Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 480: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised by ending the exemption from Capital Gains Tax applied to principal primary residences; charging CGT on principle primary residences at a rate 12.5 per cent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33171/10]

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

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that, as information on the value of capital gains arising from the disposal of principal private residences is not required in capital gains tax returns, there is no dedicated basis for separately identifying the yield that would arise from applying capital gains tax to sales of principal private residences. Accordingly, the specific information requested by the Deputy is not available.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 481: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised by treating capital gains and capital acquisitions as income to be taxed at the effective tax rate paid by the individual concerned; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33157/10]

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

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that, as there is no direct association on tax records between the effective rates of income tax and liability to Capital Acquisitions Tax and Capital Gains Tax, there is no basis on which a precise estimate of the impact on the tax yields from these sources from the change mentioned in the question could be ascertained.

On the basis that the effective rate of income tax broadly equates with the total tax liability as a percentage of total taxable income, it is not necessarily the case that the change in question would increase the yield.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 482: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be a net increase in revenue raised by abolishing employees PRSI and replacing it with a levy on all income of more than €200 per week (details supplied) unearned and earned and including social welfare payments at four per cent, five per cent and six per cent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33172/10]

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 483: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be a net increase in revenue raised by abolishing employees PRSI and replacing it with a levy on all income of more than €100 per week (details supplied) unearned and earned and including social welfare payments at the following rates four per cent, five per cent and six per cent; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33173/10]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 482 and 483 together.

It is assumed that the levy proposed by the Deputy, would be chargeable on the same income definition to which Income Levy currently applies and on income over €100 and €200 per week, taken to mean €5,200 and €10,400 per annum respectively. It is also assumed that there are no other exemptions, thresholds or ceilings to reduce the yield.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the estimated yields in respect of the levy proposed by the Deputy on incomes, earned and unearned, over €100 and over €200 per week and at the rates of 4%, 5% and 6% are set out in the table below.

These figures are estimates from the Revenue tax-forecasting model using actual data from the 2008 adjusted as necessary for income and employment trends for the year 2011. They are therefore provisional and are likely to be revised.

As regards the application of such a charge to social welfare payments, I have been informed by the Department of Social Protection that without further clarification in relation to the question, it would be difficult to answer accurately. It is not clear, for example, whether the proposed charge would apply equally to a single individual in receipt of a personal rate social welfare payment or a person claiming and receiving a personal rate of payment and an additional allowance on behalf of a dependent. It is also not clear whether it would apply to secondary payments (e.g. rent supplement or fuel allowance). If the Deputy is willing to clarify the possible application of the levy to social welfare payments directly to the Department of Social Protection, I am informed that it may be possible to provide an answer.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 484: To ask the Minister for Finance the amount that has been raised by the carbon tax since its introduction and since the beginning of this calendar year; if he will provide a break down by month; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33176/10]

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

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners the total receipts from the carbon tax for the period January to August 2010, is €136.2 million, i.e. €123.5 million from the carbon charge and an estimated €12.7 million in respect of VAT. It is not possible to provide a breakdown of the VAT yield on a monthly basis. The breakdown of the carbon charge by month is outlined below. For the Deputy's information, receipts are on deferral mainly by one month. The €15 per tonne carbon tax on petrol and diesel from 10 December 2009 and was applied kerosene, marked gas oil (also known as 'green diesel' or 'agricultural diesel'), liquid petroleum gas (LPG), fuel oil and natural gas from 1 May 2010.