Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 43, between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:“22. The Minister shall, as soon as the appropriate data becomes available but not more than within eighteen months of the passing of this Act and every twelve months thereafter, prepare and lay before Dáil Éireann a report on the effectiveness of the provisions in this Act which are intended to restrict the use of profit participating loans where they were used to finance business of section 110 companies related to Irish property transactions.”.

We discussed this on Committee Stage. I have taken on board the comments made by the Minister on when data would become available and when an assessment would be carried out. I am not sure the Minister of State, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, was in the Chamber when the Minister made a clear and welcome statement that if there were gaps, he would shut them down based on the policy objective. He said he would not be found wanting. He has made that clear. That is exactly what we want to hear.

The proposal here is that as soon as the appropriate data become available, but not more than within 18 months, a report should be laid before the House. If it is available within six, 12 or 15 months, we would have a report laid before the Dáil on the effectiveness of the provisions of the Act that are intended to restrict the use of profit participating loans where they are used to finance the business of section 110 companies related to Irish property transactions. We all know this is technical and that there have been amendments coming from the Department via the Minister on Committee and Report Stages. There is no doubt about it. I held back until I got to this point to welcome the work being done by the officials on what many of us on this side of the House were seeking for quite a while. We raised this issue consistently for quite a while. We have had engagement with the officials in which they explained the steps they are taking, and they allowed us to explain our concerns about possible loopholes or gaps throughout this process.

As we get to the point of closing down some of the abuses, regardless of what one thinks of section 110, we should note this proposal is better than what is in the existing legislation. It will close down loopholes and bring in a certain amount of tax to the State. The amount is yet to be determined.

Tax planners were mentioned. They will already have been working on this to determine whether there is another way and to examine how other jurisdictions integrate. They will be trying to figure out whether there is a way of avoiding paying the tax or structuring payments in a certain way. As soon as the data are available, let us have a report, but not later than within a year and a half. The report might state everything we intended to do under this section is being done, that no loopholes have been identified and that there is no restructuring to avoid tax. It might state the anti-avoidance measures we have built in are working. Alternatively, it might state something different and, therefore, allow us to proceed accordingly and inform us. It is in the context of the fact that we have the budgetary oversight committee. There is not a majority in government. The current Government might still be in office this time next year. It is about providing that information to the House in order we can best take it to the next step, if there is one required on the basis of what the report shows up.

Considerations like these should not necessarily be built into a finance Bill but there always needs to be a review. Where there is mobility and a capacity to employ some of the best tax consultants to get around the legislation, we definitely have to review it. This is important. I am sure the Department and the Revenue Commissioners will keep an eye on this but it is important that Members of the House have access to the information in a way that is appropriate. The Minister might state it is not appropriate that we lay it before the House because it could pre-empt what we would do. I am not sure about that. We are open to this. I am looking for a commitment that we will have a document put together at the earliest opportunity, but no later than within a year and a half. That document could be very small, stating the measures are working effectively. If they are not, I want commitments that there will be something presented to us that will identify possible problems such that we can work together on addressing them. We have done so effectively in respect of this section so far to try to ensure the State does not lose the revenue it has been losing over recent years.

See this speech in context