Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 120: To ask the Minister for Finance when the stamp duty loophole involving the use of licensing arrangements in respect of land transfer and development land deals, to avoid capital taxation including stamp duty will be closed; the exact date after which new deals will be subject to the new arrangements; the number of house properties and estates and land transfer and development schemes that qualified for the avoidance of capital taxes for each year from the year 2000 to date in 2007; if he will pursue companies or individuals that avoided stamp duty under this scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10214/07]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As the Deputy is aware, I introduced legislation into the Finance Bill at Committee Stage to address the arrangements used by some developers that, under current law, do not involve a liability to stamp duty. The legislation provides that stamp duty may be liable on such arrangements as follows:

in the case of a contract, where 25 per cent or more of the contract price has been paid over to the landowner,

in the case of a licence agreement, where 25% or more of the value of the lands concerned has been paid over to the landowner, and

in the case of agreements for lease, where 25% or more of the consideration has been paid over.

At present no set date is provided in the Bill for the introduction of this legislative provision. It will be put into effect by a Commencement Order.

In recent years, anecdotal evidence has surfaced which suggests that some developers have been using these means to avoid liability to stamp duty. Last year, I asked the Revenue Commissioners to review these arrangements and the extent of their use. Arising from that review, Revenue have concluded that the bypassing by developers of a stamp duty liability is relatively common. However, Revenue are unable to provide details of the transactions as requested by the Deputy. As the transactions in question, under current law, do not involve a liability to stamp duty, no such records are available.

When new legislative provisions are introduced closing off a loophole, it is not possible under the law to introduce such changes retrospectively. As such, it can only apply to arrangements made after the provisions are commenced.