, and neither the fact finding process nor the eventual application of the law to those facts is predetermined by an advance opinion by the Revenue Commissioners. It would seriously compromise the inspector's statutory function to hold him bound by a ruling given in advance of the completion of the events which determine what the actual ruling should be. The courts have confirmed in the case referred to by Deputies that "an Inspector is not bound by a prior opinion expressed to the taxpayer by the Revenue Commissioners". Consequently, there is no uncertainty in respect of the status of prior opinions given by the Revenue Commissioners and I do not propose to take any action in the matter.