Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This issue has been debated at length. Does the Minister accept that the Exchequer would taken in an additional €750 million if he made this change? The cap would apply in respect of the capital allowances associated with the intellectual property that was onshored during the window. Does he accept that?

Can he again outline for the House the reasons he decided not to do that? Is it because he regarded it as damaging the reputation of Ireland? Is it because he regarded it as moving the goalposts? It is well accepted that capital allowances are a legitimate tax deduction in our corporate tax code. That is certainly the case. Before the cap was lifted, we had a restriction on the income that could be offset by the capital allowances on this intellectual property. It was 80%, it was removed, and a staggering volume of onshoring took place during that window that Deputies Boyd Barrett and Pearse Doherty referred to. Now the cap has been reinstated.

The Minister had made the point previously that this is a timing issue and, all other things being equal, it is just a timing issue but there is no guarantee that the companies concerned will maintain the same tax structure, will continue to make profits of the same order for years to come, for this to be a timing issue over time. We cannot say that is certain.

At the same time, our corporate tax receipts are booming. The Exchequer has taken in close to €10 billion in 2018, with more than €1 billion in additional, unexpected receipts being collected around now. Whatever changes have been made, whether in our tax code or the tax structure that multinational companies are using, tax receipts are booming and have doubled in four years.

The Minister needs to explain whether he accept the figures that have been put forward and to outline his reasons for ensuring the cap does not apply in respect of the capital allowances associated with the intellectual property that was onshored to Ireland during that window.

See this speech in context