Written Answers Nos. 51-55
51. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance when the European Union Commission will publish its findings on its investigation into Ireland's tax arrangements with a company (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12283/15]
View answerThe Commission have indicated publically that they expect to make their final decision on this issue in the first half of 2015.
While it would not be appropriate to speculate on the outcome at this stage, I remain confident that there was no breach of State aid rules in this case and that the legislative provisions were correctly applied.
After an investigation such as this, the Commission may decide that there is no state aid after a Member State provides the additional information and clarification.
However, in the event that the Commission forms the view that there was state aid, Ireland is entitled to challenge this decision in the European Courts. As I and my colleagues in Government have already indicated, we will take that course of action, if necessary, to continue to vigorously defend the Irish position.
52. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the number of times his officials have met, physically, by teleconferencing or otherwise with officials of the European Union Commission, regarding the tax affairs of Apple since the Commission officially launched its investigation into the matter; the number of documents requested; and the number sent to the Commission as part of the inquiry. [12284/15]
View answerFollowing the launch of formal state aid investigations by the Competition Directorate of the European Commission into tax rulings provided to a number of companies in various Member States of the European Union, there has been ongoing contact between my officials and EU Commission officials on the matter, including two meetings with the Competition Directorate case team.
As the Commission have acknowledged, Ireland has co-operated fully with the process to date and will continue to do so.
As part of this formal investigation, the Commission wrote to Ireland in June 2014 to ask for our response to their concerns in relation to the particular case, and this correspondence is published on the Commission's competition website.
Ireland has responded to this letter, comprehensively addressing the Commission's concerns and making it clear that the appropriate amount of Irish tax was charged in accordance with the relevant legislation, that no selective advantage was given and that there was no State aid.
I am not however in a position to comment further on the specific details of our response to the Commission as the matter is subject to a formal process of investigation and relates to a specific taxpayer.
I would like to emphasise that, while the Commission has opened a formal investigation in relation to one particular case involving Ireland, it has not made a final determination in the matter.
While it would not be appropriate to speculate on the outcome at this stage, it is my view that there was no breach of State aid rules in this case and that the legislative provisions were correctly applied.
53. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the notification of a very large interest rate increase sent to customers by Avant card; the steps available to customers who believe this is unfair; the options available to the Financial Regulator to curb such increases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12291/15]
View answerThe Central Bank has advised me that AvantCard informed the Bank of its commercial decision to increase interest rates on a population of its accounts. These interest rates are not regulated by the Central Bank and as such, a regulated entity may determine the rate it charges its customers in line with applicable terms and conditions and depending on a number of factors, including risk.
AvantCard has confirmed to the Central Bank that it has written to impacted consumers, giving two months' notice in advance of the new rate taking effect. Affected consumers should contact AvantCard if they anticipate any difficulties in meeting revised repayments and relevant contact details have been included in the notice to consumers issued by AvantCard.
Consumers should also consider shopping around to ensure that they are getting the best available rate. Cost comparison information is available for consumers on the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission's web-site at the following link:
http://compare.consumerhelp.ie/CreditCard.
54. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Finance the reason direct debits for paying local property tax only last for two years, after which persons have to set up new direct debits to continue paying the tax; if persons paying the tax by direct debit have been notified of this; the steps that were taken to inform the general public of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12296/15]
View answerI am advised by Revenue that it provides eight (8) different payment methods for Local Property Tax (LPT). The eight payment methods include various single and phased options that are designed to provide property owners with alternatives that assist them in meeting their LPT obligations in a manner that best suits individual circumstances.
Direct Debit is one of the available phased options and it facilitates payment of the LPT liability in equal monthly instalments over the course of the year. The Direct Debit option can only operate from a nominated current account and is deducted on the 15th day of each month. Revenue currently processes in excess of 320,000 LPT Direct Debit mandates each month and the system operates on a 'roll over' basis from one year to the next without any need for the taxpayer to issue new instructions on each occasion.
The only exceptions in this regard are where the taxpayer changes his/her current account or decides to use a different payment option. In such circumstances, it is important that the taxpayer informs Revenue so that the alternative arrangements can be put in place.
Revenue has assured me that the Direct Debit system 'rolls over' on an ongoing basis and is not discontinued after two years in the manner suggested by the Deputy. In this regard, if the Deputy has a specific case/s where this has happened then he should provide the details to Revenue so that the matter can be investigated.
55. Deputy Michelle Mulherin asked the Minister for Finance in the case of customers with mortgage arrears, if the banks are precluded from negotiating at local branch level with these borrowers, towards a resolution, which is where they dealt with to obtain the home loans in the first place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12312/15]
View answerI am informed by the Central Bank that under the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears, lenders must establish a centralised and dedicated Arrears Support Unit (ASU), which must be adequately staffed, to manage cases under the Mortgage Arrears Resolution Process (MARP), set out in the CCMA.
It is the responsibility of the lender's ASU to carry out certain functions under the CCMA, for example:
- The lender must pass the completed standard financial statement to its ASU immediately on receipt and provide a copy of the standard financial statement to the borrower - provision 32 CCMA.
- A completed standard financial statement must be assessed in a timely manner by the lender's ASU - provision 35 CCMA.
- A lender's ASU must formally review the borrower's case, including the standard financial statement, immediately, where a borrower ceases to adhere to the terms of an alternative repayment arrangement - provision 48 CCMA.
- A lender must allow the borrower a reasonable period of time to consider submitting an appeal to the Appeals Board, which must be at least 20 business days from the date of notification of the decision of the lender's ASU provision 54 CCMA.
The CCMA also requires that each branch (or office of a lender in the case of a lender who does not operate a branch network), must have at least one person with specific responsibility for dealing with arrears and pre arrears cases and for liaising with the lender's ASU in respect of these cases.
Therefore, while the CCMA requires that a lender's ASU, as opposed to the branch, is charged with managing cases under the MARP process, the CCMA does not preclude a borrower from liaising with the lender's ASU through the branch staff member with specific responsibility for dealing with arrears and pre arrears cases and for liaising with the lender's ASU in respect of these cases.
