Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 107: To ask the Minister for Finance his views on whether the price of diesel for coach and bus companies should be lowered to help offset the negative impacts on the industry brought about by the abolition of the excise duty rebate in 2006, which added 34.5 cent to the cost of a litre of diesel; his further views on whether a cost-benefit analysis should be carried out to determine whether lowering the price of diesel for coach and bus companies would generate activity in the sector that might lead to an overall increase in revenue for the State; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13596/11]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A derogation under EU Directive 2003/96 on energy taxation allowed the application of a reduced rate of Mineral Oil Tax to fuel used for the purposes of certain road passenger services. That derogation has expired and the arrangement was, therefore, terminated by the Finance Act 2008. It would not be possible, having regard to the relevant provisions of EU law, to reintroduce a scheme of that nature for those services.

Eric Byrne (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 108: To ask the Minister for Finance, in respect of the Finance (No. 2) Bill 2011, when it is expected that tax provisions will be made for couples in civil partnerships; if it is expected that there will be another finance Bill dealing specifically with civil partnerships, and that tax provisions for civil partnerships will be dealt with as a matter of urgency. [14302/11]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Finance (No. 3) Bill 2011 will be published on Thursday 9 June 2011. It will provide for the necessary taxation changes to the various Taxation Acts arising from the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. I expect the Bill to be enacted before the summer.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 110: To ask the Minister for Finance if a person (details supplied) is obliged to pay the universal social charge on their pension entitlements; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14311/11]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The position is that the Universal Social Charge, which came into effect on 1 January 2011, is a tax payable on gross income, including notional pay, after any relief for certain trading losses and capital allowances, but before pension contributions. All individuals are liable to pay the Universal Social Charge if their gross income exceeds the threshold of €4,004 per annum (€77 per week). However, there is an exemption for social welfare pensions, whether paid by the Department of Social Protection or by a similar authority in another country. There is no exemption for private pensions such as an occupational pension. While there is no age-related exemption, individuals aged over 70 years will pay USC at a maximum rate of 4% on any non-social welfare income that exceeds an annual threshold of €10,036, unlike other individuals who move to a top rate of USC of 7% on the part of their income that exceeds an annual threshold of €16,016.

A pension is chargeable to USC in respect of the amount of the pension paid in a tax year. Accordingly, if a pension is not in payment in a particular tax year, USC will not be payable in that year in respect of that pension. However, once the pension starts to be paid the full amount of the pension paid in the tax year and in each subsequent year is liable to USC.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 111: To ask the Minister for Finance the analysis he has carried out of the common consolidated corporate tax base proposal; the effect this proposal will have on enterprise and inward investment if it is adopted here; the effect this proposal will have on enterprise and inward investment if it is adopted not here but in other European states; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10011/11]

Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Department of Finance commissioned an Economic Impact Assessment of the proposed CCCTB from Ernst and Young in the US during 2008 and 2009. The purpose of the study was to analyse the budgetary and economic implications for the European Union and individual member states of the introduction of a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base. The potential impacts were estimated for three different scenarios: a voluntary CCCTB in all twenty-seven member states, a mandatory CCCTB in all twenty-seven member states and a mandatory CCCTB in nine member states (the Enhanced Co-operation option).

The results of the study point to a reduction in foreign direct investment in Ireland in the order of 1.4% under a voluntary CCCTB and 4.5% under a mandatory CCCTB. Whereas the scope of the study did include the impacts of a mandatory CCCTB on the nine participating member states, it did not cover the resultant impacts on member states that did not participate. Whilst it is far too early to speculate on the prospects of a CCCTB proceeding by way of enhanced cooperation, I want to assure the Deputy that there is provision in the Treaties to ensure that the spillover effects on non-participating member states are minimised.