Written Answers Nos. 48-53
49. Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance the number of persons who paid the domicile levy in 2012 and to date in 2013; the sum collected for the Exchequer from this levy in those periods; and the number of persons who have declared themselves as non-resident in the State for tax purposes during those periods. [47309/13]
View answerI am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the latest available information on the Domicile Levy is for the tax year 2011, which is that 17 persons have submitted Domicile Levy returns for that year. The amount of Domicile Levy paid in relation to those returns was €2,500,493. Returns for tax year 2012 are not due until 31 October 2013 (or 14 November 2013 for Revenue Online Service electronic filers) and both sets of returns will require to be processed before new data can be derived. I am also informed by the Revenue Commissioners that 13,515 persons filed income tax returns for 2011 and indicated they were non-resident for income tax purposes for that year. Again, 2011 is the most recent year in respect of which this information is available. These figures are updates to figures provided to the House on foot of answers to Parliamentary Questions earlier this year.
50. Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 81 of 11 January 2012, if he has considered the way the report on Pension Charges in Ireland 2012 may be used to advance the issue of the pension industry absorbing the impact of the pension fund levy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47374/13]
View answer51. Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Finance if the pension levy applies to defined benefit pensions; if not, the rationale for excluding them; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47375/13]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 50 and 51 together.
The Report on Pension Charges 2012 was undertaken by the Department of Social Protection, working with the Central Bank and the Pensions Board, and with support from PWC. The launch of the Report on Pension Charges in October 2012 was followed by a three month consultation with stakeholders. Following the consultation, it was agreed by Government in April 2013 that the recommendations contained in the report will be implemented, and this work has commenced. Implementation of these recommendations aims to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements and enhance the transparency and understanding of pension charges amongst trustees, employers and scheme members with a view to supporting competitive pricing and ultimately limiting erosion to the value of the pension received by the member.
On the matter of the pension fund levy, I have held the view since the introduction of the levy that the companies who manage and administer the assets of the pension funds and schemes should generally be in a position to absorb the impact of the levy by reducing the charges and fees which they apply. I have pursued this issue with the representative bodies of these companies but the response has not been positive. I have been told that it would be a matter for individual companies to decide on the question of absorbing the cost of the levy into their existing fees and charges but that the scope for companies to do so is very limited. There have been calls to force the companies through legislation to absorb the levy but I do not consider that this approach, which would ignore the circumstances from case to case, would be appropriate.
The levy applies to the market value, on the valuation date (generally 30 June each year), of assets under management in pension funds and pension plans approved under Irish tax legislation, including funded Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution occupational pension schemes. However, the levy does not apply where the trustees of an occupational pension scheme have passed a resolution to wind up the scheme and where the business in respect of which the scheme was established is insolvent.
52. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for Finance if he will address an issue (details supplied) where the owner signed up for deferral of the local property tax but keeps receiving payment demands from the Revenue Commissioners to the wrong person; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47377/13]
View answerI am informed by Revenue that a key aspect of the work it has undertaken in connection with the administration of Local Property Tax (LPT) has been the development of a register of residential properties in the State. The development of the Property Register required Revenue to extract and consolidate data from multiple Government and non-Government sources. In the case of jointly assessed spouses, the name of the person registered for Income Tax was used for the purpose of issuing LPT forms and notices. In the case to which the Deputy refers, the persons involved are jointly assessed under a common PPS number. The husband is the person registered for issue of forms and correspondence relating to other taxes and the address of the property in question has been used by him for tax purposes since 2006.
Revenue has further informed me that it will be necessary for the person in question to seek a separate PPS Number, provided by the Department of Social Protection, in order to change the liable person from her husband to herself.
In regard to the application for deferral, unfortunately Revenue’s scanning system did not record the application by the person in question correctly. This may have occurred because there were a number of differing entries on the Return and the system was not able to correctly identify the person’s preference.
However, direct contact has now been made with the individual concerned by a member of the LPT team and all the issues have been clarified and resolved to the person’s satisfaction. I am advised that the person in question, on the basis of the information supplied, has qualified and availed of the deferral option for 2013 through to 2016 inclusive, should their financial circumstances remain unchanged.
53. Deputy Billy Timmins asked the Minister for Finance the position regarding Irish Nationwide Building Society, which was transferred to the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [47388/13]
View answerThe Special Liquidators have confirmed that the residential mortgage customers of IBRC Limited (in Special Liquidation) continue to enjoy the protection of the Central Bank Code of Conduct on mortgage arrears and other protections in Irish consumer law. I am advised that the contractual terms and conditions of customer mortgages and other borrowings will not change as a result of the appointment of the Special Liquidators or the ultimate sale of the obligations to a third party. The continued applicability of the Central Bank Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears and Mortgage Arrears Targets Programme will depend on the regulatory status of the ultimate acquirer of the portfolio which we will not know until the sales process has concluded. In the event that NAMA ultimately acquires this portfolio, the NAMA Board will determine its strategy at that stage and will, in doing so, be mindful of its legal obligations.
The Special Liquidators have given significant consideration to and have sought independent advice from PWC in relation to how the residential mortgage portfolio and other loans in IBRC are to be dealt with. Following that independent advice, the Special Liquidators have decided to sell these loans as part of a portfolio as it represents the most efficient method of disposal and the one which is most likely to maximise ultimate sales realisations for the Special Liquidators having regard to the public interest.
The Special Liquidators have confirmed that all Borrowers are permitted to buy-out their mortgage at par value and that there are no legislative barriers for such Borrowers to do so.
The decision concerning how the loans will be packaged for sale and what bidders constitute qualifying bidders for the purposes of the sales process is to be made by the Special Liquidators and I will not intervene in this matter.
