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

155. To ask the Minister for Finance the effect, in percentage and absolute terms, on the investment component of gross domestic product and the knock-on effect on gross domestic product if the largest single transaction related to intellectual property by a multinational was excluded; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43791/15]

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

I am informed by the CSO that a large factor behind the increase in investment in the second quarter national accounts this year related to a large acquisition of an intellectual property. However it is important to note that where transactions occur in intellectual property in a particular period, in general the impact on GDP is zero. This is because in the national accounts these investment transactions give rise to an increase in investment, which adds to GDP, as well as an offsetting increase in imports. In contrast, R&D created solely in Ireland will add to GDP in the same period. Of course, acquired intellectual property assets are expected to generate future income streams and increase GDP into the future. In Ireland because of the substantial presence of Multi-National Corporations, transactions of this nature in intellectual property occur frequently enough. It is important to stress that the contribution of this intellectual property transaction to overall investment or imports in the second quarter cannot be calculated with precision with publicly available data. The Deputy will be aware that due to confidentiality reasons the CSO are not in a position to comment on firm specific developments. In fact, the Statistics Act 1993 restricts the use of information supplied to the CSO solely to statistical purposes and prohibits identifying the undertakings which supply this information.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

156. To ask the Minister for Finance the arrangements in place for persons to pay a compromise sum to the Revenue Commissioners for breach of the regulations regarding mineral oil containing a prescribed marker in their private car, if the payment can be made in instalments, when these provisions came into effect; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43842/15]

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

The Revenue Commissioners have responsibility for the collection of mineral oil tax and for tackling illicit trade in mineral oil products. The use of marked mineral oil in the fuel tank of a private car is an offence under Section 102 of the Finance Act 1999. The penalty for this offence, prescribed in Section 102 of the Act, is a fine of €5,000, on summary conviction. Section 130 of the Finance Act 2001 permits the courts to mitigate the amount of the penalty by a maximum of 50% to €2,500.

Under the provisions of Section 1065 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997 on mitigation of fines and penalties and in accordance with the care and management provisions relating to mineral oil tax, Revenue may, depending on the circumstances of a case, offer an offender the option of settling a case in lieu of legal proceedings on payment of a compromise penalty. These arrangements have been in place for many years.

Where it is determined that a case is suitable to be dealt with by way of a compromise penalty in lieu of legal proceedings, Revenue will write to the offender indicating that they are disposed to deal with the offence in that way. The letter will specify the details of the detection and the offence, advise the offender of the amount of the compromise penalty and the timescale in which it must be paid (generally within a month). The penalty must be paid in full in a single payment sum for this compromise arrangement to be extended by Revenue.