Mr. Seamus Coffey:

It could be that a person argues, as Deputy Pearse Doherty has argued, that this is a retrospective tax change after an asset has been brought to a jurisdiction. One could argue that a certain set of rules applied and now we are changing the rules. I do not agree that it is a retrospective tax change. A retrospective tax change has to change the amount of tax being paid. Changing the cap for the intangible assets simply changes the timing. One is still allowed to claim the full amount, but in any given year the amount one can claim is limited of 80% of taxable income in that year. It means that capital allowances are available but over a longer period.

To argue that it is a retrospective tax change, one must argue why the cap changes the amount of tax being paid over the period of the investment. I do not believe it is a retrospective tax change. When the cap was increased in 2015 – it went from 80% in 2014 to 100% in 2015 – it applied to all claims for intangible assets regardless of when the assets were moved. When we increased it we did it for everything, but when we reduced it we set a cut-off date.