Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We have come through the Finance Bill process but some outstanding issues need to be further addressed if we are concerned about our reputation. We know how sensitive we are when somebody suggests that we are a tax haven. However, there are examples of each positive step that we have taken being accompanied by a negative one. For example, it is positive that there was an independent review of Ireland's corporate code, a public consultation, engagement, recommendations and further consultation. That was all part of the bigger picture relating to the EU's anti-tax avoidance directive and the new controlled foreign companies, CFC, rules but, on the other side, there were two options for Ireland to take in implementing the CFC rules. There was model A, which most European countries chose, as it would ensure optimum effectiveness, or model B, which Ireland chose and was one of the few European countries to do so. However, model B is reckoned to do little, if anything, to address corporate tax avoidance. It simply applies guidelines which we are supposed to do anyway under current legislation on transfer pricing.

There is another positive regarding corporate tax residence rules, which is the shutting down of what was known as the double Irish. Why was that not done straightaway? Why are we waiting until 2021? Why was there a lead-in of ten weeks, which allows multinationals to set up a double Irish structure to use until 2021?

It is also positive that we were one of 24 jurisdictions to have been fully compliant on tax transparency and exchange of information by the global tax forum but, while Ireland requires countries to report tax information on a country-by-country basis, the information remains confidential. If it were public where countries are making profits and paying their tax, that data would show where tax reform is needed to ensure fairness.

Another positive is that we undertook the spillover analysis but it only examined 6% of transfers so the analysis was not comprehensive. Will a second more comprehensive analysis be undertaken on such corporate tax avoidance? If we do not, it will have effects on developing countries, some of which are our partners. We also give aid to some of them.

A further positive is that we agreed to the EU directive for a common mandatory reporting regime for certain tax advisers and companies. We were one of only three EU member states to have a mandatory disclosure regime in place prior to agreement on the directive, but there are questions about its effectiveness because there are so many exemptions to it.

Base erosion and profit shifting was a good first step. We were in a group which signed that multinational instrument at the first opportunity, but we chose not to sign article 12, which is key to ensuring no tax avoidance by multinational companies.

Small steps are being taken, but why are we not taking the big steps that will make a real difference to tax avoidance?

See this speech in context