Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 62: To ask the Minister for Finance the amount of money which would be raised in a full calendar year by raising the top rate of VAT by 1% and by 2%. [35326/11]

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

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the estimated yield in a full year by raising the top rate of VAT by 1% and by 2% is €335m and €670m respectively.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 63: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised in a full calendar year from increasing the carbon tax to €22 per tonne of CO2 on fossil fuels; the impact this would have on the price of petrol, diesel, kerosene, marked gas oil for agricultural use, liquid petroleum gas, fuel oil and natural gas; if he has plans to extend the tax to coal and commercial peat; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35327/11]

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

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the revenue that would be raised in a full calendar year by increasing the carbon tax by €7 per tonne of CO2 on fossil fuels (excluding solid fuels) to €22 per tonne would yield approximately €146 million (VAT inclusive). The impact on the price of fuels is shown in the following table:

*Average annual household consumption

In relation to the implementation of the carbon tax in respect of coal and peat, this relates to a potential Budgetary measure. It is the usual practice for the Minister for Finance not to speculate or comment in advance of the Budget what it will contain and I do not propose to deviate from that practice.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 64: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised from reducing the level at which individuals and companies can claim interest repayments against tax for residential rental properties from 75% to 60%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35328/11]

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

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that a breakdown between rent received from residential property and other types of property is not sought or provided in tax returns. However based on personal income tax returns filed by non-PAYE taxpayers and corporation tax returns filed by companies for the year 2009, the latest year for which this information is available, and making certain assumptions about the data it is estimated that the revenue that would be raised from reducing the level at which individuals can claim interest repayments against tax for residential rental properties from 75% to 60% could be in the region of €75m. Rental income of companies is returned as net of interest on borrowings the figures for interest are not separately distinguished in corporate tax returns. There is, therefore, no basis on which an estimate of the cost of reducing the tax relief involved could be provided.

The estimated cost of 2009 residential interest relief is based on assuming that tax relief was allowed at the top income tax rate of 41% and the figure provided could therefore be regarded as the maximum Exchequer cost in respect of those taxpayers. This figure is subject to adjustment in the event of late returns being filed or where returns already filed are subsequently amended.

It should be noted that any corresponding data returned by PAYE taxpayers in the income tax return form 12 is not captured in the Revenue computer system. However, any PAYE taxpayer with non-PAYE income greater than €3,174 is required to complete an income tax return form 11. This return is the source of the figure provided in this reply in respect of individuals.

The level at which interest repayments can be claimed against tax for residential rental properties was reduced from 100% to 75% in section 5 of the Finance Act 2009.

There is no specific proposal in the Programme for Government to decrease the amount of interest on borrowings that can be offset against rental income for tax purposes, however, as a matter of course all such taxation measures and reliefs are considered in the context of the budgetary process.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 65: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised from reducing the CAT category A threshold to €300,000 and €30,000 for all other categories; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35329/11]

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

The current group tax free threshold amounts for Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT) are: €332,084 for group A (gifts/inheritances from parents to children), €33,208 for group B (gifts/inheritances from grandparents to grandchildren, from uncles/aunts to nieces/nephews, and between siblings) and €16,604 for group C (all other gifts/inheritances). I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the additional yield from reducing the thresholds for CAT to €300,000 for Group A and €30,000 for Group B, as compared with the current thresholds, is estimated to be of the order of €13 million.

The proposed group C threshold of €30,000 is higher than the current threshold. Implementing the proposed threshold would give rise to an Exchequer cost, not a yield, estimated to be of the order of €10 million.

The net effect of changing the thresholds as outlined in the question is therefore estimated to be an additional yield of €3 million.

All estimates are based on transactions recorded in 2010. Revenue do not receive information on gifts and inheritances which currently do not have to be declared so it is not possible to estimate the potential yield if such benefits were brought into the tax net. The estimates are also based on the rate of CAT remaining at 25%.

It should be noted that these estimates are based upon an assumption that there would be no behavioural impact of the suggested changes, which could lead to a less than expected result from a change to the tax base. In addition, the realisation of any estimated yield from an increase in taxation on assets relating to property is subject to movements in the value of such assets which are currently occurring in the economy.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 66: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised from increasing the rate of imputed withdrawals from approved retirement funds greater than €3 million to 7.5%; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35330/11]

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

I assume the Deputy is referring to an increase in the percentage deemed distribution rate of 5% that currently applies to approved retirement funds (ARFs) to 7.5% where the value of the assets in the ARFs exceed €3 million. I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that information provided to them in the context of the tax paid on these deemed or imputed distributions does not include information on the value of the ARFs out of which the distributions are deemed to arise. There is therefore no basis on which a definitive estimate of the impact on the Exchequer of the change mentioned in the question could be compiled.

As an exercise that might provide some indication of the scale of the additional tax yield involved, data made available to my Department from private sector sources provides a breakdown of ARFs by value in respect of a number of providers representing an estimated 40% of the ARF market.

Out of a total value of some €2.4 billion in ARFs under management by these providers where the average ARF value was just over €127,000, the total value of those ARFs representing individual funds of over €3m was €66 million. Based on a very rough extrapolation of this figure to arrive at a broad potential estimate for the total value of ARFs with assets in excess of €3 million, generally, the estimated additional tax yield from applying an increased imputed distribution of 7.5% to such ARFs would be less than €2 million in a full year.

It is important to note that the deemed or imputed distribution measure is designed to encourage draw downs from ARFs so that they are used, as intended, to fund a stream of income in retirement in the same way as a retirement annuity, for which ARFs are supposed to operate as a more flexible alternative. The measure, in itself, does not give rise to significant tax revenues as it does not apply to actual draw-downs from ARFs, which are taxed in the normal way.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 67: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised by increasing the excise duty on petrol and diesel by 2 cent per litre; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35331/11]

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 68: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised by increasing the excise duty on beer and cider by 5 cent per pint; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35332/11]

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 69: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised by increasing the excise duty on spirits by 5 cent per half glass measure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35333/11]

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 70: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised by increasing the excise duty on wine by 50 cent per bottle; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35334/11]

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 71: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised by increasing the excise duty on cigarettes by 10 cent per pack; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35335/11]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 67 to 71, inclusive, together.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the full year yields arising from the increases requested, inclusive of VAT, are as set out in the following table.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the full year yields arising from the increases requested, inclusive of VAT, are as set out in the following table.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 72: To ask the Minister for Finance the approximate revenue that would be raised from abolishing the exemption from CAT of the residual value of approved retirement funds; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35336/11]

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

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that figures are not captured in such a manner as to provide a dedicated basis for compiling an estimate of the impact on the Exchequer from the change mentioned in the question. Accordingly, the specific information requested by the Deputy is not available.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 73: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised from abolishing the 100% capital gains tax and stamp duty exemption on the disposal of a site to a child and its replacement with a rate of 75% of the tax that would otherwise be charged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35337/11]

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

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that, as information on the value of the gain arising from the disposal of a site to a child is not required in Capital Gains Tax returns, there is no dedicated basis for separately identifying the yield that would arise from a rate of 75% of the tax that would be charged if there were no relief on such disposals. However, on the basis of indicative information on the relevant tax returns, it is unlikely that the yield from the Capital Gains Tax element of the question would exceed €1 million in a full year. The Stamp Duty relief on the transfer of a site to a child was abolished in Budget 2011 with effect from 8 December 2010.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 74: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised from eliminating the exemption from PRSI of share based remuneration including share options; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35338/11]

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

In the recent Jobs Initiative, I announced the abolition of the charge to employer PRSI on all share based remuneration that was introduced in Budget 2011. The employee PRSI charge and the universal social charge will continue to apply. At Budget time, it was estimated that the charge to employer PRSI would yield approximately €9.5 million in 2011 and €17.7 million in a full year.

As the charge was never intended to apply to share based remuneration that was subject to written agreement entered into before 1 January 2011, the 2011 figure was significantly over-estimated. Due to the nature of written agreements for share based remuneration, the full year yield from the imposition of the PRSI charges would not accrue until 2015 at the earliest. The estimated yield from the abolition of the employer PRSI exemption on share based remuneration would be approximately €2 million in the first year and would rise to approximately €17.7 million in a full year.

In addition, it must be stressed that these estimates assume no significant behavioural changes on the part of the remuneration practices of employers. Indeed, the removal of the exemption would impose additional costs on employers and could potentially deter companies from making investments and locating jobs in Ireland.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 75: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be foregone from eliminating the stamp duty on share transactions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35339/11]

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

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the full year cost to the Exchequer from elimination of Stamp Duty on share transactions, by reference to the expected 2011 outturn, is estimated to be in the region of €181 million.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 76: To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised from ending the exemption from PRSI and universal social charge for save as you earn schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35340/11]

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

In Budget 2011, a charge to PRSI and the universal social charge (USC) on share based remuneration was announced. In the recent Jobs Initiative, I announced the abolition of the charge to employer PRSI. The employee PRSI charge and the USC will continue to apply.

At Budget time, it was estimated that the charge to employer and employee PRSI on save-as-you-earn schemes would yield approximately €0.3 million in a full year. Based on this figure, ending the exemption from employer PRSI would yield approximately €220,000 in a full year.