Maureen O'Sullivan (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

320. To ask the Minister for Finance in view of the fact that the Finance Act 2007 removed Irish securities stamp duty reliefs market maker, broker dealer, and closings relief and introduced the central counterparty relief and intermediary relief (details supplied), if this change had not been introduced the amount of stamp duty revenue on these transactions in 2014. [21902/15]

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

I assume that the Deputy is seeking to ascertain the impact on stamp duty revenues if, on the abolition by Finance Act 2007 of certain reliefs (i.e. market maker, broker/dealer and closings relief), these reliefs had not been replaced by alternative reliefs (i.e. intermediary and central counter party reliefs).

Arising from a concern that the stamp duty code did not reflect developments in the market for equities and modern share dealing practices, my Department carried out a review of the operation of this market.  The objective was to ensure that the market in Irish equities would continue to be a modern, liquid market, conducive to capital acquisition by Irish firms. The outcome of the review was the consolidation and replacement of outdated reliefs by Finance Act 2007.  The overall thrust of the measures was to ensure that any intermediary (such as brokers or counter parties) in the chain of a share dealing transaction would continue to be exempt from stamp duty where they do not hold shares as an investment for their own benefit.  The ultimate purchaser in the chain of a share dealing transaction continued to be liable for stamp duty at the prevailing rate on the consideration given for shares. This rate was 1% when the reliefs were introduced and remains at 1%. Therefore, the new measures, in themselves, would not have resulted in any change in stamp duty revenue for the Exchequer.

The Deputy's question is hypothetical in that it asks about the effect of not having introduced a tax measure that was in place for a particular year, i.e. 2014.  It cannot be assumed that, in the absence of the new measures the removal of the existing reliefs, would have yielded a certain amount of stamp duty as it may have been counterproductive and had the effect of discouraging share transactions. It would therefore be inappropriate to speculate on the matter.

In relation to actual share dealing transactions, I am advised by Revenue that there were in excess of 10 million individual transactions carried out through the CREST share settlement system in 2014. Obtaining details of the cost to the Exchequer of reliefs claimed under central counter party and intermediary relief would require an extensive investigation and analysis of Revenue's records which could only be carried out at a disproportionate cost.

 In any event, my view is that the usefulness of carrying out such an exercise is questionable.