Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Tuesday, 15 Jul 2014

Written Answers Nos. 190-216

NAMA Court Cases

Ceisteanna (191)

Stephen Donnelly

Ceist:

191. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance to explain the reason three cases initiated at the High Court on 20 December 2013 by the National Asset Management Agency against a person (details supplied) and others were not included in the list of litigation produced in the National Asset Management Agency management report and accounts for quarter four, 2013, which were published in June 2014; if he will confirm the matters these three cases involve; if judgments were secured, the quantum of judgments sought; if any other cases have been omitted, the reason for any omissions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31073/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I am advised by NAMA that the cases referenced by the Deputy were inadvertently omitted from Q4/2013 s.55 report. NAMA advises that the cases relate to a debtor connection which is managed on NAMA's behalf by a Participating Institution (PI) and where the cases were initiated by that PI, under delegation from NAMA. The detail sought by the Deputy on the cases is set out as follows:

Title

Parties to the proceedings

Relief sought by NAMA or NAMA group entity

High Court Record No. 2013/4425S                     

MICHAEL BARKER, MARK BUTLER,  EUGENE MCMANEMY, JOSEPH DELANEY, EDWARD O'TOOLE, JOHN KINGSTON AND EDMUND JENNINGS                  

Order for Judgement for €19,546,374.65

High Court Record No. 2013/4426S                     

MICHAEL BARKER, CONOR O'BRIEN, JOSEPH HANNON, JOHN LENIHAN AND MARTIN FITZPATRICK

Order for Judgement for €1,256.649.16

High Court Record No. 2013/4427S                     

MICHAEL BARKER, TOM O'REGAN, DANIEL MCKEOGH AND JOE HYNES

Order for Judgement for €6,750,243.31

I am assured that NAMA has reinforced the mechanisms in place to ensure that all PI-managed legal cases are reported in accordance with the s.55 requirement.

NAMA Property Sales

Ceisteanna (192)

Stephen Donnelly

Ceist:

192. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance further to the recent sale by Northwood Investors of 1 Warrington Place in Dublin for €43 million following its purchase from a National Asset Management Agency developer for €27 million in April 2012, if he has concerns that NAMA's timing of its decision to sell the property was the correct decision in view of the €16 million of profit at Northwood which NAMA has forgone. [31074/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

The transaction that the Deputy refers to was conducted in entirely different market conditions to those which prevail currently.   As the Deputy will recall, there was very little transactional activity and no international investment in the Irish commercial real estate market at that time.   NAMA's decision to place the asset on the market was, in part, motivated by the need to generate activity and, in part, to facilitate price discovery. The price achieved by NAMA was the best price achievable given market conditions at the time.  Moreover, the transaction proved to be important in helping to bring about greater price discovery and it has since proven to have been a significant catalyst for the market's subsequent recovery.  The availability of NAMA vendor finance was a particularly important and innovative feature of the transaction and was a major factor in attracting international interest in the transaction.  I am advised that, for the ultimate buyer, Northwood, the transaction represented only its second ever investment outside the US.  International interest in the Irish market has since expanded significantly and has been an important feature of the market's recovery.

The Deputy will know that in the period between 2010 and mid-2013, NAMA concentrated its sales activity in Britain, particularly in London, because of the liquidity and demand in that market and because it did not consider it prudent to overload a fragile Irish market in which prices had not yet stabilised. NAMA resisted pressure to release large volumes of assets to the Irish market over that period because of the absence of demand and the very real risk of exacerbating the market's decline. That strategy has been justified by the recent recovery in the Irish market, a recovery that is enabling NAMA to increase the flow of assets to the market, with €2.5bn sold by NAMA in first 6 months of 2014, and to achieve much better pricing than could have been achieved over the 2010-2013 period.

NAMA Expenditure

Ceisteanna (193)

Stephen Donnelly

Ceist:

193. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance if he will provide an update on the €20 million investment being made by the National Asset Management Agency in an extension to the Scotch Hall shopping centre in Drogheda, County Louth; the number of jobs that will be created or maintained by the investment; whether that investment has been delayed or cancelled in view of the fact that no new works have commenced on the site, despite expectations that works would have commenced at the start of 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31075/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I am advised by NAMA that its position in this matter is set out on page 29 of its Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2012.  NAMA advises that it would be inappropriate to comment in any further detail given that this is a commercial matter between it and its debtor.

NAMA Property Sales

Ceisteanna (194)

Stephen Donnelly

Ceist:

194. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance further to the recent sale by Northwood Investors of 1 Warrington Place in Dublin for €43 million following its purchase from a National Asset Management Agency developer for €27 million in April 2012, if Northwood Investors has now repaid its vendor finance to NAMA; and the amount vendor finance NAMA now has available to offer potential buyers of its assets. [31076/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

NAMA is precluded by law under s99 and s202 of the NAMA Act and by the normal rules of banking confidentiality from disclosing confidential financial information relating to its debtors.  Detail on NAMA vendor finance is provided on page 21 of NAMA's Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2013.  That Report is available on the NAMA website, www.nama.ie.

NAMA Loans Sale

Ceisteanna (195)

Stephen Donnelly

Ceist:

195. Deputy Stephen S. Donnelly asked the Minister for Finance further to the recent appointment by Beltany Property Finance Limited of receivers to certain unspecified assets of the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Assurance Company Limited and further to the acquisition by Beltany of loans from the special liquidators of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation in March 2014 if he will outline the circumstances in which this receivership appointment occurred; the reason there was default on a loan by a company in the IBRC group; the asset that is the subject of the receivership; and if any similar appointments of receivers are expected to assets which are currently controlled by the IBRC group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31077/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I have been advised by the Special Liquidators that they will not be commenting on individual cases and that they cannot comment on the assets of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Assurance Company Limited as this is a separate regulated entity that is outside of the control of the Special Liquidators.

Tax Reliefs Application

Ceisteanna (196)

Seán Fleming

Ceist:

196. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Finance if persons with a taxable income receive a tax rebate in respect of gluten-free bread, which they require for medical purposes, whereas the diet supplement, which included payments for these items, administered by another Department has been withdrawn, even though the supplement was generally availed of by persons with no taxable income, following a review of the costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31078/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

Section 469 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 provides for relief in respect of qualifying expenses incurred in the provision of health care in a tax year against the tax paid by an individual for that year.  Health care is defined as the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation or treatment of an ailment, injury, infirmity, defect or disability, and includes care received by a woman in respect of a pregnancy.

A person may claim tax relief at the standard rate on the cost of gluten-free foods which have been manufactured specifically for coeliacs and where the products are used in the treatment or alleviation of that condition on the advice of a medical practitioner.  Evidence of such advice should be retained.

Claims for relief can be submitted to the Revenue Commissioners by completing form Med 1 or by making a claim using the PAYE anytime service on the Revenue Commissioners website at www.revenue.ie.

Further information in relation to tax relief for medical expenses is set out in leaflet IT6 which is available on the Revenue Commissioners website at http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it6.html.

National Debt

Ceisteanna (197)

Seán Fleming

Ceist:

197. Deputy Sean Fleming asked the Minister for Finance to outline the amount by which the national debt was reduced as a result arising from the establishment of Irish Water and the transfer of the debts associated with water services to this new entity; the savings expected on an annual basis in terms of interest on the national debt arising from this; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31105/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

One the key benefits of establishing Irish Water as a commercial utility is that it will be able to access capital markets to raise the funds needed to tackle infrastructure deficit in water services infrastructure in a timely manner.  So, in the future, the borrowings of Irish Water will not affect the national or general government debt.  To access capital markets, Irish Water needs to have creditability in terms of collateral and capacity to service its debt.

Work is currently ongoing to ascertain the value of water related debt in Local Authorities. The Water Services (No. 2) Act 2013 provides for the transfer by an Order made by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government of liabilities from local authorities to Irish Water. It is anticipated that this will be effected later in the year based on the financial positions as outlined in the local authority Annual Financial Statements.

Banking Sector Regulation

Ceisteanna (198)

Dominic Hannigan

Ceist:

198. Deputy Dominic Hannigan asked the Minister for Finance if he has had any communication with a company (details supplied) regarding its purchase of a loan book from Friends First and its ability to honour loan agreements in place between Friends First and its borrowers prior to the loan book being sold; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31144/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I can confirm to the Deputy that I have had no communications with the company mentioned by him. 

Friends First Finance Limited is authorised under Section 31 of the Central Bank Act, 1997 (as amended) to operate as a retail credit firm.

As a regulated financial entity, it must comply with the Central Bank's Consumer Protection Code 2012.  In this context, the Code  requires that, where a regulated entity intends to cease operating, merge with another, or to transfer all or part of its regulated activities to another regulated entity it must:

- notify the Central Bank immediately;

- provide at least two months' notice to affected consumers to enable them to make alternative arrangements;

- ensure all outstanding business is properly completed prior to the transfer, merger or cessation of operations or, alternatively in the case of a transfer or merger, inform the consumer of how continuity of service will be provided following the transfer or merger; and

- in the case of a merger or transfer of regulated activities, inform the consumer that their details are being transferred to the other regulated entity, if that is the case.

The Deputy will be aware that the Government intends to bring forward legislation to ensure that, where a regulated financial entity sells its loan book to an unregulated entity, the protections afforded under the Central Bank codes will continue to apply. My officials are working with the Office of the Attorney General and the Central Bank on the draft  'Consumer Protection on the Sale of Loan Books Bill'.

Tax Reliefs Cost

Ceisteanna (199)

Kevin Humphreys

Ceist:

199. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for Finance to outline the cost of the foreign earnings deduction in each year since its introduction; if he will provide a breakdown of the deduction by country visited and the number of persons that have claimed this relief in each year; to outline his plans to reform, restrict or extend the FED; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31158/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that in the time available, having regard to the volume of questions received this week, Revenue are not in a position to provide the information sought in relation to the Foreign Earnings Deduction (FED). However, I will arrange for the information to be supplied directly to the Deputy.

As the Deputy may be aware, the FED is currently being reviewed by my Department in consultation with the Revenue Commissioners. A Public Consultation was recently carried out seeking submissions from interested parties on the FED and its operation, views on whether the scheme should be extended or not and suggestions for improvement should the scheme be extended. Those submissions are currently being examined as part of the overall review of the scheme. When the review is completed, I will consider the matter in the context of the forthcoming Budget and Finance Bill.

Tax Reliefs Application

Ceisteanna (200)

Kevin Humphreys

Ceist:

200. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for Finance to outline the yield in each year since 2011 following the changes to the tax treatment of gains arising from various types of share schemes; if he will provide a breakdown by tax type yield; the taxes that apply; the types of schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31159/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

Share schemes fall into two broad categories, including schemes in which the employee or director is given an option to acquire shares (at no cost or at a pre-set price) at some future date and schemes which involve the granting of shares to an employee or director as remuneration.

In relation to share options, the gain realised through the exercise of the option continues to be liable to income tax under the self assessing system. In addition, since 2011, these gains are liable to USC and an employee PRSI contribution.

The individual is responsible for paying over the income tax, USC and PRSI on these gains to the Collector-General. Since 2011 this payment must be made within 30 days of the options being exercised under the Relevant Tax on Share Options (RTSO) provisions, rather than, as previously, on the later pay and file date.

The RTSO yield for each year is

YEAR

YIELD

2011

€60m

2012

€77m

2013

€86m

2014

€60m (estimated).

The breakdown of this yield in respect of income tax, USC and PRSI is estimated as

TAX TYPE

BREAKDOWN

Income tax  

79%

PRSI

8%

USC

13%                

Remuneration given by way of shares is also liable to income tax, USC and the employee PRSI contribution.  Since 2011 this is collected under the PAYE system. As the amounts of income tax, USC and employee PRSI are not shown separately on the PAYE end of year returns, it is not possible to give the yield arising on such remuneration.

Tax Reliefs Cost

Ceisteanna (201)

Kevin Humphreys

Ceist:

201. Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for Finance to outline the projected costs to the Exchequer on an annual basis since 2011 of the tax exemption on approved profit-sharing schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31160/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that in 2011, the latest year for which figures are available, the estimated cost to the Exchequer of tax relief on Approved Profit Sharing Schemes was €25m.

Excise Duties Yield

Ceisteanna (202)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

202. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by increasing the price of cigarettes by 10 cent and 20 cent, respectively, as well as proportionately across other tobaccos products. [31218/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the estimated yield that could be raised in a full year and partial year (with effect from 15 October) from the proposed Excise increases mentioned by the Deputy are as set out in the following table.

-

-

Estimated Yield *

€m

Partial Year

10 cent

2.0

 

20 cent

4.0

Full Year

10 cent

12.8

 

20 cent

25.4

 *Assuming no behavioural change by smokers.

These estimates are based on the assumption of no exceptional change in behaviour by smokers following the increase in prices. This assumption may not hold where smokers substitute non-Irish duty paid consumption for duty paid consumption. For example, smokers might divert their consumption to tobacco products bought legally in another EU Member State or to illicit products.

Excise Duties Yield

Ceisteanna (203)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

203. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by introducing a tax on e-cigarettes and liquid nicotine by 1 cent, 2 cent, 3 cent, 5 cent, 10 cent, 15 cent and 20 cent, respectively. [31219/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

EU Tobacco Products Tax Directive (2011/64/EU) does not provide for e-cigarettes or nicotine refill containers and it is therefore not possible to apply an excise duty on these products.

Until recently there was no regulation governing e-cigarettes or nicotine refill containers so taxing such products is problematic.

However, the new EU Tobacco Products Directive (2014/40/EU), inter alia, provides for the regulation of e-cigarettes. The European Council has now formally adopted the Directive, and it has been in force since 20th May 2014.  The Directive, among other things, sets mandatory safety and quality requirements e.g. nicotine content, ingredients and devices, as well as refill mechanisms etc., for e-cigarettes that do not fall under the definition of medicinal products as set out in Directive 2001/83/EC.  Member States have two years to transpose the new rules into national law.

In the absence of domestic legislation to regulate these types of products, I do not wish to speculate how much revenue would be raised by imposing the levels of taxation proposed by the Deputy in his question.

I would however point out to the Deputy that e-cigarettes and refill containers are currently subject to the standard VAT rate of 23%.

Tax Yield

Ceisteanna (204, 205, 206)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

204. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by enacting the taxation provisions of the Betting (Amendment) Bill, but applying 3% to online bets and 15% on gross profit tax for remote betting intermediaries as well as extending an additional 2% to the betting shop tax, bringing it to 3%, and ensuring that this tax is paid by the customer as opposed to the bookmaker. [31220/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

205. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by enacting the taxation provisions of the Betting (Amendment) Bill, but applying 3% to online bets and 15% on gross profit tax for remote betting intermediaries; as well as extending an additional 2% to the betting shop tax, bringing it to 3%, and ensuring that this tax is paid by the customer as opposed to the bookmaker and, further, that the tax is applied to the bet as opposed to the winnings. [31221/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

206. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by enacting the taxation provisions of the Betting (Amendment) Bill, but applying 3% to online bets and 15% on gross profit tax for remote betting intermediaries as well as extending an additional 2% to the betting shop tax, bringing it to 3%, and ensuring that this tax is paid by the customer as opposed to the bookmaker and, further, that the tax is applied to the winnings as opposed to the bet. [31222/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I propose to take Questions Nos. 204, to 206, inclusive, together.

The Finance Act 2002 provides for betting duty at a rate of 1% on the amount of a bet placed by a person with a bookmaker at the bookmaker's registered premises. Following commencement of the licensing provisions for remote operators, provided for in the Betting (Amendment) Bill 2013, provisions for the extension of duty to remote bookmakers and remote betting intermediaries will also be commenced. These operators will then be liable for duty at 1% on the amount of a bet from customers in the State and betting intermediary duty of 15% on the commission charged to customers in the State.

In 2013, betting duty receipts from traditional bookmakers amounted to €25.4m. The figure for the 6-month period to the end June 2014 is approximately €12m.  An increase in the rate of duty from 1% to 3%, with no other changes to the structure or nature of the duty, might yield an additional €50m approximately per annum. In reality, however, it is very unlikely that a rate increase would raise a proportionate amount of revenue, especially if the duty is charged to the customer. It would be expected that some customers would reduce their gambling expenditure and others might divert their expenditure to other gambling products or to unlicensed operators.

It is not possible to estimate the effect on yield of changing the basis of betting duty from the amount of each bet to the amount paid out on winning bets. However, as the value of bets received must exceed the value of winnings, the change would result in a reduction in the overall amount of betting duty collected, if rates are held constant.  Likewise, changing the basis of taxation of betting intermediaries from commission to gross profits would results in a lower tax base and reduced revenues at any given rate of duty.

Tax Yield

Ceisteanna (207)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

207. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by a 0.25%, 0.5%, 1%, 2%, 5%, and 10% sugar tax respectively on soft sugary drinks, as proposed by the Irish Heart Foundation. [31225/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I am aware of the proposal by the Irish Heart Foundation (IHF) for a tax on sugar sweetened drinks.  While I am not opposed to such a measure in principle, I'm aware that little research has been done in relation to the efficacy or impact of such a measure or indeed how these taxes would be designed and levied.

When introducing any tax measure intended to alter people's behaviour, it is important to firstly to assess whether a tax measure is the most effective method of doing this or if better results could be achieved by other, non-fiscal, methods.  Secondly it is necessary to evaluate if such a measure have unintended consequences on other areas.

Therefore, I believe that before any such taxes could be seriously considered, further work is required in relation to the possible nature and design of such taxes.  Work is also needed to consider how such taxes would be implemented and collected, and an analysis of the impact of the proposal on employment, on the cost of living and cross border trade is also required.

I am aware that countries such as France, Finland and Hungary have sugar related taxes.  The French tax on sugar sweetened drinks introduced in January 2012 is particularly relevant to the IHF proposal.  I can assure the Deputy that I will be monitoring the impact of the French tax to see what lessons can be learned from an Irish point of view.

However, at this point and in the absence of more research,  I do not intend to speculate how much revenue would be raised by the tax rates proposed by the Deputy in his question.

Tax Yield

Ceisteanna (208, 236, 238)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

208. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer from the introduction of a new rate of 48% on a person's income in excess of €100,000. [31226/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

236. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year cost to the Exchequer from exempting income earners below €17,542 per annum from the universal social charge. [31256/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

238. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year cost to the Exchequer of not increasing universal social charge from 4% for a series of earners in 2015, as planned, and the offset to this cost of maintaining the higher rate of USC for the self-employed from 10% to 7%. [31258/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I propose to take Questions Nos. 208, 236 and 238 together.

It is assumed that the threshold for the 48% Income Tax rate proposed by the Deputy, would not alter the existing standard rate band structure applying to single and widowed persons, to lone parents, married couples and civil partnerships.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that, given the current band structures, major issues would need to be resolved as to how, in practice, such a new Income Tax rate could be integrated into the current system and how this would affect the relative position of different types of income earners.

Notwithstanding these issues, the Revenue Commissioners estimate that the first and full year yield to the Exchequer of the introduction of the suggested new third rate of Income Tax of 48% would be of the order of €222 million and €380 million respectively.

The Revenue Commissioners further estimate the partial and full year costs to the Exchequer of increasing the existing exemption threshold of €10,036 for the Universal Social Charge (USC) to €17,542 would be €502 million and €689 million respectively.

The Revenue Commissioners tentatively estimate the first and full year cost of retaining the exemption from the 7% rate of Universal Social Charge (USC) for those on medical cards with an aggregate annual income below €60,000 to be of the order of €77 million and €102 million respectively. They also estimate that the first and full year yield from retaining the 10% rate of USC, which is currently applicable to self-employed income in excess of €100,000, estimated by reference to 2014 incomes, would be of the order of €50 million and €123 million respectively (this is the additional yield compared to the case where only the 7% rate applied to self-employed income in excess of €100,000).

These figures are estimates for 2014 from the Revenue tax forecasting model using latest actual data (for the year 2011), adjusted as necessary for income, self-employment and employment trends in the interim. They are provisional and may be revised. Married persons or civil partners who have elected or have been deemed to have elected for joint assessment are counted as one tax unit. While not directly available from tax records, recent data exchanges between Revenue and the HSE mean medical card holders can be identified and linked to Revenue's taxpayer records. As a result, it is estimated that 20% of earners with USC liable income between €16,016 and €60,000 hold a medical card and this is the basis for the relevant costing above.

Tax Yield

Ceisteanna (209, 210, 211, 240)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

209. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by increasing the rate of capital gains tax from 33% to 40%. [31228/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

210. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance whether it is possible and the amount that would be raised by eliminating the capital gains tax exemption for seven years for properties bought from December 2011 to 2013. [31229/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

211. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer from abolishing capital gains tax exemptions for private principal residences sold in excess of €1 million. [31230/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

240. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year cost to the Exchequer of dividing the capital gains tax categories into passive and active and applying a 40% rate to the passive CGT activity, that is, buying shares and the existing rate to active engagement, that is, selling on a business. [31260/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I propose to take Questions Nos. 209 to 211, inclusive, and 240 together.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the yield to the Exchequer, estimated from increasing the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) rate from 33% to 40% could be in the region of €105 million in a full year. A partial year yield is not available as it would depend on the date of introduction of the proposal. This estimate includes corporate gains. I am advised by the Commissioners that the estimate assumes no behavioural changes on the part of taxpayers. Increases in rates may have a significant behavioural impact and as a result may not produce the expected increase in tax yield.

Regarding the capital gains tax exemption for properties bought in the period 7 December 2011 to 31 December 2014 and held for at least 7 years, I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the CGT relief contained in Section 604A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (enacted in Finance Act 2012 and extended by Finance (No 2) Act 2013) will have no cost, in terms of CGT forgone, for a period of seven years from the time any properties to which the relief applies were acquired. Any such properties sold within seven years of being acquired will not qualify for the relief. Disposals made after the seven year period of ownership will be subject to CGT on any gain but effectively at a reduced rate by reference to the fraction that seven years bears to the overall period of ownership. It is not possible at this time to estimate when such properties will be disposed of in the future or the amount of chargeable capital gain, if any, that may arise on such disposals. As to the question of removing the exemption, the position is that it will end shortly at the close of this year and there would very likely be legal issues around the removal of a relief from individuals who have already acted upon it in good faith.

In relation to principal private residences, I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that, as information on the value of capital gains arising from the disposal of principal private residences is not required in CGT returns, there is no basis for separately identifying the yield that would arise from the removal of the exemption from CGT for sales of principal private residences above €1 million. Accordingly, the specific information requested by the Deputy is not available.

Regarding the final question, I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that, as tax returns do not provide a basis for compiling estimates in relation to the amount of CGT liability separately associated with passive and active activity, it is therefore not possible to provide the information requested by the Deputy.

Tax Yield

Ceisteanna (212, 213, 214)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

212. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by increasing capital acquisitions tax to 40%. [31231/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

213. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by increasing capital acquisitions tax to 40% and reduce the group thresholds by 10%, 15% and 20%, respectively. [31232/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

214. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by reducing the group thresholds for capital acquisitions tax by 10%, 15% and 20%, respectively. [31233/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I propose to take Questions Nos. 212 to 214, inclusive, together.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the estimated full year yield to the Exchequer from increasing the Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT) rate from 33% to 40%, based on the expected outturn in 2014, could be in the region of €77 million, assuming no change in the existing thresholds.

The estimated full year yield from existing taxpayers from applying the proposed CAT rate of 40% and reducing thresholds by 10% is €100 million, from applying the proposed CAT rate of 40% and reducing thresholds by 15% is €112 million, and from applying the proposed CAT rate of 40% and reducing thresholds by 20% is €124 million.

The estimated full year yields, while maintaining the CAT rate at 33%, from existing taxpayers of reducing CAT thresholds by 10%, 15% and 20% is €19 million, €29 million and €38 million respectively.

I am advised that CAT returns are not required to be filed with the Revenue Commissioners where gifts and inheritances do not exceed 80% of the current threshold limits. For this reason, the estimates shown above do not include any additional yield associated with benefits brought into the tax net due to reduced threshold limits.

Partial year yields are not shown as they would depend on the date of introduction of the proposals.  All estimates are provisional and subject to revision.

It should be noted that these estimates are based upon an assumption that there would be no behavioural impact of these changes, which could lead to differing Exchequer yield impacts.  In addition, the realisation of any yield on assets relating to property is subject to movements in the value of such assets.

Tax Yield

Ceisteanna (215)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

215. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by increasing the once-off charge for establishing a discretionary trust by 1% and the annual charge for a trust from 1% to 1.5%. [31234/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that a precise breakdown of the yield from Discretionary Trust Tax between the once-off charge and the annual charge is not available. However, I am advised by the Commissioners that it is understood that the bulk of the yield is derived from the annual charge. On that basis, the estimated full year yield to the Exchequer from the suggested increase in the annual charge rate of 1% to 1.5% could be in the region of €0.8 million.

The estimated full year yield to the Exchequer from the suggested increase of 1% in the once-off charge is likely to be negligible.

A partial year yield estimate is not available as it would depend on the date of introduction of the proposal.

Tax Yield

Ceisteanna (216)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

216. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance to set out the partial and full year revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by the introduction of a new 1% wealth tax on net assets in excess of €1 million, excluding qualified provisions such as working farmland, the first 20% of a family home, capital sums in pension funds, business assets, applying to global assets for those domiciled or ordinarily resident in the State and to domestic assets for those resident in the State for tax purposes. [31235/14]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

In order to estimate the potential revenue from a wealth tax, it would first be necessary to identify the wealth held by individuals.

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that they currently have no statistical basis for compiling estimates in relation to a potential wealth tax. Although an individual's assets and liabilities are declared to the Revenue in a number of specific circumstances (for example, after a death), this information is not a complete measure of financial assets in the State, nor is it recorded in a manner that would allow analysis of the implications of an overarching wealth based tax.

It is therefore not possible to provide the information requested by the Deputy.

Barr
Roinn