Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 27 July 2021
356. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Finance the estimated yield minus costs of prioritising anti-fraud powers in Finance (No. 2) Act 2013 as set out in a comprehensive review of expenditure 2014 (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39914/21]
View answer358. Deputy Ged Nash asked the Minister for Finance the estimated yield minus costs of a compliance project using merchant acquirer data as set out in a comprehensive review of expenditure 2014 (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39916/21]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 356 and 358 together.
In relation to Question No. 356 , the anti-fraud powers contained in the Finance (no.2) Act of 2013 considerably strengthened Revenue’s capacity to address Excise related risk, including in regard to the use of Marked Gas Oil (MGO). I am advised that Revenue has conducted extensive compliance programmes since that time designed both to deter and detect abuses in this area and to measure the level of illegitimate activity in the market.
Revenue’s subsequent analysis of the impact of the combined measures confirm a very significant reduction in the abuse of MGO. Extrapolating pre-2013 trends against current Excise data strongly suggests that Revenue's compliance activities may have been responsible for reducing fraudulent MGO usage (product that might otherwise have been laundered) and increasing legitimate diesel usage by over 245 million litres per annum. This translates into more than €150 million annually in additional taxes and duties. There has also been a significant fall in the level of so-called ‘fuel laundering’ activity i.e. the removal of markers from duty rebated fuel.
In relation to Question No. 258, I am advised by Revenue that the recorded yield from an initial pilot compliance project, based solely on the use of merchant acquirer data was €2.78m. I am further informed that this initial project established the value of the use of merchant acquirer data, which is now fully integrated into Revenue risk systems and used alongside other information sources to select and appraise cases for compliance interventions. This approach enables Revenue to focus on risk cases while minimising compliance costs for legitimate businesses. Given the integrated nature of Revenue’s approach to a wide range of risk data, it is not possible to accurately attribute individual intervention yields to specific data elements, such as merchant acquirer data, which form part of an overall profile of a taxpayer.
