Written Answers Nos. 175-194
175. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Finance if he can clarify which Oireachtas Committee is responsible with respect to the workings of the FSPO and the protection of consumers who have purchased financial products in the State (details supplied). [41299/23]
View answerThe Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman is accountable to the Public Accounts Committee and to other Oireachtas Committees under Sections 22 and 23 of the FSPO Act. In recent years, the FSPO has appeared regularly before the Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen.
176. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Finance if he will clarify who is responsible for ensuring that the changes introduced by section 51(2) of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017, extending the statute of limitations beyond six years, are implemented in the manner anticipated by the Houses of the Oireachtas when making those changes; and who is charged with ensuring that the EU Community Principle of Effectiveness is being met by Ireland and that consumers are not precluded from rights granted to them under European law. [41300/23]
View answerIn 2017, the Government merged the offices of the Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau and the Office of the Pensions Ombudsman, to form the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. The Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017 established the Office of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, and the FSPO became operational from 1 January 2018.
The Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman is accountable to the Public Accounts Committee under Section 22 of the Act, and to other Oireachtas Committees under Section 23 of the FSPO Act. In recent years, the FSPO has appeared regularly before the Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen.
One of the functions of the FSPO Council under Section 40 of the FSPO Act 2017 is to keep under review the efficiency and effectiveness of the Ombudsman and to advise myself as Minister, either at my request or on its own initiative, on any matter relevant to the performance of the functions of the Ombudsman.
While I have no role in the investigation of complaints brought to the FSPO under the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017, I note that there is a Service Level, Oversight and Performance Delivery Agreement in place between the Department of Finance and the Office of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman.
This is in accordance with the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies (2016) and sets out the arrangements for oversight, monitoring and reporting. It also sets out the FSPO’s commitments regarding the operational roles, responsibilities, outputs and outcomes.
The jurisdiction of the FSPO is set out in the FSPO Act and the FSPO may only investigate complaints that come within its jurisdiction. These jurisdictional assessments are a matter for the Ombudsman, who subject to the FSPO Act, is independent in the performance of his or her functions.
The principle of effective judicial protection is a general principle of Community law and the decisions of the Ombudsman in this regard are, of course, subject to Judicial Review in the Courts.
177. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Finance if he will confirm that the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, FSPO, rejected or refused to investigate 2,296 consumer complaints in 2022, which represents 49% of complaints, i.e., complaints that did not go to investigation in any form; and if he is surprised at the level of rejections and refusals given, that it is also the responsibility of the FSPO to educate the consumer as to what complaints can be processed. [41301/23]
View answerWhen a complaint is received by the FSPO, the Registry and Assessment team of the Customer Operations and Information Management (COIM) directorate reviews and assesses it. This initial assessment provides an opportunity for the FSPO to determine if the complainant has provided all the necessary eligibility information to progress the complaint through our complaint resolution processes and to ensure the provider has been given the opportunity to resolve the complaint first.
In many cases, this preliminary work allows the complaint to close, if the complainant is subsequently satisfied with the provider’s resolution of the complaint.
The jurisdiction of the FSPO is set out in the FSPO Act and the FSPO may only investigate complaints that come within its jurisdiction.
Not all complaints are eligible for investigation by the FSPO and so the assessment of the complaint’s eligibility takes place at the earliest possible stage. This may include determining whether the conduct complained of falls within the statutory time limits as set out in the FSPO Act, checking that consent has been provided by all of the account or policy owners, or the FSPO may need to check if a financial service provider is regulated.
This early assessment service has enabled the FSPO to use its resources in the most efficient manner. More importantly, this service has enabled the FSPO to provide a greatly improved customer experience, ensuring the complainant is informed early on in the process if their complaint falls outside the FSPO’s remit.
In some circumstances, the complaint may need to be referred to the Legal Services team for a detailed legal assessment to determine whether a complaint falls in the FSPO’s jurisdiction.
During 2022, the FSPO closed 2,090 complaints within its Customer Operations and Information Management Department. 206 complaints were closed within its Legal Services Department. The sum of these two numbers may be the 2,296 complaints to which the Deputy refers.
Many of these complaints were closed because they were withdrawn by the complainant, often due to a resolution having been achieved with the provider after the complaint was made to the FSPO.
In other complaints, the FSPO concluded that the complaint did not come within its statutory jurisdiction. The FSPO cannot investigate complaints that do not come within its jurisdiction under the FSPO Act.
The FSPO has details available on its website with respect to the types of complaints that it can investigate and the statutory jurisdiction of the FSPO, including:
• Informational Videos and Leaflets on its services in the “Our Services” section.
• Details with respect to some jurisdictional issues in the “Legal References” section.
• Annual Published Overviews of Complaints, which include case studies.
178. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Finance of the 2,296 complaints rejected/refused by the FSPO, how many of these complainants were actually advised/directed to the FSPO in 2022, by the financial institution processing the complaint in question. [41302/23]
View answerI have been informed by the FSPO that Section 50 of the FSPO Act sets out that the Ombudsman shall not investigate or make a decision on a complaint where the internal dispute resolution procedures required under Section 54 of the FSPO Act have not been complied with.
Provision 10.9 (d) of the Central Bank of Ireland’s Consumer Protection Code 2012 , provides that a regulated entity inform the consumer (that has made a complaint) that they can refer the matter to the relevant Ombudsman, and must provide the consumer with the contact details of such Ombudsman, where a complaint has been received and remains unresolved after 40 working days, or where a final response letter has been issued by the provider.
The FSPO does not collect information with respect to whether or not a complainant was referred to it by a financial services provider.
179. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Finance the reason that the FSPO, when reporting under S.I. No. 343/2015, does not report the required, under EU law, statistic "(e) the average time taken to resolve disputes", and instead uses a fabricated statistic, "closed", which is a term not recognised or defined (details supplied). [41303/23]
View answer181. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Finance if he will explain the term "closed", which is most commonly utilised by the FSPO when assessing its complaint handling performance, as it is not a term used or defined by the European Commission when assessing the performance of Alternative Dispute Resolution entities in Member States. [41305/23]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 179 and 181 together.
I have been informed by the FSPO that it reports to the CCPC on all complaints that it receives. The term “resolved” is not defined in the legislation to which the Deputy refers.
Complaints are closed within the FSPO for a number of reasons, including that they are outside of the FSPO’s jurisdiction, because the complainant has chosen to withdraw the complaint (sometimes following an agreement with the provider mediated by the FSPO, sometimes on receipt of a clarification, or sometimes following agreement outside of the FSPO’s processes), or a legally binding decision is issued.
In each of these circumstances the FSPO regards the complaint as having been resolved with respect to its processes.
180. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Finance if, given that the ADR Directive recommends that "A properly functioning ADR entity should conclude online and offline dispute resolution proceedings expeditiously within a timeframe of 90 calendar days…", and that the FSPO has the option to refuse complex cases or redirect them to the Courts, he is not surprised by this statistic of 934 days versus the EU-recommended 90 days. [41304/23]
View answerThe statistic quoted by the Deputy is drawn from when a complaint was first received. The large majority of all complaints (over 80%) resolved in the FSPO are resolved within 12 months, mainly during the Registration, Assessment and Dispute Resolution (mediation) processes.
However a minority of complaints are referred for a formal jurisdictional review, or for formal investigation and adjudication. I am informed by the FSPO that these formal processes can take significantly longer.
The formal investigation and adjudication process is a detailed, fair and impartial process carried out in accordance with fair procedures. The FSPO calls for certain questions to be answered by a respondent provider and requests certain relevant documents and audio evidence.
The FSPO’s established procedures, for the formal investigation of complaints, ensure that both the complainant and the provider receive a copy of all information submitted by both parties and held on file, and they are given every reasonable opportunity to offer comments and observations on the contents of such evidence.
The parties to a complaint may wish to continue to make submissions over a period of time, which will impact on the overall time taken to complete the process; when the parties believe that they have additional information to offer regarding the merits of the complaint, this process is facilitated by the FSPO.
When all of the evidence has been gathered, and the parties’ submissions are concluded, the FSPO considers the evidence to determine whether any material conflicts of fact can be resolved by reference to the documentary or audio evidence available or whether, alternatively, an oral hearing is required. Thereafter, the FSPO issues a Preliminary Decision.
The parties may make submissions in relation to the Preliminary Decision. Such submissions are shared with the other party who may respond to them, which may give rise to several submissions being exchanged. All submissions and evidence received are then considered prior to the legally binding decision being issued to the parties.
Once a legally binding decision is issued, that decision is binding upon the parties, subject only to a statutory appeal to the High Court, within a period of 35 days, pursuant to Section 64 of the FSPO Act. The financial service provider or pension provider must implement any direction made by the Ombudsman in the legally binding decision.
182. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Finance if he will explain how, when reporting to the EU for the year 2021, the FSPO reported that 4,279 complaints were "accepted for handling" with only 130 identified as "refused" or "rejected" against its own published "Overview of Complaints 2021", which showed that only 2,676 complaints were handled through investigation or mediation. [41306/23]
View answerThe FSPO Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Annual Activity Report 2021 reported that the FSPO “received 4,658 complaints and successfully closed 5,010 complaints including 130 (2.6%) found to be ineligible”.
The FSPO’s Overview of Complaints 2021 reported that “A total of 4,658 complaints were received by the office in 2021. When 130 complaints later found to be ineligible were deducted, 4,528 complaints were received” .
Complaints were considered ineligible mainly because they were related to businesses that were not financial service providers or were made against providers that operated outside Ireland. Where appropriate, the FSPO will refer a complainant to the appropriate Alternative Dispute Resolution body in another country.
The FSPO Overview of Complaints 2021 breaks down the number of complaints closed (5,010) further into complaints closed in each department of the FSPO. 2,676 complaints were closed across Mediation and Investigation Services, with the remainder being closed in Customer Operations and Information Management, and Legal Services.
This information is also provided in the FSPO’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Annual Activity Report 2021:
“Of the 5,010 complaints closed in 2021, 2,169 (43.3%) were closed at an early stage in Customer Operations and Information Management, 1,820 (36.3%) were closed by way of mediation in Dispute Resolution Services, 856 (17.1%) were closed in Investigation Services and 165 (3.3%) were closed in Legal Services.”
183. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Finance the reason that the FSPO, when rejecting/refusing consumer complaints, makes no reference to relevant European Law, such as the Unfair Terms in consumer contracts Directive (UCTD) when raising opinions on its jurisdiction to investigate. [41307/23]
View answerI have been informed by the FSPO that when a complaint is received by the FSPO, the Registry and Assessment team of the Customer Operations and Information Management (COIM) directorate reviews and assesses it.
This initial assessment provides an opportunity for the FSPO to determine if the complainant has provided all the necessary eligibility information to progress the complaint through the complaint resolution processes and to ensure the provider has been given the opportunity to resolve the complaint first.
Not all complaints are eligible for investigation by the FSPO and so, the assessment of the complaint’s eligibility takes place at the earliest possible stage.
This may include determining whether the conduct complained of falls within the statutory time limits as set out in the FSPO Act, checking that consent has been provided by all of the account or policy owners, or the FSPO may need to check if a financial service provider is regulated.
In some circumstances, the complaint may need to be referred to the Legal Services team for a detailed legal assessment to determine whether a complaint falls in the FSPO’s jurisdiction.
In other complaints, the FSPO concludes that the complaint does not come within its statutory jurisdiction. The FSPO cannot investigate complaints that do not come within its jurisdiction under the FSPO Act.
As detailed above, where an issue arises, which requires a more detailed legal assessment, the matter is referred to the Legal Services team for a formal jurisdictional assessment, to determine whether the complaint in its entirety, or elements of the complaint, can proceed to investigation.
The FSPO makes every effort to assist the parties in understanding the extent and limits of the Ombudsman’s statutory jurisdiction, which is set out in the FSPO Act, being mindful that the legislation contains some provisions which are complex.
These jurisdictional assessments are a matter for the Ombudsman, who subject to the FSPO Act, is independent in the performance of his or her functions. The decisions of the Ombudsman in this regard are, of course, subject to Judicial Review in the Courts.
It is important to note that a formal jurisdictional assessment examines only the jurisdictional aspects arising based on the information provided and not the merits of the complaint itself.
184. Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Finance if he will address a matter (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41314/23]
View answerAs the Deputy is aware, Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT) is a tax which applies to both gifts and inheritances. For CAT purposes, the relationship between the person giving a gift or inheritance (i.e. the disponer) and the person who receives it (i.e. the beneficiary) determines the maximum amount, known as the “Group threshold”, below which CAT does not arise.
The Group A threshold is currently set at €335,000 and applies where the beneficiary is a child, including adopted children, stepchildren and certain foster children, of the disponer.
The Group B threshold is currently set at €32,500 and applies where the beneficiary is a brother, sister, nephew, niece or lineal ancestor or lineal descendant such as a grandchild of the disponer.
The Group C threshold is currently set at €16,250 and applies in all other cases.
While the thresholds were reduced during the economic downturn, the Government has made significant changes to the CAT thresholds in recent years. The thresholds have been increased to the extent allowable by the available resources. In Budget 2019, the Group A threshold which applies primarily to gifts and inheritances from parents to their children was increased from €310,000 to €320,000 and again to €335,000 in Budget 2020.
There are also a number of important reliefs and exemptions available from CAT.
Agricultural Relief is available for agricultural land. Farmers, subject to meeting the relevant criteria, can avail of a 90% relief on the value of agricultural land so that the gift or inheritance tax is calculated on an amount - known as the 'agricultural value' - which is substantially less than the market value.
A similar relief is available in respect of certain businesses whereby a 90% reduction in respect of the taxable value of relevant business property can be applied when calculating CAT, provided the relevant criteria of the relief are met.
The Deputy asks, in particular, if I will consider increasing inheritance tax thresholds given the increase in house prices. In this regard, I would like to draw the Deputy’s attention to the Dwelling House Exemption.
This important exemption allows someone to inherit a property without paying CAT provided they meet the eligibility criteria set out in legislation. The principal criteria include that the person receiving the inheritance lived in the house for three years immediately prior to the date of the inheritance, that they do not have an interest in any other house and that the house remains their primary home for six years following the inheritance. The application of the Dwelling House Exemption will vary depending on the circumstances of each individual and further information is available on Revenue’s website.
The Deputy should be aware that there would be a significant cost in making further substantial changes to the CAT thresholds. Recent Revenue estimates put the full cost of increasing the CAT Group A threshold from its current €335,000 to €400,000, for example, at approximately €52 million.
The options available for setting CAT thresholds must be balanced against competing demands, and as part of the annual Budget and Finance Bill process.
186. Deputy Fergus O'Dowd asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 434 of 11 September 2023, if he can clarify if bonuses are permitted for semi-State companies (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41429/23]
View answerRemuneration, including discretionary performance related payments, are matters for the Board of Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland (SBCI) in accordance with its commercial mandate. The SBCI advise that discretionary performance related payments are intended to reward exceptional performance, having regard to the individual’s own performance and the overall performance of the SBCI.
The payment of performance related pay to the Chief Executive Officer of the SBCI, is a matter determined by the SBCI Remuneration Committee, a sub-committee of the SBCI Board.
The SBCI has informed me that this decision was made in conjunction with the SBCI Board following an annual review and discussion with the Board in relation to performance.
189. Deputy Paul Kehoe asked the Minister for Finance if there are any circumstances by which a rebate of capital gains tax is available (details supplied) when not eligible for farm restructuring relief; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41440/23]
View answerIn general, capital gains tax (CGT) is chargeable on a gain arising on the disposal of an asset, including agricultural land, at the rate of 33%. The first €1,270 of chargeable gains of an individual in any year are exempt from CGT.
Section 604B of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 provides relief from CGT in respect of gains arising on transactions undertaken to achieve farm restructuring. The relief apples to a sale, purchase or exchange of agricultural land in the period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2025, where Teagasc has certified that the sale, purchase or exchange of agricultural land was made for farm restructuring purposes.
The initial sale or purchase, or the exchange, must occur in the period outlined above and the subsequent sale or purchase must occur within 24 months of that initial sale or purchase. Full relief from CGT will be given where the consideration for the purchase or exchange of agricultural land is equal to or exceeds the consideration for the sale or the other land that is exchanged. Where the consideration for the purchase or exchange is less than the consideration for the land that is sold or the other land that is exchanged, relief will be given in the same proportion that the consideration for the land that is purchased or exchanged bears to the consideration for the land that is sold or the other land that is exchanged.
A prerequisite to any disposal and acquisition of agricultural land qualifying for this relief is that an application for a farm restructuring certificate is made to Teagasc; that Teagasc grants such a certificate and that the certificate has not been withdrawn. A farm restructuring certificate will not be issued where the subsequent sale or purchase of agricultural land takes place more than 24 months after the initial sale or purchase of such land.
While the availability of the relief depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, the relief does not apply to agricultural land where Teagasc has not issued a farm restructuring certificate. Further information regarding farm restructuring relief is available on the Revenue website at: revenue.ie/en/gains-gifts-and-inheritance/cgt-reliefs/farm-restructuring-relief.aspx.
192. Deputy Joe McHugh asked the Minister for Finance to confirm that the Central Bank was kept abreast of the previous Mica redress scheme (Statutory Instrument - €2.3 billion) and the current Mica redress scheme (legislative - €3 billion) at all times; whether he will confirm that if, once the remedial option, as prescribed by the Housing Agency, is agreed, all remediated homes will be fully mortgageable; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41559/23]
View answerThe various statutory instruments in relation to dwellings damaged by the use of defective concrete blocks were put in place by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, where necessary with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform.
In relation to the valuation of property for residential mortgage lending purposes by Central Bank regulated entities, the European Union (Consumer Mortgage Credit Agreements) Regulations 2016 provides that lenders are required to use reliable standards when carrying out a property valuation of a residential immovable property for credit purposes.
Such as those developed by the International Valuation Standards Council, the European Group of Valuers’ Associations or the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Or take reasonable steps to ensure that reliable standards are applied where a valuation is conducted by a third party.
The Regulations also require lenders to ensure that internal and external appraisers conducting property valuations are professionally competent and sufficiently independent from the credit underwriting process so that they can provide an impartial and objective valuation, which shall be documented in a durable medium and of which a record shall be kept by the creditor.
In addition, the Central Bank mortgage lending regulations apply certain loan-to-value (and loan-to-income) requirements on residential mortgage lending by regulated institutions, but lenders also have a limited flexibility at their own discretion to provide to provide some mortgage lending in excess of these thresholds.
Within this regulatory framework, decisions on credit applications and the collateral which is accepted for residential lending purposes is a business matter for individual regulated lenders.
Policy on residential mortgage lending by local authorities, and the collateral which is acceptable in relation to such lending, is a matter for the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage.
193. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Finance the number of Bills prepared by his Department in the 33rd Dáil to date; the number and title of those Bills that included a Regulatory Impact Assessment; the title of the RIAs published by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41589/23]
View answerNineteen Bills have been published since 27 June 2020 which were sponsored by the Minister for Finance. Regulatory Impact Assessments (“RIAs”) were published on the Department’s website in respect of five of those Bills. RIAs and screening RIAs were also prepared in respect of a number of the Bills, and circulated to cabinet members along with the Memorandum for Government.
Please see attached table listing those Bills and setting out details in relation to accompanying RIAs.
Bills sponsored by the Minister for Finance published since June 2020
|
No. |
Act / Bill |
Date of publication |
Title of published Regulatory Impact Assessment |
Other information |
|
1. Financial Provisions (Covid-19) Act 2020 |
8 July 2020 |
- |
See Note One |
|
|
2. Financial Provisions (Covid-19) (No. 2) Act 2020 |
23 July 2020 |
- |
See Note One |
|
|
3. Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 |
18 November 2020 |
- |
Screening RIA was circulated with the Memo for Government |
|
|
4. Finance Act 2020 |
20 October 2020 |
- |
See Note One |
|
|
5. Investment Limited Partnerships (Amendment) Act 2020 |
17 September 2020 |
- |
Screening RIA was circulated with the Memo to Government |
|
|
6. Finance (Covid-19 and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 |
22 June 2021 |
- |
See Note One |
|
|
7. Finance (Local Property Tax) (Amendment) Act 2021 |
7 July 2021 |
Finance (Local Property Tax) (Amendment) Bill 2021 Regulatory Impact Analysis 28 May 2021 |
Published on the Department’s website |
|
|
8. Finance (European Stability Mechanism and Single Resolution Fund) Act 2021 |
1 September 2021 |
- |
As no regulatory impacts arose from this legislation, it was not necessary to conduct an RIA |
|
|
9. Finance Act 2021 |
21 October 2021 |
- |
See Note One |
|
|
10. Consumer Protection (Regulation of Retail Credit and Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2022 |
6 July 2021 |
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in relation to the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Retail Credit and Credit Servicing Firms Bill) 2021 June 2021 |
Published on the Department’s website |
|
|
11. Finance (Covid-19 and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 |
4 March 2022 |
- |
See Note One |
|
|
12. Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2022 |
1 April 2022 |
Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2021 Regulatory Impact Analysis October 2021 |
Published on the Department’s website |
|
|
13. Consumer Credit (Amendment) Act 2022 |
7 March 2022 |
Consumer Credit (Amendment) Bill 2021 Regulatory Impact Assessment 6 July 2021 |
Published on the Department’s website |
|
|
14. Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Act 2022 |
14 March 2022 |
- |
RIA was circulated with the Memo to Government |
|
|
15. Finance Act 2022 |
18 October 2022 |
- |
See Note One |
|
|
16. Credit Unions (Amendment) Bill 2022 (No. 112 of 2022) |
30 November 2022 |
- |
RIA was circulated with the Memo for Government |
|
|
17. Central Bank (Individual Accountability Framework) Act 2023 |
28 July 2022 |
Central Bank (Individual Accountability Framework) Bill - Regulatory Impact Analysis June 2022 |
Published on the Department’s website |
|
|
18. Finance Act 2023 |
9 March 2023 |
- |
See Note One |
|
|
19. Finance (State Guarantees, International Financial Institution Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2023 (No. 66 of 2023) |
18 September 2023 |
- |
No formal RIA was conducted in light of the necessity to develop this Bill quickly. However, no impacts were identified for Jobs, North-South, East-West Relations, Gender Equality, Poverty Proofing, Competitiveness & Industry Costs, Rural Communities, Quality Regulation, People with Disabilities. |
194. Deputy Ivana Bacik asked the Minister for Finance the number of renters who have claimed the renters tax credit. [41618/23]
View answerThe Rent Tax Credit, as provided for in section 473B of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (TCA 1997), was introduced by Finance Act 2022 and may be claimed in respect of qualifying rent paid in 2022 and subsequent years to end-2025.
Claims in respect of the 2022 year of assessment can be made by PAYE taxpayers by submitting an Income Tax return for that year. For claims relating to 2023, PAYE taxpayers have the option of claiming the rent tax credit due to them either as rent is incurred or at the end of the year through their Income Tax return.
The Rent Tax Credit statistics currently available refer only to claims by PAYE taxpayers for the 2022 tax year and the 2023 tax year to-date. Data on claims by self-assessed taxpayers is not yet available as these taxpayers’ returns are generally submitted later in the year. The statutory filing date for the 2022 tax return for self-assessed taxpayers is 31 October 2023.
Rent Tax Credit claims made are on a ‘taxpayer unit’ basis. A taxpayer unit is either an individual with any personal status who is singly assessed or a couple in a marriage or civil partnership who have elected for joint assessment.
I am advised by Revenue that as of 13 September 2023, over 286,419 Rent Tax Credit claims have been made by 252,317 taxpayer units consisting of:
(i) 202,982 taxpayer units that made claims for 2022 only,
(ii) 34,102 taxpayer units that made claims for both 2022 and 2023,
(iii) 15,233 taxpayer units that made claims for 2023 only.
