Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Select Sub-Committee on Finance díospóireacht -
Thursday, 19 Sep 2013

Taxation Agreements with Ukraine and Dominica: Motion

The purpose of today's meeting is to consider the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income and Capital Gains) (Ukraine) Order 2013 and the Exchange of Information Relating to Taxes and Tax Matters (Dominica) Order 2013. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Brian Hayes, and his officials, to this meeting and thank them for assisting our consideration of the motions. Briefing notes have been provided by the Department of Finance.

If we can adhere to a strict schedule, the Minister of State will address the committee, after which each Opposition spokesperson can respond. We can then have an open discussion. Is that agreed? Agreed. I call on the Minister of State to address the committee.

I am pleased to introduce to the committee a draft Government order giving force of law to a new double taxation agreement with Ukraine and a draft Government order giving force of law to a tax information exchange agreement with Dominica. Double taxation agreements are widely regarded as critical pieces of fiscal infrastructure for developing substantial bilateral trading and investment opportunities by reducing tax impediments that might otherwise deter such cross-border activity. For a small open economy like Ireland that is so dependent on trade and investment with other countries, continuing to expand our network of international tax agreements is not only necessary but vital. Double taxation agreements facilitate trade and investment by providing greater certainty to taxpayers regarding their potential liability to tax in the foreign jurisdiction; by allocating taxing rights between the two jurisdictions in order that the taxpayer is not subject to double taxation; by reducing the risk of excessive taxation that may arise because of high withholding taxes; and by ensuring taxpayers are not subject to discriminatory taxation in the foreign jurisdiction.

Double taxation agreements provide benefits to both taxpayers and governments by setting out clear rules that will govern tax matters relating to cross-border trade and investment. Tax treaties ensure predictability and fairness in the tax treatment of taxpayers and spell out clearly defined provisions that facilitate companies investing and doing business overseas. This is achieved by allocating exclusive taxing rights to one country, or where both countries retain taxing rights, by requiring the country where the taxpayer is resident to grant credit against its tax for the tax paid in the other country.

Double taxation agreements cover direct taxes, which in the case of Ireland are income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. They are comprehensive in scope, covering both the taxation of companies and individuals and are in the main based on the OECD model tax convention.

Apart from relieving double taxation, double taxation agreements also include provisions dealing with non-discrimination in relation to taxation matters. They also have mutual agreement procedures which allow the tax authorities of both countries to consult each other in taxation matters affecting the agreement and provisions that allow for the exchange of information for the purpose of preventing tax evasion.

Ireland’s tax treaty network compares very favourably with the networks of other larger OECD countries and now includes most of the world’s major economies, accounting in aggregate for more than 80% of world GDP. The Irish treaty network has grown significantly in the past three years. We have signed comprehensive double taxation agreements with 69 countries, of which 64 are in effect. Negotiations for a new agreement with Thailand have concluded and should be signed shortly. The Minister for Finance and I will be ensuring we continue to prioritise the further expansion of our tax treaty network over the coming months as a central element of our integrated strategy for an export-led sustainable economic recovery for Ireland.

I assure members that the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners will continue to liaise with business representative bodies in identifying other countries where tax agreements would assist Irish business. Of course, despite our best efforts, there are some key jurisdictions that we have yet to secure and we will continue all diplomatic efforts to bring these countries to the negotiating table.

I will now deal with tax information exchange agreements. Tax information exchange agreements, while serving a different purpose, are also important international agreements which strengthen the ability of the revenue authorities in both countries to enforce their tax laws and thereby encourage the development of closer economic relations between both countries in the future. We have concluded tax information exchange agreements with 22 jurisdictions, 17 of which are in effect. All of these are based on the OECD model TIEA. The model TIEA grew out of the work undertaken by the OECD to address harmful tax practices globally. The OECD model TIEA represents the international standard for effective exchange of information in tax matters. There has been a significant acceleration of the process of signing TIEAs between OECD countries and offshore jurisdictions over the past couple of years, mainly stemming from a threat by the G20 to blacklist jurisdictions that do not conclude at least 12 information exchange agreements.

The TIEAs will allow the Revenue Commissioners to directly request from foreign tax authorities information that is relevant to an Irish tax investigation, such as bank account information or company or trust ownership information. The agreements will greatly assist the Revenue Commissioners in tax investigations involving entities and bank accounts located in these jurisdictions.

Today’s consideration by the committee of these international agreements is an important step in their ratification process. Draft Government orders confirming and giving effect in Ireland to the agreements were laid before Dáil Éireann on 12 September 2013, in accordance with the provisions of section 826 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. A resolution by Dáil Éireann approving the draft orders is required before the Government can make the orders. The proposal that Dáil Éireann approve the draft orders has been referred to this committee for its consideration. After consideration by the committee the draft orders will be referred back to the Dáil for approval, after which the Government may make the orders and the agreements will then be included in a Schedule to the Tax Acts by means of a section in the forthcoming Finance Bill. Thereupon, the Irish ratification procedures are completed. In the case of the bilateral agreements, as soon as both countries have completed their procedures, the agreements will take effect in accordance with their entry into force provisions.

I commend these draft orders to the committee and, if required, I will be happy to deal with any questions from members.

I thank the Minister of State for attending the committee. He will note there is great interest in this subject. What has prompted the agreement with Dominica at this time? I ask the Minister of State to explain the background to this agreement. It is State policy to have as many double taxation arrangements as possible but I query why this agreement has been arranged now and the events which prompted it.

At any given time a number of these agreements are in the pipeline, so to speak. The key issue is getting them over the line. Ireland undertakes diplomatic negotiations with other states. The reason for the agreement being finalised at this time is because Dominica is ready to sign the agreement, as is Ireland. The agreement must be brought before the Dáil and a relevant section is then included in the Finance Bill. To achieve effective implementation of these agreements, they must be included in the Finance Bill, which will be brought forward soon.

Which state, Ireland or Dominica, was more eager to achieve this agreement?

Both of us were happy to achieve the agreement at this time. Dominica does not have the same network of TIEAs in place as has Ireland. There is now more pressure from the OECD and from world organisations to have these agreements in place. I suspect the pressure was more from the other side than from us.

The committee is dealing with the issue of corporation tax and countries which would have been deemed to be tax havens at one time but are no longer so because of the OECD criteria. Exchange of information is one of the aspects of efforts to avoid the definition of a tax haven. It was put to the committee that some of these areas have participated in what would be in reality cosmetic exchanges of information between themselves so that the tax havens are all exchanging information between themselves to fit the criteria.

This leads to my second question about the exchange of information. The type of double taxation agreement, TIEA, is probably the weakest of the three.

Of the 64 double taxation agreements that are in effect, will the Minister of State indicate how many are tax information exchange agreements, spontaneous agreements and automatic exchanges of information, respectively?

There are 69 double taxation treaties in place and 22 TIEAs, which are separate. The Deputy is right in saying there is a gradation among the three types of agreement, the lowest being the TIEAs. The latter deal with specific information that is sought from time to time whereas double taxation agreements are more comprehensive. It is important to note, in light of recent commentary both internationally and at home, that we are beginning to move to a new process of automatic exchange of information, similar to what the United States has been putting in place by way of its Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, FATCA, which I spoke to the finance committee about some months ago. I had the opportunity to meet the Secretary General of the OECD, Mr. Angel Gurría, in Vilnius last week when he gave a presentation to the ECOFIN meeting. The direction in which the G20 and OECD are moving on this issue is clear.

The main benefit of automatic exchange agreements is that rather than merely an arrangement where either tax authority will respond to a specific query that the other might have, there is instead a direct and automatic exchange of all relevant information between individuals and companies, such as, for example, between the United States Internal Revenue Service and our Revenue Commissioners and vice versa. However, I accept the Deputy's point that TIEAs are the lowest rung of the ladder when it comes to the exchange of taxation information.

Yes, we all acknowledge that automatic exchange is the best way forward and TIEAs have huge deficiencies. In the case of the latter, one must ask the right question and specify the correct information. If we are moving in the direction of automatic information exchange, as the Minister of State indicated, why then is a TIEA with Dominica being brought forward? Is it the case that we tried for an automatic arrangement with that country and were refused?

In all cases we attempt to obtain a double taxation agreement. We have 69 such treaties in place, as I said, and have given a commitment to the OECD to ramp that number up significantly. If securing a DTA is not possible, whether because of concerns on the part of the other country or whatever, a tax information exchange agreement is the next option.

We should bear in mind that these are bilateral arrangements which require two parties to come to the table. It is quite often the case, for instance, that negotiations will commence but not conclude, which is a real problem in the case of our engagement with certain emerging economies. I have made that point to the finance committee in the past. There are countries in South America, in particular, with which we would like to secure an agreement but, for all types of reasons, we have not yet managed to bring discussions to a conclusion. It is not a case of our seeking to secure the most minimal agreement. On the contrary, we always seek to achieve the most extensive agreement possible, but whether that is possible is effectively a matter for the third country to decide.

It makes sense that the State would generally seek the most extensive agreement possible. Is it the case then that an automatic exchange agreement with Dominica was sought but was not forthcoming and we have therefore entered into a TIEA, which is weaker but far better than what was there heretofore?

No, that is not really a fair representation of the situation. It is important to bear in mind that this is the first bilateral tax information agreement of any sort that we have had with Dominica. It is not a question of that country being unable to agree a DTA with us. The logical outcome probably would be a DTA, but the reality is that DTAs often come about largely as a consequence of pressure from businesses which are doing substantial business in a third country and wish to avail of the benefits of a double taxation agreement with it. If there is a market for a DTA, it will be agreed.

I am a little confused. We have established that the TIEA is the weakest rung on the ladder of the three forms of taxation information exchange, the spontaneous arrangement being in the middle and automatic exchange of information being generally the preferred option, including for this State. The question then naturally arises as to whether the Government sought in its negotiations with Dominica to institute an automatic exchange of information agreement.

I am not certain whether that was the case. I will find out and get back to the Deputy.

That is fine. I recognise that this is a two-way process and a very positive step forward in regard to the exchange of information, limited as the TIEA is in its effect. I agree that in all such negotiations we should be looking for automatic exchange of information.

I have two further questions. The Minister of State indicated that 69 double taxation agreements have been concluded, five of which are not yet in effect. Will he name the five countries in question and indicate why our agreements with them are not in effect?

Article 7 of the agreement with Dominica refers to the possibility of declining a request. In fact, it provides a great deal of wriggle room in terms of the broad range of grounds on which a requested party may refuse to provide information. Is this article a standard provision? Is it replicated word for word in the other 22 TIEAs?

Yes, that particular provision is standard.

The five countries in respect of which a DTA has been agreed but not implemented are Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Azerbaijan and Ukraine, the last of which we are dealing with today. In the case of Kuwait, we completed our ratification procedure on 6 February 2011 but it has not yet done the same. Such agreements can only come into effect when both parties complete the necessary ratification process. In the case of Qatar and Egypt, we completed our ratification process in March of this year and are awaiting their corresponding action. When that is done, these agreements will come into effect. The parliamentary or administrative procedure in terms of ratifying what is agreed is a matter for each particular country.

I thank the Minister of State.

In recent days we have been discussing base erosion and profit shifting, which has some relevance to our discussion this morning. Is Dominica seen as one of those places like the British Virgin Islands, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, to which some companies choose to shift their profits?

I understand Dominica is a member of the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, which has a very direct connection to the OECD and has the power to carry out peer reviews on each of its members. I am aware of a review that was done on Ireland in 2010 and reported in 2011. On that occasion we obtained a compliant standard, which is the highest. As a consequence of its membership of the forum, Dominica is now open for peer review. It is not, however, a member of the OECD.

The Minister of State indicated that there has been significant activity in this area in recent years. Of the 22 TIEAs and 69 double taxation agreements in place, how many were progressed or agreed in the past three to four years?

I understand ten TIEAs have been agreed in the past three years and a similar number of DTAs. As I said, there has been a radical ramping up of the number of DTAs, largely as a consequence of the OECD requirement in this regard. I will get back to the Chairman with specific information.

Thank you, Minister.

I welcome the Minister of State and his officials. I commend the latter and their colleagues in the Revenue Commissioners on their continuing success in negotiating double taxation agreements and tax information exchange agreements with third-party countries.

In regard to DTAs, I understand they are based on the OECD model. Are they generally of a pro forma nature or are they usually bespoke and tailored to individual countries? Will the Minister of State comment on the nature of our dealings with countries with which we have not agreed either a DTA or TIEA? If issues arise, as they can do, in terms of the need for information exchange, what is the procedure in such cases? Is it done by mutual agreement and can a country simply refuse or stonewall a request by the Irish authorities for information?

I apologise if the Minister of State has supplied this information but perhaps he might outline the scale of trade between Ireland and Ukraine and Dominica. In the context of countries with which we have yet to put in place TIEAs or DTAs, will the Minister of State indicate where our priorities lie? With which countries are we actively working to conclude agreements, particularly in light of our level of trade with them?

DTAs are specifically tailored to every agreement. As a result, not all agreements are the same. There is a minimum standard which is set by the OECD and it is then a matter for each country to negotiate around that. This is obviously one of the reasons it takes longer for us to conclude these negotiations, particularly if other countries are seeking considerations which may not be contained in other agreements. If we do not have a DTA, a TIEA or a FATCA, what do we have and can we, as the Deputy quite correctly inquired, provide information? My understanding is that if there is no legal basis, we cannot exchange information.

Is that the case even if there is agreement between both countries involved?

Yes. There is a Council of Europe agreement on this but I do not believe that has been tested in the courts in the context of whether what we are discussing can happen. Tax authorities and governments in many countries regard this as an important issue. That said, I understand there is no legal basis for it. That is one of the reasons the OECD has been, quite rightly, exerting pressure on countries to conclude these agreements.

Our trade with Ukraine amounts to €70 million, which is not a colossal amount. I visited Ukraine to sign the agreement and deal with a number of issues which are the subject of several reports in today's newspapers. While there, I was struck by the low level of trade between our two countries. There are enormous opportunities for trade between Ireland and Ukraine. The latter was part of the old Soviet Union and its economy is rapidly improving. It is an emerging economy in the eastern part of Europe with which we must have very strong bilateral relations. During our discussions, Minister Kolobov and I came to the conclusion that we have a great deal in common and that we need to increase trade with each other. Having a double taxation agreement in place will provide a safety net for our business people who are operating there and vice versa. The figure for trade with Dominica is €115,000. There is big room for improvement in this regard.

On the Deputy's final question, the countries with which we are prioritising our work in the context of concluding agreements are Tunisia, Jordan and Azerbaijan. Negotiations with these states are at various stages. We hope to return to the committee shortly when an agreement is reached with Thailand. I understand it is planned to initiate negotiations for new agreements with other countries in the latter part of this year and into next year. This will be done in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Approaches have also been made to countries in South America, Africa and Asia, including the Far East.

I suspect that the level of trade relating to double taxation agreements is quite high.

As stated earlier, it accounts for approximately 80% of the world's GDP. We have agreements in place with all our key markets.

Does the Minister of State engage in much interaction with his British counterparts in respect of these taxation agreements? This matter has cropped up to a fair degree during our deliberations on base erosion and profit shifting in the context of UK protectorates such as the British Virgin Islands.

We do not engage in direct discussions because that is obviously an issue for the British authorities. The Vice Chairman will be aware, however, of a very substantial statement issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time ago in which he indicated his intention to seek new agreements with those islands which have a connection with Britain. The Vice Chairman is right to highlight the practices which exist in those territories. The British have taken a very strong view on this matter, particularly in terms of their involvement with the G20. The focus at the G20 meeting in Fermanagh earlier in the year was very strongly on this question, and quite rightly so. Budgets are tight for all countries, and regardless of whether one's state is inside or outside a programme, we must find a way to arrive at a taxation regime which captures the new reality of the digital economy. As I stated in Vilnius last week, that will require a new gold standard which must be agreed by the OECD and internationally. The British are moving on this matter.

I thank the Minister of State and his officials for attending.

Barr
Roinn