Ciarán Lynch (Cork South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 153: To ask the Minister for Finance if a register is kept of the number of subcontractors who de-list to go on the unemployment register; his plans to introduce a bonding system for subcontractors in the event that the main contractor goes out of business; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37801/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that subcontractors are self-employed taxpayers and subject to self-assessment. The notion of de-listing from the self-assessment tax system does not arise and notification that a taxpayer no longer has a source of income from self-employment will normally be made on the annual return of income. Such notification can also be made in the course of claims made to Revenue, (Relevant Contracts Tax claims, for example) or if the taxpayer acquires a new source of taxable income such as a PAYE employment.

In the current economic climate, taxpayers in the construction sector may have periods of employment, self-employment and unemployment in a given year and in this context they remain within the self-assessment system and liable to make a return of income.

There is regular exchange of information both ways between Revenue and Department of Social and Family Affairs in relation to areas of risk, and the two organisations work together in Joint Investigation Units where they also work with the National Employment Rights Authority.

Payments to subcontractors are a contractual matter between the parties to a contract. The protection of such payments in the event of the main contractor going out of business is an issue for the contract to address. If a bond is required to deal with the issue then an appropriate provision should be included in the contract between main contractor and subcontractor. Furthermore, any interference by third parties external to a contract would be considered by the Courts not to be legally binding and therefore unenforceable.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 154: To ask the Minister for Finance if farmers who sell land for road building through the compulsory purchase order system to the National Roads Authority will be liable for the windfall capital acquisition tax of 80%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37847/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The proposed 80% windfall capital gains tax to which the Deputy refers is being considered as part of the NAMA legislation and it will be discussed at Report Stage of the Bill. It is not customary for the Minister of Finance to comment on the specific details of tax changes prior to publication of the legislation.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 155: To ask the Minister for Finance if he has plans to change or alter the imposition of tax on savings of approved retirement funds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37850/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The 2006 Budget and Finance Act introduced an imputed or notional distribution of 3% of the value of the assets of an Approved Retirement Fund (ARF) on 31 December each year, where the notional amount is taxed at the ARF owner's marginal income tax rate. Funds actually drawn down by ARF owners are credited against the imputed distribution in any year to arrive at a net imputed amount, if any, for the year.

The imputed distribution measure was introduced because the internal review of tax relief for pensions provision undertaken by my Department and the Revenue Commissioners in 2005 (and which was published in early 2006) found that the ARF option was largely not being used as intended to fund an income stream in retirement, but instead was being used to build up funds in a tax-free environment over the long-term.

The 3% rate was phased in over the period 2007 to 2009, with 1% applying in 2007, 2% in 2008 and the full 3% in 2009 and each subsequent year. This regime applies to ARFs created on or after 6 April 2000 where the ARF holder is 60 years of age or over for the whole of a tax year. The provisions do not impact on Approved Minimum Retirement Funds (AMRFs), although funds drawn from an individual's AMRF can also be credited against the individual's imputed ARF distribution

The imputed distribution measure is designed to encourage the use of ARFs as intended and restricts the capacity of individuals to use ARFs purely as long-term tax-exempt vehicles. I have no plans at this point in time to change or alter the current legislation.