Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I shall respond to Deputy Doherty's point. His comparison with 2006 is an interesting one because it shows a massive structural imbalance in terms of how property was invested, or the investment around property, in Ireland at the time. Of course we are talking about a real bubble event. The Deputy and I both know that from the work that we did on the banking inquiry. I refer to the almost 100% investment by Irish money in Irish property and the disaster that it led to.

On the possibility of preparing a report that will have the information that is requested, I am advised that it would not be possible to prepared the report requested in the proposed amendment. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

On Deputy Boyd Barrett's question, we discussed this at length on Committee Stage. We talked about the gross roll-up regime, how it might apply and the ability of a fund to grow or a profit within a fund to grow without being taxed. To clarify, the formula used to calculate the portion of the IREF profits is based on a retained earnings of the IREF. As the IREF's rental profits accrue they become part of the retained earnings. The IREF may then use its cash surplus, from that rental business, to invest in a capital asset. If it is then realised as a capital gain that capital gain will then also form part of the retained earnings. While the cash that is distributed may come from the sale of a capital asset the profits, from which the distribution comes, will be partly from the rental income and partly from the capital gain. That is, it is not possible to reduce retained earnings other than by making a distribution of some sort to the unit holders or incurring a loss in the current year.

See this speech in context