Written Answers Nos. 198-211
198. Deputy Brendan Griffin asked the Minister for Finance the reason a qualified adult State pension to the spouse of a person (details supplied) is taxed as their income; if this income can be withdrawn from their tax assessment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28051/21]
View answerDepartment of Social Protection (DSP) payments are generally classified as income and as such are liable to income tax but not Universal Social Charge (USC) and PRSI. This includes the State contributory pension and any weekly payments for adult dependants.
The way in which tax is collected from DSP payments is dependent on whether a person is taxed through the PAYE system or through self-assessment. Where a person or couple have a PAYE source of income only, Revenue reduces their annual tax credits and rate band to take account of any taxable DSP payments, thereby ensuring the tax due is automatically collected through the payroll system. This normally means that the tax due on any taxable DSP payment is collected by reducing the tax credits on other income or private pensions. Individuals or couples who are taxed through the self-assessment system must include details of any taxable DSP payments in their annual income tax return (Form 11) and pay the tax due.
I am advised by Revenue that the couple in question who are ‘jointly assessed’ for tax have three sources of pension income, including a DSP contributory pension (including weekly adult dependant payments), a private pension and a foreign pension. The weekly adult dependant payments, while paid on behalf of the person’s spouse, form part of his DSP payment and are correctly taxed as part of the couple’s overall income. The couple’s annual tax credits and rate band have been reduced to take account of the tax due on the DSP pension and the private pension, the couple pay the tax due on the foreign pension through the self-assessment system.
Revenue has confirmed that it will make direct contact with the person to explain how DSP payments are taxed and to answer any other queries they may have regarding their tax position.
199. Deputy Matt Carthy asked the Minister for Finance the engagements he has had regarding the potential to provide a carbon tax waiver for registered agricultural and forestry contractors; when he plans to implement such a waiver; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28054/21]
View answerI refer the Deputy to my reply to him of 21 April last (No. 522) in which I advised that agricultural and forestry contractors were not currently eligible for tax relief under section 664A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 as they are not considered to be carrying on a trade of farming. This is because farming, which is defined in section 654 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, requires that the occupation of farmland and agricultural contracting does not involve the occupation of farmland. The measure is specifically targeted at the farming sector to address the particular problems faced by family farms.
The reply also outlines that my officials met with agricultural contractor representatives in December 2019 and advised them that my Department was intending to schedule a review of the scheme (and related aspects) in the context of a wider report on agri-tax reliefs and the Climate Action Plan approved by Government in June 2019. The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in the intervening period has influenced the timing of such a review which has yet to take place. This remains the position.
As I also indicated in my reply of 21 April, while I appreciate the difficulties facing many sectors as a result of increases to the carbon tax, I must be mindful of the public finances and the many demands on the Exchequer, as well as the need to progress the Programme for Government commitments on the environment. The introduction of new tax reliefs - or indeed the extension of existing targeted reliefs - reduces the tax base and makes general reform of the tax system that much more difficult.
200. Deputy Eoin Ó Broin asked the Minister for Finance if a person purchasing wine online from another EU member state must pay excise duty on the purchase; if so, the rate; and the documentation that is required by the purchaser. [28056/21]
View answerIt is assumed that the Deputy is referring to cross border sales of wine over the internet to consumers in Ireland. Such sales of alcohol products are referred to as “distance sales”.
Distance sales of alcohol products from one EU Member State to a consumer in another Member State are subject to VAT in the Member State of destination of the supply, which would be Ireland if the consumer is based in this State. In all such cases, the supplier of those goods is required to register in the State and account for VAT.
Specific requirements apply in relation to excise duty on the distance sales of alcohol products from another EU state to a private individual in Ireland. The vendor in the Member State of dispatch must appoint a tax representative in Ireland who must be approved by Revenue. The tax representative must provide a guarantee for the excise duty prior to the dispatch of the alcohol products and must pay the excise duty on arrival of the products at the designated address in Ireland. Failing this, liability for payment ultimately rests with the person to whom the products have been delivered in the Member State of destination.
Alcohol products ordered by persons, both business and private consumers, from suppliers established outside the EU are subject to customs duty, VAT and excise duty which are normally payable prior to the release of the goods into free circulation in Ireland.
Revenue inform me that they are very aware of the growth in business of consumer internet sales and of the risks this presents, both to tax revenues and domestic business, and that they are working continuously to strengthen their controls in this area. Revenue uses a range of measures to monitor internet retail activity directed at customers in Ireland. Revenue’s work at ports, airports and postal depots to ensure compliance is supported by equipment and resources such as scanners and x-ray machines and these are reviewed regularly in light of technological developments and operational effectiveness. Revenue’s overall approach to managing compliance is to undertake a range of targeted interventions that are most appropriate for dealing with the specific risks presented in individual cases – including internet sales. Their work is also supported and enhanced with appropriate technology, including their Risk Evaluation Analysis and Profiling (REAP) risk identification system and capture of data from multiple sources.
These compliance activities are very successful, and Revenue seizes considerable quantities of excisable and prohibited goods annually in the course of delivery through postal and other delivery channels.
201. Deputy Paul Murphy asked the Minister for Finance his views on whether any new tax incentive for the game industry should at least include a similar requirement to the film sector tax credit introduced in section 481 of the Finance Act 1997 which requires employers to commit to providing quality employment before availing of the tax credit. [28102/21]
View answerAs announced in my Budget 2021 speech, officials in my Department have commenced work on the development of a tax credit for the digital gaming sector. This is a sector that has seen exponential global growth in the past decade, which has not been reflected in the industry growth here in Ireland, and there are potential synergies with our established film and animation sectors to support quality employment in creative and digital arts in Ireland. The intention is to publish legislation to introduce this new credit as part of the 2021 Finance Bill process. It is important to note however, that European Commission State aid approval will be required prior to the introduction of the tax credit. Therefore it is expected that the Finance Bill 2021 legislation will be introduced subject to a commencement order, pending completion of the State aid approval process.
With regard to the provision for quality employment within Section 481, Finance Act 2018 amended the section 481 certification process to provide that the Minister for Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media, after considering an application and applying a set of tests, may issue a Cultural certificate to a producer company stating that a film is qualifying film for the purpose of the credit. One of these tests relates to employment on the qualifying film. Applicants must complete an “Undertaking in respect of quality employment”. This undertaking commits applicants to compliance with all relevant employment legislation in relation to the film being certified.
It is also worth noting that Revenue carries out a comprehensive programme of compliance operations each year across a broad range of economic sectors, including the film industry. Many of the operations are carried out on a multi-agency basis, which can include officials from the Department of Social Protection (DSP) and the Workplace Relations Commission. The primary role of these joint investigation units, JIUs, is to detect non-compliance with tax and duty obligations, which includes non-operation of the PAYE system on foot of bogus self-employment
Officials in my Department are currently engaging with a wide range of industry stakeholders as part of the design process of the tax credit for the digital gaming sector. They will also have regard to relevant transferable elements of the s.481 film credit requirements in setting the criteria for the relief. It is crucial that employee rights are upheld in all industries and my officials will be cognisant of this fact during the development of the tax credit.
It is also important to note that the monitoring of compliance with employment rights legislation is primarily a matter for the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, through the Workplace Relations Commission. While the importance of employment rights will be reflected in the tax credit for the digital game sector, the WRC remains the appropriate avenue to address non-compliance with employment rights legislation.
202. Deputy Sean Sherlock asked the Minister for Finance if there is a policy of data back-up in the operations of his Department and all agencies under his remit. [28118/21]
View answerFor operational security reasons, my Department is not in a position to provide any details of its data security systems or those of the bodies under its aegis, as it would be inappropriate to disclose information that may in any way assist those with malicious intent.
203. Deputy Catherine Murphy asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide the research used to support the increase in stamp duty to 10% in the context of bulk buying housing; the way the research was sourced and from whom; the parameters that were used; the other taxation measures that were considered; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28164/21]
View answer210. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide a copy of the advice given that the new 10% rate will provide a really significant disincentive to bulk purchases in relation to the new 10% stamp duty on houses and duplexes. [28365/21]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 203 and 210 together.
As the Deputy is aware, on Wednesday 19th May a Financial Resolution before the Dáil, was passed which had the immediate effect of imposing a stamp duty rate of 10% on the multiple purchase of 10 or more residential property units, subject to certain conditions and exemptions.
This higher charge will also apply to a situation where a person acquires 10 units on a cumulative basis over a 12 month period with the 10% rate applying on the 10th purchase. Once triggered, the 10% rate will apply to any other residential properties acquired in that 12 month period.
This 10% rate is intended to provide a significant disincentive to the practice that has recently emerged of institutional investors purchasing large parts of, or indeed whole, housing estates before they reach the market, thus denying first time buyers (and others) an opportunity to purchase a home.
Acquisitions by Local Authorities and approved housing bodies are already exempt from stamp duty, and this exemption will continue to apply as regards this new higher rate.
A key objective of this proposal is to achieve a balance between addressing the issue of multiple purchases by institutional investors, whilst at the same time ensuring the supply of financing is not undermined, particularly for the construction of new apartment developments. It therefore provides a specific exemption from the higher 10% stamp duty rate for the multiple purchase of apartments at any time, i.e. whether the apartments are being bought at planning permission stage or in the future.
Without this exemption, it is felt that there would be a significant risk that developers would exit from the apartment building market as such projects would no longer be viable, and, if that were to happen, an important element of our housing strategy would be lost.
The choice to set the rate at 10% was made by reference to existing stamp duty rates. In this regard, the standard property rate for purchases under €1m is 1%, with a 2% rate applying on amounts over €1m. Therefore the view was that it had to be significantly higher than that rate to have the desired impact. In addition, it was felt that it had to be a higher rate than the existing 7.5% rate for commercial property. Consequently, it was concluded in this context that 10% was an appropriate rate as it is 10 times higher than the standard lower rate and one third higher than the rate for commercial property. Finally, it should be noted as with all taxes, this matter will be kept under review.
The current UK stamp duty arrangement for companies was also looked at. It applies a higher rate of 15% for corporate bodies, or “non-natural persons”, which can be increased to 17% if the person is a non-resident, however the legislation has a long list of exemptions including property bought for rental purposes. We also established that the UK measure is a narrowly focussed anti-avoidance provision, which appears to have been designed to particularly address specific targeted situations. It was therefore felt that it was not an appropriate alternative to the stamp duty charge set out in the Finance Resolution.
It is intended that the changes provided for in the Financial Resolution will be provided for in formal legislation in the next number of weeks.
204. Deputy Marian Harkin asked the Minister for Finance the section or subsection of the Finance Act 2001 that grants the Revenue Commissioners VRT enforcement officers the power to offer and accept payment of a compromise penalty when the Revenue Commissioners have not received a notice of claim as specified by section 144(3)(a) of the Act; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28181/21]
View answerI am advised by Revenue that its approach to enforcement of the law relating to Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT) is that in each instance where a failure to comply with the relevant legal requirements is detected, the matter is dealt with in a manner that is fair and proportionate in the circumstances of the particular case. In certain instances, a warning will be given or a VRT Demand Notice issued. In other cases, however, such as where it is established that the vehicle has been in the State more than 30 days without being registered, the vehicle is seized. Revenue may release a vehicle after seizure - in situations, for example, where the detected offence is a first offence and the person concerned agrees to pay a compromise penalty.
Section 144 of the Finance Act 2001 gives Revenue power to deal with seizures of goods under the law relating to excise before and after condemnation. Section 144(2) gives Revenue the discretion to restore anything seized as liable to forfeiture under the law relating to excise.
I am further advised that Revenue has set out in the Vehicle Registration Tax Manual - Section 5 Enforcement, guidelines which they operate in relation to the terms and options that may be offered in appropriate cases, at the discretion of the Commissioners for local release of seized vehicles. This includes payment of a compromise sum; the scale of compromise amounts applicable is set out in the Manual.
If a vehicle is not released following seizure the person concerned may, if he or she considers that there are grounds for doing so, serve on Revenue, within a month of the date of the notice of seizure or date of the seizure where no notice has been given, a notice of claim indicating that the thing seized is not liable to forfeiture under Section 127 of the Finance Act 2001.
Section 128 of that Act refers to proceedings for condemnation by the courts, namely where a notice of claim has been received under section 127 of the Finance Act 2001, as amended.
Finally it should be noted that Section 128(5) of the Finance Act 2001 provides that Revenue may in their discretion stay or compound any condemnation proceedings and may restore anything seized which is the subject of such proceedings, and that the Minister for Finance may order any such restoration.
205. Deputy Marian Harkin asked the Minister for Finance the number of VRT warnings, detentions, seizures and compromise penalties in each of the years 2015 to 2020, in tabular form as outlined under sections 141, 144 (3)(a) and 153 of the Finance Act 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28182/21]
View answerI am informed by Revenue that in relation to VRT, the number of vehicles which were the subject of a written warning; detained under section 140 of the Finance Act 2001; seized under section 141 of the Finance Act 2001; and/or where a compromise penalty was paid under S144(2) and/or S128(5) of the Finance Act 2001 for each of the years 2015 to 2020 are as set out in the following table.
|
YEAR |
WARNING |
DETENTION |
SEIZURE |
COMPROMISE PENALTY PAID |
|
2015 |
210 |
81 |
1,133 |
1,097 |
|
2016 |
241 |
190 |
1,384 |
1,282 |
|
2017 |
195 |
124 |
1,304 |
1,225 |
|
2018 |
127 |
81 |
1,223 |
1,160 |
|
2019 |
184 |
52 |
1,265 |
1,200 |
|
2020 |
66 |
21 |
410 |
392 |
206. Deputy Jim O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Finance his views on the communication by the European Commission on business taxations published on 18 May 2021; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28238/21]
View answerI am aware that the European Commission published a Communication titled Business Tax in the 21st Century last week.
The Communication will be carefully examined by my officials recognising the intention of the Commission to bring forward a series of legislative proposals over the coming years. Once legislative proposals are published by the Commission, we will consider each in detail on their merits.
I think it is important to recall that the Programme for Government includes a clear commitment to the 12.5% Corporation Tax rate and recognises that taxation is a national competence.
I remain focused on achieving a global agreement this year at the OECD on reframing the international tax rules. This is the priority for Ireland, and we have a long standing position that addressing aggressive tax planning is a global issue which requires a global agreement. Such an agreement will be important in ensuring certainty and stability in the coming years to promote growth and investment.
Ireland has fully engaged in the international tax discussions for many years and I have diligently and proactively reformed and modernised our tax code in line with these international developments.
The January 2021 update to Ireland’s Corporation Tax Roadmap sets out the measures we have taken, and also signal further actions that Ireland will take over the period ahead to fully implement the EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directives.
207. Deputy Mairéad Farrell asked the Minister for Finance the amount spent by his Department on external professional legal services in 2014, 2019 and 2020, in tabular form. [28302/21]
View answerI can advise the Deputy that the amount my Department incurred in respect of external professional legal services in 2014, 2019 and 2020 are outlined in tabular form.
|
Year |
External Legal Fees Amount |
|
2014 |
€1,128,588 |
|
2019 |
€428,282 |
|
2020 |
€425,657 |
The Deputy might note that details of my Department's spending on consultancy services, professional fees, and legal advice are regularly published on my Department's website.
208. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Minister for Finance if he will quantify the employment wage subsidy scheme and temporary wage subsidy scheme supports given to a company (details supplied) since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28344/21]
View answerThe Deputy may be aware that in accordance with Section 851A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 Revenue is statutorily bound to confidentiality in respect of taxpayer information and is therefore precluded from disclosing taxpayer information.
In relation to the Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme (TWSS), section 28(8) of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 required Revenue to publish a list of the names and addresses of all employers who registered for and received funding under TWSS. The legislation as set down only provides for the publication of the names and addresses of employers that received TWSS payments.
I am advised that the list of the names and addresses of the employers that received TWSS payments is available at: www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/twss/list-of-employers/index.aspx.
The Deputy should note that while information in relation to the amount of subsidy paid to an employer is not publicly available, individual employees can see the amount of TWSS claimed by their employer on their behalf by examining their pay slip or by logging on to their Revenue myAccount.
In relation to the Employment Wage Subsidy Scheme (EWSS), Section 28B(10) of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020 required Revenue to publish the name and address of each employer who received payments under EWSS.
While the legislation requires the publication of the name and address of each employer that received EWSS payments, Revenue is obliged to maintain taxpayer confidentiality, in accordance with Section 851A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, in relation to all other details, for example, the amount of subsidy paid.
As at today’s date, Revenue has published the name and address of each employer who received payments in 2020 and Quarter 1 2021 under EWSS. This list is available at: www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/ewss/list-of-employers-who-received-payments-under-the-ewss.aspx.
209. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Finance if he will include fibromyalgia under the primary medical certificate scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28357/21]
View answerThe Disabled Drivers & Disabled Passengers Scheme provides relief from VRT and VAT on the purchase and use of an adapted car, as well as an exemption from motor tax and an annual fuel grant.
The Scheme is open to severely and permanently disabled persons as a driver or as a passenger and also to certain organisations. In order to qualify for relief an organisation must be entered in the register of charitable organisations under Part 3 of the Charities Act 2009, be engaged in the transport of disabled persons and whose purpose is to provide services to persons with disabilities.
In order to qualify for relief the applicant must hold a Primary Medical Certificate (PMC) issued by the relevant Senior Area Medical Officer (SAMO) or a Board Medical Certificate (BMC) issued by the Disabled Driver Medical Board of Appeal. Certain other criteria apply in relation to the vehicle and its use, including that the vehicle must be specially constructed or adapted for use by the applicant.
The terms of the Scheme set out the following medical criteria, and that one or more of these criteria is required to be satisfied in order to obtain a PMC:
- be wholly or almost wholly without the use of both legs;
- be wholly without the use of one leg and almost wholly without the use of the other leg such that the applicant is severely restricted as to movement of the lower limbs;
- be without both hands or without both arms;
- be without one or both legs;
- be wholly or almost wholly without the use of both hands or arms and wholly or almost wholly without the use of one leg;
- have the medical condition of dwarfism and have serious difficulties of movement of the lower limbs.
A Supreme Court decision of 18th June found in favour of two appellants against the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal's refusal to grant them a PMC. The judgement found that the medical criteria set out in the Regulations did not align with the regulation making mandate given in the primary legislation to further define criteria for ‘severely and permanently disabled’ persons.
On foot of the legal advice received, it became clear that it was appropriate to revisit the six medical criteria set out in Regulation 3 of Statutory Instrument 353 of 1994 for these assessments. In such circumstances, PMC assessments were discontinued until a revised basis for such assessments could be established. The medical officers who are responsible for conducting PMC assessments need to have assurance that the decisions they make are based on clear criteria set out in legislation. While Regulation 3 of Statutory Instrument No. 353 of 1994 was not deemed to be invalid, nevertheless it was found to be inconsistent with the mandate provided in Section 92 of the Finance Act 1989.
In order to allow for the PMC assessments and appeals to recommence I brought forward an amendment to the Finance Bill to provide for the existing medical criteria in primary legislation which, following the approval of the Finance Act 2020, allowed assessments to recommence.
Following approval of the Finance Act 2020, a comprehensive review of the scheme, to include a broader review of mobility supports for persons with disabilities and the criteria for qualification for the Scheme, will be conducted this year. On foot of that review new proposals will be brought forward for consideration.
211. Deputy Peadar Tóibín asked the Minister for Finance the investment made by his Department and State agencies under its remit in each year in cyber security for the past ten years. [28845/21]
View answerFor reasons of operational and national security it would not be appropriate to disclose details, including costs, of my Department’s Cyber Security arrangements, or those of State Agencies under my remit. Any information in relation to cyber security tools and services could assist criminals in identifying potential vulnerability in cybersecurity arrangements. Therefore it is not considered appropriate to disclose any such information or make comment which could in any way compromise my Department’s Cyber Security.
