Wednesday, 4 Jul 2018

Written Answers Nos. 172-179

NAMA Receivers

Ceisteanna (172)

Pearse Doherty

Ceist:

172. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the amount paid to receivers by NAMA to date and by year; the fees received by each receiver to date in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29483/18]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

I am advised by NAMA that receivers appointed to NAMA-secured properties are selected from NAMA's insolvency service provider panel which was established following a competitive public procurement process. I am advised that, arising from this process, very competitive fixed-fee rates were achieved relative to prevailing market norms.

I am advised that, in general, fees are not paid to receivers directly by NAMA but are instead paid out of the proceeds of assets under receivership or the management of these assets, pending realisation. Fees for any particular insolvency are set by reference to the fees quoted by the insolvency practitioner as part of the public procurement process.  All appointments are subject to on-going monitoring and evaluation and, in many cases, additional fee reductions are negotiated to ensure that fees are appropriate for the amount of work remaining on any given appointment.  Typically fees reduce as the assignment progresses and the number of assets reduces by way of disposals or otherwise.  However, this depends on the complexity of the insolvency and the issues that may emerge during its course.

I would also refer the Deputy to Section 10 of the NAMA Act which obliges NAMA to obtain the best achievable return for the State. NAMA’s preference is to work on a consensual basis with debtors so as to maximise the return from their assets. In instances where a receiver has been appointed over a debtor’s assets, it is often due to the debtor’s unwillingness to co-operate with NAMA. Upon appointment, a receiver takes control of the debtor’s assets and any income produced by them. The receiver’s legal obligation to maximise the return on the assets aligns well with NAMA’s Section 10 requirements.

The fees approved by NAMA to receivers for their work on NAMA-secured assets from inception to end-June 2018 are outlined in the table attached. This includes fees approved to receivers who were appointed to assets prior to the acquisition of the related loans by NAMA.

Insolvency Practitioner fees approved from inception to 30 June 2018

Insolvency Practitioner	IP Fees 2010                €	IP Fees 2011                 €	IP Fees 2012                 €	IP Fees 2013                 €	IP Fees 2014                 €
Alder King	-	-	-	-	-
Allsop	-	450,000	-	7,130	543,661
Bannon Commercial	-	3,750	15,000	114,165	84,553
BDO	21,500	480,193	298,600	663,442	842,086
BDO UK	105,148	521,461	835,615	513,958	442,101
Begbies Traynor	64,034	209,382	216,765	194,017	184,932
BNP/Allsops	-	-	-	-	2,360
BTW Shiells	-	60,756	33,197	2,084	64,487
Capita Symonds	-	45,232	40,906	-	-
Cavanagh Kelly	-	-	18,333	8,380	3,624
CBRE	888	130,188	117,332	7,500	7,500
CBRE UK	-	-	66,375	22,383	99,767
Chantrey Vellacott	-	16,667	36,553	94,297	218,460
Colliers	-	-	-	13,100	9,850
Colliers UK	-	-	10,030	3,186	-
Cordes & Co	-	-	43,395	66,276	-
Crowe Howarth	-	55,333	151,534	372,003	690,623
Cushman Wakefield (UK)	-	-	3,403	3,321	-
CVR Global	-	-	-	-	-
Deloitte	744,426	658,233	796,291	807,017	1,004,876
Deloitte (UK)	-	90,730	84,333	77,880	123,711
Douglas Newman Good	-	-	4,166	77,083	68,750
Dr Peter Minuth (Piepenburg Geerling)	-	-	-	-	84,000
DTZ	-	7,380	62,730	46,780	38,500
DTZ - Now CBRE	-	-	2,500	2,500	2,500
Duff & Phelps	5,222	983,992	1,155,898	1,482,497	1,867,732
Duff & Phelps LLP	-	-	-	359,671	1,298,686
EY	12,220	449,927	967,073	1,066,075	921,950
EY UK	-	93,810	31,860	27,730	-
Eddisons	-	-	-	-	4,167
Edward Symmonds/LSH	-	-	28,882	23,193	30,348
Edward Symmons	-	-	39,648	41,421	15,933
Ferris & Associates	28,466	587,748	359,305	488,193	210,393
Friel Stafford	-	-	24,000	105,498	100,130
FRP Advisory	-	-	156,755	20,000	337,329
Ganly Waters	-	43,520	121,300	8,400	41,850
Grant Thornton	135,159	1,566,113	2,023,534	2,414,292	2,474,273
Grant Thornton (UK)	-	1,236,387	1,111,038	1,637,269	735,653
GVA Bilfinger	-	-	-	-	-
GVA Donal O'Buachalla	-	3,100	98,875	180,652	297,801
GVA Grimley	-	378,246	141,756	63,914	192,851
HBC	-	19,568	17,266	4,316	-
Hooke & McDonald	-	-	-	30,565	32,545
Hughes Blake	-	-	66,550	368,992	328,987
HWBC	-	-	188,625	215,396	175,000
HWBC Allsop	-	-	-	-	10,040
Irvine Nott	-	-	-	-	5,900
Johnston Carmichael	-	-	70,800	64,900	18,880
Jones Lang LaSalle	-	12,980	89,160	109,160	135,623
Keenan Corporate	-	153,410	310,223	297,760	199,273
Knight Frank	-	-	-	9,600	6,000
KPMG	106,666	1,292,726	1,838,161	2,164,172	1,859,413
KPMG UK	-	598,702	1,603,370	726,064	326,875
LSH (previously BTW Sheils)	95,808	95,808	95,808	107,577	84,730
Lisney	-	-	222,455	275,897	162,212
Mason Owen Lyons	-	-	32,000	35,500	37,400
Mazars	328,953	638,878	802,500	1,002,295	1,622,067
McKeogh Gallagher Ryan	-	178,129	238,199	397,162	618,567
McPeake Auctioneers	-	-	-	3,700	17,800
McStay Luby	148,753	560,745	274,374	266,174	296,645
Moore Stephens Nathans	-	-	-	-	-
Moorefield
O'Connor Pyne & Co Limited	-	-	-	-	-
O'Dwyer Property Management	-	-	155,915	146,021	157,088
Osborne King	-	6,136	6,313	2,974	10,195
PKF O'Connor Leddy Holmes	-	-	-	-	7,000
PKF/BDO UK	-	-	28,615	341,020	-
PwC	307,466	911,769	1,294,498	1,581,837	1,395,919
PwC UK	-	289,882	334,908	340,710	54,785
RSM Ireland	-	896,382	589,137	656,992	572,705
RSM McClure Watters	-	268,680	156,553	253,009	274,534
RSM UK	-	1,061,641	1,433,372	949,933	733,088
Russell Brennan Keane	-	17,755	37,457	77,022	163,067
Savills	-	283,324	372,531	378,453	225,667
Smith Williamson	-	-	103,610	270,049	411,936
SPW UK	-	52,794	50,698	43,056	2,778
WK Nowlan	-	63,985	41,200	36,630	90,678
Total	2,104,709	15,475,442	19,551,278	22,172,243	23,082,832

Insolvency Practitioner	IP Fees 2015               €	IP Fees 2016 €	IP Fees 2017 €	IP Fees 2018 €	Total IP Fees €
Alder King	8,502	-	-		8,502
Allsop	105,750	95,000	-		1,201,541
Bannon Commercial	56,450	46,725	-		320,643
BDO	1,023,692	580,840	399,875		4,310,228
BDO UK	135,443	53,700	-		2,607,426
Begbies Traynor	77,470	2,250	-		948,850
BNP/Allsops	-	-	-		2,360
BTW Shiells	-	-	-		160,524
Capita Symonds	-	-	-		86,138
Cavanagh Kelly	-	-	-		30,337
CBRE	938	-	-		264,346
CBRE UK	-	-	-		188,525
Chantrey Vellacott	-	-	-		365,977
Colliers	-	-	-		22,950
Colliers UK	-	-	-		13,216
Cordes & Co	-	-	-		109,671
Crowe Howarth	780,285	602,154	304,340	156,900	3,113,172
Cushman Wakefield (UK)	-	-	-		6,724
CVR Global	-	16,667	98,333		115,000
Deloitte	1,046,985	1,183,144	1,482,213	1,475,049	9,198,234
Deloitte (UK)	441,646	-	-		818,301
Douglas Newman Good	75,834	35,000	-		260,833
Dr Peter Minuth (Piepenburg Geerling)	504,000	-	-		588,000
DTZ	33,210	-	-		188,600
DTZ - Now CBRE	-	-	-		7,500
Duff & Phelps	1,960,975	957,820	875,211	152,925	9,442,272
Duff & Phelps LLP	-	-	-		1,658,357
EY	1,094,314	396,395	283,683	220,000	5,411,637
EY UK	-	-	-		153,400
Eddisons	9,108	-	-		13,275
Edward Symmonds/LSH	13,335	-	-		95,758
Edward Symmons	14,750	5,940	-		117,692
Ferris & Associates	144,720	60,000	10,000		1,888,825
Friel Stafford	78,983	40,944	32,850		382,405
FRP Advisory	143,565	-	-		657,649
Ganly Waters	2,625	12,810	7,691		238,197
Grant Thornton	2,227,772	1,387,202	2,014,908	778,613	15,021,866
Grant Thornton (UK)	184,897	-	-		4,905,244
GVA Bilfinger	-	30,000	-		30,000
GVA Donal O'Buachalla	254,379	106,986	75,855	15,290	1,032,938
GVA Grimley	32,353	9,540	-		818,659
HBC	-	-	-		41,150
Hooke & McDonald	27,091	-	-		90,201
Hughes Blake	313,276	136,306	20,938	11,940	1,246,989
HWBC	364,500	320,000	278,000		1,541,521
HWBC Allsop	24,133	-	-		34,173
Irvine Nott	-	-	-		5,900
Johnston Carmichael	-	-	-		154,580
Jones Lang LaSalle	95,000	37,000	-		478,923
Keenan Corporate	71,971	22,868	-		1,055,505
Knight Frank	15,000	-	-		30,600
KPMG	1,748,573	832,083	297,875		10,139,670
KPMG UK	211,970	146,025	-		3,613,006
LSH (previously BTW Sheils)	105,445	2,950	-		588,126
Lisney	120,550	80,000	70,000	76,670	1,007,784
Mason Owen Lyons	37,370	18,265	-		160,535
Mazars	1,639,495	1,259,861	1,263,418	361,142	8,918,609
McKeogh Gallagher Ryan	653,116	313,771	165,721	18,000	2,582,665
McPeake Auctioneers	14,780	-	-		36,280
McStay Luby	348,254	475,773	560,725	143,795	3,075,238
Moore Stephens Nathans	42,515	-	-		42,515
Moorefield				11,000	11,000
O'Connor Pyne & Co Limited	21,125	-	-		21,125
O'Dwyer Property Management	175,535	136,690	116,272	108,273	995,794
Osborne King	-	-	-		25,618
PKF O'Connor Leddy Holmes	5,691	-	-		12,691
PKF/BDO UK	-	-	-		369,635
PwC	893,638	671,308	482,529	185,250	7,724,214
PwC UK	-	-	-		1,020,285
RSM Ireland	879,937	624,815	825,946	871,706	5,917,620
RSM McClure Watters	85,330	-	-		1,038,105
RSM UK	602,703	216,936	85,271	9,272	5,092,215
Russell Brennan Keane	420,036	448,165	481,185	151,660	1,796,346
Savills	195,000	162,500	152,703	9,000	1,779,178
Smith Williamson	384,188	138,980	24,302	15,023	1,348,088
SPW UK	-	-	-		149,326
WK Nowlan	39,577	-	-		272,070
Total	19,987,779	11,667,413	10,409,844	4,771,508	129,223,047

Mortgage Lending

Ceisteanna (173)

Michael McGrath

Ceist:

173. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Questions Nos. 121 and 123 of 26 June 2018, if the Central Bank has undertaken an assessment of compliance with provision 6.12 of the consumer protection code 2012 (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29501/18]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

The Central Bank has advised that the objective of the recent review it undertook was to assess whether or not lenders were advertising mortgages with cashback offers in a clear and unambiguous way.

The review therefore assessed lenders’ compliance with certain provisions of Chapter 4 (relating to the provision of information) and Chapter 9 (relating to advertising) of the Consumer Protection Code. It also assessed lenders’ compliance with Part 4 of the S.I. No. 142/2016 - European Union (Consumer Mortgage Credit Agreements) Regulations 2016 (relating to information and practices preliminary to the conclusion of the credit agreement).

Tribunals of Inquiry Recommendations

Ceisteanna (174)

Micheál Martin

Ceist:

174. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Minister for Finance if all recommendations of the Moriarty tribunal have been implemented; the recommendations that are outstanding; and when they will be implemented. [29040/18]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

In response to the Deputy's question, the Moriarty Tribunal made a number of recommendations which affected a number of Government Departments. As Minister for Finance I can only respond in relation to the recommendations made in relation to my own Department.

The tribunal pointed out problems to be addressed in our system of financial regulation.  Poor supervision, an overly-deferential attitude by regulators, poor assessment of risks and a lack of follow-through on enforcement, all played a part in the financial crisis.  I and my European counterparts have been working steadfastly since the financial crisis to bring about strengthened oversight and resolution regimes. The entire financial services landscape has changed utterly, characterised by the presence of new European institutions; strengthened regulations; a more intrusive supervisory approach; and a new focus on macroprudential requirements.

New European regulations have strengthened controls over the banking system and have resulted in an overhaul of regulation, supervision and resolution regimes. The Capital Requirements Regulation and Directive, which came into force in 2014, brought about significant enhancements in the quality and quantity of capital that banks are required to hold and the setting of minimum liquidity requirements.

The Banking Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) and the Single Resolution Mechanism have transformed the framework for dealing with failing banks and are designed to provide a financial safety net and a means for recovery and resolution with minimum disruption to the sovereign. The overarching objective of the BRRD is to shift the cost of bank failure from taxpayers to shareholders and creditors of the institutions themselves.

The Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM) is now responsible for the prudential supervision framework for euro area banks. The central piece of the SSM supervisory process is the Supervisory Review and Evaluation Process (SREP) under which European Central Bank led joint supervisory teams inspect business models, internal governance, profitability and banking risks.

All of these new regulations and institutional arrangements have been designed to address the challenges of banking oversight and resolution at a European level and provide for a pro-active approach towards systemic and emergent risks at a European level.

Besides the introduction of new European and national regulations, the Central Bank too has increased its resources and has become more pro-active in addressing systemic risk.

In response to the Tribunal recommendations, I considered the provision of tax relief for donations to political parties and decided against introducing such relief. The Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2012 provided for changes to the Electoral Act, 1997 and imposed new limits for donations. Donations to individuals exceeding €600 must be declared and donations exceeding €1,000 in any one year may not be accepted. Political party donations greater than €1,500 must be declared and donations greater than €2,500 in any one year may not be accepted. These limits, in themselves, should act to deter any attempts by wealthy individuals to influence political activity.

Recommendation: Representations to Revenue by Office holders -

In relation to this proposal, I remain of the view that this recommendation could best be considered in the context of the Government's overall approach to political and parliamentary reform. Representations are a valid part of the political process. The Government may wish to consider whether this recommendation should be confined to Revenue, or to Office holders, or whether the Commissioners decision to publish data on the volume of representations made by each Deputy is an adequate response.

The Office of the Revenue Commissioners has advised in relation to the following recommendations of the Moriarty Tribunal that:

Recommendation: Independence of the Revenue Commissioners-

Section 101 of the Minister and Secretaries (Amendment) Act 2011 placed on a statutory basis the independence of the Revenue Commissioners in the exercise by the Commissioners of their statutory functions under the various taxation and customs enactments. This has given effect to the recommendation of the Report of the Tribunal into Payments to Politicians and Related Matters (that is, the report of Mr. Justice Moriarty), that the principle or convention of the independence of the Revenue Commissioners be placed on the more robust status of a legislative provision.

Recommendation: Transmission to other agencies of information obtained by Revenue under bilateral agreements –

This recommendation has been considered. These agreements are international treaties which are very precisely drawn as to the purpose for which information may be used and would not permit such transmission. However, if opportunities arise in the future, the Commissioners will consider the matter further. The Deputy will appreciate that Revenue is not in a position to comment on matters relating to individuals for reasons of taxpayer confidentiality.

Departmental Contracts Data

Ceisteanna (175)

Mattie McGrath

Ceist:

175. Deputy Mattie McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of times his Department has engaged polling companies and-or Irish market researchers to conduct research on its behalf in each of the past two years; the names of such companies; the costs associated with same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29574/18]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

The use of polling companies and/or Irish market researchers to conduct research on behalf of my Department since June 2016 is outlined in the following table. 

Company Name	Associated Costs	Year	Detail
Indecon International Economic Consultants	€96,890.79 (€78,773 plus VAT)	2018	A mini competition was run from December 2017 to January 2018 for research services to benchmark payments in Ireland. Indecon was the successful tenderer. The research is currently underway and is expected to be completed by Q4 2018. The approach taken did not include polling or surveys but incorporated both desk research using existing data sources and primary research such as consulting with companies and representative bodies within the payments industry. Payment will be made on delivery of the final report.
Coyne Research	This whole campaign is funded by contributions from AIB and PTSB as a condition of the approval of their restructuring plans by the EU Commission and there is no cost to the taxpayer. The research was priced at €7,500 (ex VAT).	2018	The research was part of the SwitchYourBank.ie media campaign to encourage consumer switching in the retail banking sector. The 2018 expenditure relates to phase 2 of the campaign. Language was the supplier for the campaign that subcontracted Coyne to conduct market research.
Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants	Invoice not received as research on-going	2018	Bi-annual Credit Demand Survey - Costs recouped from BoI and AIB as per recapitalisation agreement
Coyne Research	This whole campaign is funded by contributions from AIB and PTSB as a condition of the approval of their restructuring plans by the EU Commission and there is no cost to the taxpayer. The research was priced at €12,000 (ex VAT).	2017	The research was part of the SwitchYourBank.ie media campaign to encourage consumer switching in the retail banking sector. The 2017 expenditure relates to phase 1 of the campaign. Language was the supplier for the campaign that subcontracted Coyne to conduct market research.
Behaviour and Attitudes	€64,575.00	2017	Bi-annual Credit Demand Survey - Costs recouped from BoI and AIB as per recapitalisation agreement
Fitzpatrick Associates Economic Consultants	€73,738.50	2017	Bi-annual Credit Demand Survey - Costs recouped from BoI and AIB as per recapitalisation agreement
ERSI	€68,639.00	2017	Joint research programme on the macro economy, taxation, and banking
Coyne Research	This whole campaign is funded by contributions from AIB and PTSB as a condition of the approval of their restructuring plans by the EU Commission and there is no cost to the taxpayer. The research was priced at €46,000 (ex VAT).	2016	The research was part of the SwitchYourBank.ie media campaign to encourage consumer switching in the retail banking sector. The 2016 expenditure relates to phase 1 of the campaign. Language was the supplier for the campaign that subcontracted Coyne to conduct market research.
Behaviour and Attitudes	€64,575.00	2016	Bi-annual Credit Demand Survey - Costs recouped from BoI and AIB as per recapitalisation agreement

The Deputy may wish to note that the indicated time-frame under consideration is taken to be from June 2016 to June 2018.

Tax Appeals Commission

Ceisteanna (176, 177, 178, 179)

Michael McGrath

Ceist:

176. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of tax appeals before the Tax Appeals Commission; the value of tax these disputes amount to; the appeals by ranges (details supplied), respectively, in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29627/18]

Michael McGrath

Ceist:

177. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the age and value of tax appeals before the Tax Appeals Commission by ranges (details supplied), respectively, in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29628/18]

Michael McGrath

Ceist:

178. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of new appeals brought before the Tax Appeals Commission in each month since January 2016; the number of cases concluded in each month since January 2016; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29629/18]

Michael McGrath

Ceist:

179. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance the number of appeals before the Tax Appeals Commission that have been concluded since January 2016 that have been settled; the value of the settled appeals; the number that have been withdrawn; the value these amounted to; the number of cases that have been heard; the value these appeals amounted to; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29630/18]

Freagraí scríofa

Minister for Finance

I propose to take Questions Nos. 176 to 179, inclusive, together.

The TAC was established on 21st March 2016 and new procedures for making, processing, adjudicating and determining appeals came into effect. Before this date taxpayers sent their appeals directly to Revenue who then transferred cases to the Appeal Commissioners when they were ready for a hearing. Since that date, taxpayers send their appeals directly to the TAC which then notifies Revenue of the appeals.  The TAC has full control over the processing and hearing of appeals.

I am advised by the TAC that the number of appeals before it can change frequently, depending on a number of factors, including the number of additional appeals received each day; the numbers closed each day; how many appeals are part-settled and how many that will settle based on the outcome of a “leader-case”. The Commission can also be informed, by an appellant(s) or the Revenue Commissioners, that an appeal has settled or been withdrawn which might indicate a reduction in the number of appeals on hand; however, until this is confirmed by both parties, the TAC cannot deem the matter closed.

I am further advised by the TAC that it is not possible, for the most part, to provide the age of tax appeals before it, as many of them were transmitted to the Commission, in large tranches during 2016 by the Office of the Revenue Commissioners. In relation to those ‘legacy’ appeals, some were submitted by the appellant in 2016, to Revenue, but many had been with Revenue for some time before that. Therefore, it is only possible to advise of when the TAC received appeals in 2016, 2017 and 2018.

Following its establishment in 2016, I am informed that approximately 3,322 appeals transferred to the TAC, at various stages during 2016, from both the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and the Office of the Appeal Commissioners. The TAC has further advised me that, as of 2 July, 2018 it currently has approximately 3,312 active appeals under its remit.

The TAC has informed me that this figure comprises of the following active appeals:

Appeals	Number
Appeals received 2016:	339
Appeals received 2017:	1,182
Appeals received 2018:	737
Legacy Appeals:	795
Pre Establishment:	178
Cases Stated:	81
Total	3,312

The TAC has provided the following tables outlining the number of new appeals received and concluded in each month since March 2016 and an outline of how appeals were closed from January, 2017.

Table 1 – New Appeals Per Month from 21 March 2016, when the TAC was established, to 31 December 2016 

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Appeals Received			112	83	74	90	113	71	81	78	94	105
Appeals Closed			16	9	14	15	24	14	14	22	40	41

Table 2 – New Appeals Per Month 2017

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Appeals Received	562	75	177	99	106	82	106	89	108	94	107	153
Appeals Closed	52	39	75	53	131	52	52	45	19	50	44	84

Table 3 – New Appeals Per Month 2018

	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun
Appeals Received	264	134	160	104	192	61
Appeals Closed	65	320	150	137	125	79

Table 4 – How Appeals Were Closed

Year	Settled	Withdrawn	Determined	Dismissed	Refused	Merged	Total
2016*							209
2017**	412	178	40	41	7	18	696
2018***	423	128	17	118	174	16	876

* A breakdown of how appeals were closed in 2016 is provided in the Annual Report of 2016.

** 34 determinations were made in 2017 which affected 40 individual appeals.

*** 17 appeals have been determined in 2018 to date but 5 appeals are classed as Case Stated so they will remain active until the appeals have been heard by the High Court. Another determination made in 2018 related to a Case Stated in 2017 which has now been completed.

With regard to the value of tax that these disputes amount to, the following information has been provided by the Revenue Commissioners.  It should be noted however that, while Revenue also maintains statistics on appeals, for various reasons these will not necessarily correspond with those provided by the TAC. For example, there may be time lags in the notification of new appeals by the TAC to Revenue and time lags in the closure of appeals by the TAC following settlement of an appeal by agreement between Revenue and the appellant. As the TAC is now the competent body for the management of appeals, I consider that it is appropriate that it be the primary source for appeals statistics. However, there is one important piece of information that the TAC does not currently receive for those appeals made directly to it. This is the value figure for the amount of tax that is outstanding or in dispute.

I have been advised by Revenue of the following information in relation to the amount of tax in dispute with both corresponding value bands and age bands.

Band (€)	Total in dispute (€)
Below 10,000	8,857,022
10,000 to 50,000	27,823,637
50,000 to 1,000,000	241,019,031
1,000,000 to 5,000,000	296,901,742
Above 5,000,000	1,077,958,522
Total	1,652,559,954

Band (€)	Age (years)	Total in dispute (€)
Below 10,000	Less than 2	6,227,972
Below 10,000	2 to 5	2,430,773
Below 10,000	6 to 10	175,911
Below 10,000	Older than 10	22,366
10,000 to 50,000	Less than 2	7,876,221
10,000 to 50,000	2 to 5	15,947,769
10,000 to 50,000	6 to 10	3,622,980
10,000 to 50,000	Older than 10	376,667
50,000 to 1,000,000	Less than 2	51,958,123
50,000 to 1,000,000	2 to 5	130,243,388
50,000 to 1,000,000	6 to 10	55,298,194
50,000 to 1,000,000	Older than 10	3,519,326
1,000,000 to 5,000,000	Less than 2	45,267,724
1,000,000 to 5,000,000	2 to 5	143,470,676
1,000,000 to 5,000,000	6 to 10	95,695,757
1,000,000 to 5,000,000	Older than 10	12,467,585
Above 5,000,000	Less than 2	427,702,956
Above 5,000,000	2 to 5	470,843,250
Above 5,000,000	6 to 10	164,146,202
Above 5,000,000	Older than 10	15,266,114
Total		1,652,559,954

 

I have been informed by Revenue that the information requested by the Deputy relating to the value of settled, withdrawn and heard appeals is not collected centrally and cannot be provided. Revenue is currently looking at ways in which such information might be provided in the future.