Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 112: To ask the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 150 of 1 June 2010, if he is considering introducing measures to prevent a tax discount for cheaper brands of cigarettes in the market occurring; his views on whether a reform in the taxation structure on cigarettes would be a revenue boosting measure; if he has been briefed on the Swedish ministry for finance's measures to change the excise tax structure for cigarettes; his further views on whether introducing such a model would be beneficial here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27607/10]

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

It is presumed the Deputy is primarily referring to the recent European Court of Justice ruling on setting minimum retail prices for cigarettes and to Council Directive 2010/12/EU, of 16 February 2010, amending Directives 92/79/EEC and 95/59/EC on the structure and rates of excise duty applied on manufactured tobacco.

The European Court of Justice judgement issued in March and is being examined by the relevant Departments. It is unclear as to what precise measures it is considered that Sweden is proposing to introduce. While the taxation of tobacco products is governed by EU Directives, Member States tend on an ongoing basis to make their own decisions about the taxation of tobacco products within overall EU guidelines. In that context it has to be recognised that Ireland has the highest prices and excise duty levels for cigarettes in the EU. Ireland also applies a high specific (fixed) duty element and low ad valorem element in setting its excise duty for cigarettes relative to other Member States. It is intended to continue that approach in setting our excise duty for cigarettes.

John Cregan (Limerick West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 113: To ask the Minister for Finance his plans to re-introduce the roll over tax for alternative land purchasing following compulsory purchase orders for road building as per the taxation commission recommendation. [27630/10]

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

Compulsory purchase order (CPO) relief from Capital Gains Tax (CGT) was introduced when CGT rates were much higher than the current level of 25%. CPO relief was a type of "rollover relief" which meant that the tax due on a gain could be partly or fully deferred if the consideration for the disposal of the asset was reinvested. The abolition of this relief was in accordance with the overall taxation policy of widening the tax base in order to keep direct tax rates low.

The Deputy will be aware that Finance Act 2010 provides that CGT on the disposal of land under a CPO is not payable until the CPO proceeds had been received by the former land owner. Previously, only farmers could pay CGT on this basis and other landowners had to pay the CGT on a CPO on either the date the authority with compulsory purchase powers entered on the land or the date the proceeds were received, whichever is the earlier.

I have no plans to re-introduce "rollover relief" but all potential taxation measures are constantly examined in the context of the Budget and Finance Bill.