Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the Minister's point about having full data in three years time. I want to re-emphasise the point, however, that these are very large companies with huge profits. Some 140 of them have individually paid corporation tax in excess of €5 million in the last year. More than 400 of them pay corporation tax of at least €1 million per annum. There may be new companies that will come in to avail of this knowledge development box. Given the amount of tax that could potentially be forgone, let us be clear that we do not have the luxury of waiting for three years. We need to have an assessment with whatever information is available prior to next year's finance Bill. It may be, as was intended by the Government when introducing the section in this year's Finance Bill, that it will cost €50 million, but what if it does not? What if we find out that the tax forgone is ten times that amount or we are getting indications that is where it is going?

For example, we know that a couple of the multinational companies in this State pay the majority of corporation tax. Therefore, if certain activities were moved into this year without the resulting expected benefits from that to the Irish economy, then we need to tweak it. We need to do that all the time. It is not something new. The Government is introducing rushed legislation on the court case it lost concerning HGV licences and the way the tax was levied unlawfully over the recent period. That is because people are able to find loopholes in legislation and are able to take cases.

In dealing with the Irish Road Haulage Association or an individual haulier, the Government is up against a formidable foe and a very professional organisation. However, when the Government is dealing with companies that are paying taxable bills in excess of €5 million per annum, which means that their taxable profits must be in excess of €50 million per annum, they have the resources to find whatever loophole there is that might not be teased out in this Finance Bill, given the details and how this complies with other laws on the Statute Book, and that may be unexpected.

We are seeking a very modest thing. We are not saying to scrap the three-year report in which we will have the full data, because that report is expected. However, we should do what I expect the Minister's officials will be doing anyway, which is to get a sense of and a feel for how the knowledge development box is operating before next year's finance Bill. If his officials were not doing that, the Minister would be neglecting his duty. I am fully confident that the Revenue and departmental officials will be getting a feel for this to see how it is working and if it is working to the expectations the Government had at the time. The only thing this amendment does is ask the Minister to get that information, be it hard or soft data, and put it into a report in a way that can be furnished to the Opposition parties as well. In that way we can have a proper, considered view on this new development which is expected to cost a lot of money even if it works out to the Government's expectation in terms of €50 million. If we can see how it is working, then not just the Government but also the Opposition will be fully equipped and informed as to whether this needs to be tweaked, altered, amended, scrapped or strengthened in next year's finance Bill.

I will be pressing this amendment because it goes to the heart of genuine, serious debate on the Finance Bill before us. We must take our responsibilities seriously in examining the Bill and its measures. I have repeatedly told the Minister that while I have reservations about this area, one does take risks in the taxation code. The Minister must take those calculated risks and acknowledge the fact from his viewpoint - there is obviously an ideological point of view as well - that those risks have been taken on the basis of a report that has been carried out. When the Minister takes the risk he has to keep an eye on it because he is acknowledging that it is a risk. He has to see if it has worked out in the way he expected. Given the potential size of this and the way these companies are so mobile and are able to move profits, we need to have a feel for it by this time next year. I will therefore press the amendment. With hand on heart, I cannot see how the Opposition has a problem with this. The wording in the amendment is about ensuring the full House and the public are informed about how this transpires, with the information that is available at the time and recognising that information may not be the complete picture. We need, however, to get a sense of where it is going.

See this speech in context