Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

The Minister rightly shows how the fact of the claim will be set out but not its benefit. The reason the taxpayer is asked to subsidise this is that it confers some benefit in terms of value added to the investing company, which is presumably additional to national wealth and therefore justifies our concession. The Minister's review of these tax schemes in the past would have revealed to him that there is often scepticism about the substantive nature of some of the claims for tax relief such as patent income and so on. Questions have been raised about that. Without going as far as Deputy Burton's suggestion, which would jeopardise the state aid status, there should still be a requirement on the company to state its believed benefit in terms of value added to the company.

The Revenue Commissioners, when reporting to us, would then at least report the substantive benefits being derived by companies from the relief. We would have a benchmark by which to judge whether the scheme is of enduring value. While there is scepticism regarding the relief for patent income and while the matter under discussion is in similar territory, we should endeavour to at least require companies to state a benefit, which could be assessed afterwards.

See this speech in context