Written Answers Nos. 76-84
77. Deputy Patrick Nulty asked the Minister for Finance if he will meet directly with the Irish Bank Officials Association representing Irish Bank Resolution Corporation workers with regard to the plight of these workers. [11832/13]
View answerThe abruptness of the decisions taken on the 6th and 7th February and how it was communicated was regrettable but was unavoidable given the scale, sensitivity and complexity of the economic issues involved. I acknowledge the significant efforts and commitment made by the staff in IBRC over the past few difficult years whilst the bank was in wind down and the difficulties that arise for staff as a result of the liquidation but that it was necessary to take the decision to liquidate IBRC in the larger public interest. I can advise the Deputy that officials within my Department met with the IBOA last month and issues surrounding the status of the employees of the IBRC (in liquidation) were discussed. The special liquidator has advised that there is ongoing interaction between the IBOA and the Special Liquidators. The Special Liquidators are highly cognisant of the issues that the IBOA have been highlighting and that significant steps have already been taken to address those concerns including the confirmation that no further staff would be terminated in the first 3 months of the liquidation.
78. Deputy Patrick Nulty asked the Minister for Finance the number of former Irish Bank Resolution Corporation employees that will be transferred to National Assets Management Agency and when official contact will be made with these workers. [11833/13]
View answerFollowing the liquidation of IBRC, all employment contracts in the Republic of Ireland were terminated and the Special Liquidators have confirmed that unlike in other liquidations, the vast majority of employees have now been re-hired by the special liquidators, for a minimum period of 3 months, to ensure an orderly wind-down of the business. At this early stage of the liquidation process, it is not possible to estimate how many former IBRC staff may transfer to NAMA. I was previously advised by NAMA that it will not have visibility on the portfolio to be acquired until later this year (following the completion of a loans valuation and sales process by the Special Liquidators) and therefore it is premature at this stage to comment on the matters raised by the Deputy.
79. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if he has or intends to carry out an audit on local authorities to determine an estimate of losses of works insured under Irish Bank Resolution Corporation bonds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11848/13]
View answerI am advised that development bonds that were previously entered into by IBRC in favour of the various county councils or local authorities remain in place. However it should be noted that it is likely that any liabilities arising under these arrangements, if called upon, will rank as unsecured claims in the special liquidation. It must be stressed that these bonds are contingent liabilities and will only be called upon where developers breach planning conditions and are not in a position to meet any liability that arises as a result. Any local authority should contact the Special Liquidators directly in respect of such claims should they arise. I, as Minister for Finance, have no responsibility in relation to the auditing of local authorities.
80. Deputy Peter Mathews asked the Minister for Finance his views on correspondence (details supplied) regarding the property tax and the non principal private residence charge; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11863/13]
View answerAs set out in the Local Government (Charges) Act 2009, as amended, liability to pay the Non-Principal Private Residence (NPPR) Charge is determined on the basis of ownership of the property in question on the liability date, which is 31 March for 2013. The Local Property Tax (LPT) does not come into effect until 1 July 2013. The Government decided to extend the NPPR Charge into 2013 to ensure as smooth a transition as possible for local authorities, pending the introduction of the full LPT. The inter-Departmental Group chaired by Dr Don Thornhill on the design of a property tax (the “Thornhill Group”) recommended that the NPPR Charge should be absorbed into the LPT as a separate (supplemental) tax, at the existing level (currently €200) applying to non-principal private residences. However, the Government that, while the NPPR Charge will be collected in 2013, when a half-year LPT will also apply, it should be discontinued thereafter. Accordingly, it will not apply as a supplemental tax. As the Deputy is probably aware, the Household Charge and the NPPR charge coexisted in 2012 and certain properties would have been liable to both charges.
81. Deputy John Lyons asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding property tax in respect of a person (details supplied). [11942/13]
View answerThe Finance (Local Property Tax) Act 2012 sets out how the Local Property Tax (LPT) is to be administered and provides that a liability for LPT will arise where a person owns a residential property on the liability date which will be 1 May 2013 for the year 2013 and for subsequent years, 1 November in the preceding year. Where a property is owned by more than one person, the owners are jointly and severally liable for payment of the tax. This means that Revenue can pursue one person for the full liability and payment by that person discharges the tax liability of all joint owners. For the purposes of completing an LPT Return, joint owners are required to agree a valuation for the property. A single Return should be submitted on behalf of the joint owners. If the LPT is not paid, the Revenue Commissioners can proceed to collect the tax from any of the owners.
An exemption from the charge to LPT is available where a residential property was previously occupied by a person as his or her sole or main residence and has been vacated by the person for 12 months or more due to long term mental or physical infirmity and is not occupied by any other person. However, I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the exemption will not apply in this particular case as the parent and children own the property jointly therefore they are jointly and severally liable for the tax.
The Non-Principal Private Residence (NPPR) Charge is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. I am informed by the Minister that the Local Government (Charges) Act 2009, as amended, broadened the revenue base of local authorities by introducing a charge on non-principal private residences. The NPPR charge is set at €200 and liability for it falls, in the main, on owners of rental, holiday and vacant properties. It is a matter for an owner, whether resident in Ireland or elsewhere, to determine if he or she has a liability and, if so, to declare that liability and pay the charge. A residential property not in use by an owner as his or her sole or main residence is liable for the NPPR charge. In respect of a residential property that is co-owned by several persons, such as a parent and his or her children, each co-owner is jointly and severally liable for the charge.
Section 4(5) of the 2009 Act, as amended, provides an exemption in cases where a property is vacated due to illness, including an incapacity brought about by infirmity due to old age. However, as the specific property in this instance is shared between four liable owners and liability is joint and severable, based on the information provided it would seem that the three sibling co-owners would be liable for the NPPR charge. Should there be any doubt concerning the application of the provisions of the 2009 Act in specific circumstances, legal advice is recommended.
Under the 2009 Act, it is a function of a local authority to collect Non-Principal Private Residence Charges and late payment fees due to it, and all charges and late payment fees imposed and payable to a local authority are under the care and management of the local authority concerned. In this regard, application of the legislation in particular circumstances is a matter for the relevant local authority.
82. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Finance if he will list detailed benefits that accrue from the payments of pay related social insurance and universal social charge in view of the fact that persons paying these may pay a significant sum for attendance at accident and emergency, pay in-patient hospital charges, and no longer have optical or dental benefit under the schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11945/13]
View answerThe Universal Social Charge (USC) was introduced in Budget 2011 to replace the Income Levy and Health Levy. It was a necessary measure to widen the tax base, remove poverty traps and raise revenue to reduce the budget deficit. Individuals that are subject to the USC charge do not accumulate entitlements or specific benefits but do benefit generally from the services provided by the State. I would ask the Deputy to consult with the Minister for Social Protection as regards the benefits that accrue as a result of paying Pay Related Social Insurance (PRSI). In addition, charges for health services are a matter for the Minister for Health.
83. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Finance in relation to a couple who have been told they have to pay back tax on the Department of Social Protection's old age pension due to the fact that they are in receipt of occupational pensions, if the Revenue Commission pursue back tax on individual incomes of €50,000 or on the gross combination of a couple earning €50,000 or more; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11947/13]
View answerPensions payable by the Department of Social Protection (DSP) have always been taxable but the amount of tax payable, if any, depends on the circumstances of the individual concerned, usually whether they have other sources of income. I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that following receipt of data from the DSP in late 2011 containing details of DSP pension payments, it emerged that some pensioners with significant other income had not previously declared their DSP pension for tax purposes. Revenue’s approach was, firstly, to ensure that the record was correct for 2012 and thereafter to examine in detail the largest cases where there was a mismatch between their records and the DSP record, beginning with cases where annual non-DSP income exceeded €50,000. In the case of a couple in a marriage or civil partnership, the combined non-DSP income of both spouses is considered for this purpose.
The information obtained from the initial examination informed Revenue approach to other high risk cases. This follow-up project has been ongoing and Revenue is now corresponding with taxpayers who did not declare their DSP pension where they have annual non-DSP income of between €30,000 and €40,000. The Commissioners also advise that this correspondence gives the taxpayers in question an opportunity to engage with Revenue, and, for example, to claim any unclaimed tax reliefs such as medical expenses for themselves and their spouse.
84. Deputy Michelle Mulherin asked the Minister for Finance when an intoxicating liquor licence will issue to a person (details supplied) in County Mayo pursuant to section 39 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 2000 who has presented a certificate in accordance with section five of the Licensing (Ireland) Act 1833 to the Revenue Commissioners within the prescribed statutory timeframe; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11955/13]
View answerI am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that they may only grant a liquor licence to a person where that person has presented a Court Certificate to them within 12 months of the date on which it was issued. The person in question presented a Court Order dated 5th July 2005 to Revenue in May 2006 instead of a Court Certificate. This Court Order was accepted by Revenue in place of a Court Certificate and a liquor licence dated 24th May 2006 issued with an expiry date of 30th September 2006. The trader did not renew this licence and so it lapsed on the 1st October 2007. Accordingly the original Court Order, which was acted on by Revenue in 2005, is now spent. The Revenue Commissioners now require that the person in question provide them with a Court Certificate before they will be in a position to consider the issue of a current liquor licence to that person.
