Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by increasing the universal social charge by 3% on income in excess of €100,000; and what the impact would be on the average effective tax rate of earners between €100,000 and €200,000. [54083/12]

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

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the full year yield, estimated by reference to 2013 incomes, from extending the additional universal social charge of 3%, which is currently applicable to self-employed income in excess of €100,000, to all income earners at this level of income would be of the order of €71 million. The Universal Social Charge is an individualised charge and as such, the estimate of yield is based on individual incomes of more than €100,000. The estimated yield is based on confining the extension of the 3% rate to the portion of income which is in excess of €100,000, that is, the increase is not applied to the portion of total income earned up to €100,000.

The effect of the suggested change on effective tax rates of income tax and USC would vary depending on the income level, ranging from increases of approximately 0.14% at €105,000 to 1.5% at €200,000. The overall average increase in the effective rate for the income range €100,000 to €200,000 is ultimately decided by the distribution of income earner numbers in the range. As the population distribution is predominantly skewed towards the lower end of that income range the overall average increase in the effective rate emerges as 0.3%. The figure is an estimate from the Revenue tax-forecasting model using actual data for the year 2010 adjusted as necessary for income and employment trends in the interim. It is, therefore, provisional and likely to be revised.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by reducing the pension related earnings cap to €70,000 and reducing the marginal rate of tax relief for private pensions to 30%. [54084/12]

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

I assume that the Deputy is referring to the current annual earnings cap of €115,000 which operates to limit the level of tax-relieved personal pension contributions in any one year. The annual earnings cap acts, in conjunction with age-related percentage limits of annual earnings, to put a ceiling on the annual amount of tax relief an individual taxpayer can obtain on pension contributions. A breakdown of the cost of tax relief on employee contributions to occupational pension schemes is not available by income tax rate, as tax returns by employers to the Revenue Commissioners of employee contributions to such schemes are aggregated at employer level. An historical breakdown is available by tax rate of the tax relief claimed on contributions to personal pension plans — Retirement Annuity Contracts (RACs) and Personal Retirement Savings Accounts (PRSAs) — by the self-employed and others, to the extent that the contributions have been included in the personal tax returns of those taxpayers. There is, therefore, only a limited statistical basis for providing definitive figures However, by making certain assumptions about the available information, the Revenue Commissioners inform me that the combined estimated full year yield to the Exchequer from reducing the current annual earnings cap of €115,000 to €70,000 and confining tax relief to the standard rate of 30% in respect of individual contributions to occupational pension schemes, RACs and PRSAs would be about €330 million.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer by introducing a levy of 10% on alcohol sales in off licences. [54085/12]

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

I understand from the Revenue Commissioners that EU Directive 92/ 83 - EEC, which governs the structure of alcohol taxation, does not provide for different tax treatment of alcohol products depending on where the product is sold. Therefore, it does not allow for the introduction of such a levy.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer if the practice of below cost selling of alcohol was outlawed, a practice which sees VAT lost to the State. [54086/12]

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

With regard to the VAT treatment of below cost selling, VAT is a tax on the value added to a supply, and the collection and recovery of VAT takes place at each stage of the chain of supply from manufacturing to retailer. Under EU and domestic VAT rules traders who are registered for VAT collect VAT on the goods and services that they sell. In turn such traders are entitled to recover the VAT they incur on their business inputs used in the purchase or production of goods or delivery of services. Consequently, if there is a decrease in value at any stage in the process the trader is entitled to a refund of the excess of VAT incurred over that collected. In this case, where a retailer is in a situation of net VAT gain as a result of below cost selling, this is not a loss to the Exchequer or an additional benefit to the retailer, it is merely how VAT is charged.

As regards calculating the VAT impact of below cost sales of alcohol, separate figures are not available for input VAT on goods that were subsequently sold at a discount as traders’ VAT returns show only the total input VAT and the total output VAT for the period covered by the return.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer if a junk tax was introduced. [54087/12]

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

The Deputy will be aware that the Minister for Health established a Special Action Group on Obesity (SAGO) to examine and progress a number of issues to address the problem of overweight and obesity, particularly in children. I understand that SAGO are calling for consideration to be given to taxation measures being applied to all foods and drinks high in fat and sugar. A detailed assessment would need to be carried out prior to the introduction of a junk tax or a more targeted tax on sugar sweetened drinks. This assessment would need to consider the possible impact a tax of this nature would have on employment, the less well off, cross border trading in the absence of a similar measure being introduced in the UK. In the absence of this assessment I am unable to advise the Deputy the revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer if one were to be introduced.

It should be noted, however, that the Danish Government has recently announced it is withdrawing the saturated fat tax it introduced in 2011, citing higher prices to consumers, higher administration costs, putting Danish jobs at risk, and an increase in cross-broder purchases as reasons for its withdrawal. It also said it intends to cancel the planned sugar tax.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer if the duty rates between agricultural fuels and motor fuels were equalised with a reclaim system for agricultural fuel users. [54088/12]

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

It is assumed that the Deputy’s question envisages a movement away from the current system of marking of oil to which a reduced rate of tax applies to one in which certain users, who currently use marked oil tax paid at a reduced rate for specific uses, would instead be given refunds of part of the mineral oil tax paid by them in respect of fuel used for non-auto purposes. No additional revenue would accrue to the Exchequer as a result of such a system because any additional revenue raised would be subject to reclaim by eligible users. While it might be expected that the net mineral oil tax raised from the users concerned would be neutral, this might not be the case in practice as the risk of abuse and fraud might be greater than is the case with the existing system. A change of this kind would also require the establishment of an extensive repayments system, which would give rise to a significant additional administrative burdens and costs for oil traders, users and the Revenue Commissioners. It would also impose significant cash-flow costs on those currently using marked oil for certain purposes, including agriculture.

Pearse Doherty (Donegal South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To ask the Minister for Finance the revenue that would be raised for the Exchequer if capital gains tax was increased to 35%. [54089/12]

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

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that the full year yield to the Exchequer, estimated in terms of expected 2013 gains, from increasing the CGT tax rate from 30% to 35% could be in the region of €80 million. This figure includes corporate gains. However, this estimate assumes no behavioural changes on the part of taxpayers, and increases in rates may have a significant behavioural impact and may not produce a corresponding increase in tax yield. In current economic conditions any estimate of additional yield must be treated with caution. In addition, increasing the rate could, in theory, lead to a reduction in yield from the tax.