asked the Minister for Finance if he considers it equitable that a person (name supplied) in Dublin should be liable for financial penalties arising out of assets held by his wife, without his knowledge and from which he derives no benefit; and the action the Revenue Commissioners propose to take in the matter.

I understand from the Revenue Commissioners that the tax affairs of the person concerned are at present under investigation with a view to ascertaining whether there has been understatement of income for past years with consequential underpayment of tax. Until the investigation is completed it is not possible to say whether, and to what extent, there has been an undercharge to tax. The inspector's inquiries to date suggest to him that there has been understatement of income and he proposes to raise estimated assessments. The tax-payer is, of course, entitled to appeal to the appeal commissioner against the assessments and, if he is not satisfied with the appeal commissioner's decision, he may ask for a rehearing of his appeal by the Circuit Court judge.

May I ask if the principle underlying the case is supported by the Government? Is it the case that income accruing to a wife without the knowledge of the husband may, in fact, cause the husband to be liable for penalties? What obligation is there on the husband to know what his wife possesses? This particular constituent indicated to me that many men did not know the ages of their wives, not to mind what money they might have inherited or income they might have privately.

I doubt if the Deputy would suggest that where a husband claims not to know his wife has an income there should, therefore, be immunity from the payment of tax.

By him.

Or that he should be free from penalty for failure to return such income. The law provides that the wife's income will be regarded as part of the husband's unless—this is open to either the husband or the wife— other the husband or the wife notify the Revenue Commissioners they want to be treated separately. In the case to which the Deputy refers, this was done in one year but not in other years. In the one year in which it was done there was no problem. The Deputy will understand that, if we did not have a provision of this kind, there would be widespread opportunity for evasion. On the other hand, I am satisfied, and I hope the Deputy would be, that in any case in which it is clearly established that the husband was totally unaware his wife had an income the Revenue Commissioners would deal with that sympathetically, but they cannot allow this to be operated as a vehicle for widespread evasion.

I accept what the Minister says, but would he not agree it would be improper—indeed, morally wrong—that a man should be penalised by virtue of genuine ignorance and how is a person to prove this except by his honest statement of fact? Would the Minister also accept that the obvious attempt in the individual case in one year to have the tax separately assessed was an indication of the integrity of the individuals? Obviously they did not follow it up because they presumed that would be the case in subsequent years.

This is an argument.

I could not accept that. I am not prejudging this particular case and the position may be as the Deputy says——

I am calling the next question, Question No. 26.

——but I cannot be taken as saying "yes" or "no".

There is great room for injustice.

This is argument now.

Great room for evasion too.

That could be avoided by separate taxation of each party.

That is available if people want it.

I have called the next question.