Simon Harris
Wicklow · Fine Gael · Ireland
“There are more than 10,000 routes and thousands of buses involved and the number of students using the services is not a million miles away from 200,000. The current terms of the scheme are going to continue to apply for the 2026-27 school year.”
“I thank Deputy McDonald for raising what is genuinely an important issue. I do take the point that when we talk about this in the abstract or from a process point of view in here, that for people watching this is their real lived experience.”
“There number of children who have been supported by means of the school transport scheme, as Deputy Fitzmaurice knows and has alluded to, has grown significantly in recent years. Since 2018, the number increased from 120,000 in 2018 to more than 181,000 now. Included in that figure are 24,000 pupils with special educational needs.”
“I knew the Deputy would have to mention the GAA, especially with Galway and Limerick playing at the weekend. I wish everybody involved the best of luck. We are very committed to the school transport scheme. If the Deputy wants to see our commitment, he should look to our budget.”
“An ageing population, increasing healthcare needs, the transition to net zero and the need for continued investment in housing, energy and infrastructure will place a significant demand on public resources.”
“There is also a legitimacy to the point the Deputy made about how it is a legitimate form of transport for some people. We see this working in other European countries. We see it in our nearest neighbours. I do not want to get the regime wrong, but I think they have registration at the point of purchase that allows people to track this.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,585 lines we hold for Simon Harris, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 41 of 92.
“I move amendment No. 20: In page 36, to delete lines 19 and 20. I believe this to be largely a technical or cleaning-up amendment. As Deputies who addressed this Bill on Committee Stage will recall, there was a commencement provision included in section 28 to allow for state aid approval for the extension of the scheme as it comes under the agricultural block exemption regulation. The commencement provision is no longer required as the necessary consent from the European Commission for the extension of the measure has now been received. Therefore, this amendment removes the commencement provision because it is no longer required. The extension of scheme will now take effect from 1 January 2026.”
“As the Deputy would acknowledge, we also did not bring forward additional legislative measures in this Finance Bill for some of the reasons he has mentioned such as the pressures that other workers in our economy are other. I will make any future considerations in relation to the SFT in the context of future annual budgets.”
“That is largely the point I was going to make. I am not unsympathetic to the important issues Deputy Gould raises. I see them in my own constituency. I deal with people like that every day in my role as a public representative in Wicklow and a Member of this House since 2011. That is why we took a number of measures to address child poverty and working family poverty in the budget. I will not have time to outline them and it would not be relevant to this amendment to do so but we took a number of decisions in respect of the working family payment, payments in relation to children and increases to social welfare. We made sure that all of the new expenditure measures in the budget were progressive.”
“Using the model, the indicative estimated costing of increasing the standard fund threshold is as follows: for 2026, the indicative costing is €10.5 million, for 2027 the indicative costing is €14.5 million, for 2028 the indicative costing is €8 million and for 2029 the indicative costing is €5 million. While the change in the SFT for 2030 is not set and will depend on the changes in earnings over the period from 2025 to 2029, an estimated cost of €500,000 has been included in the costing for this change. I would note that these estimated costs do not take account of behavioural changes - which is a legitimate point the Deputy raises - and are based on a reduction of the current CET yield. Any assessment of behavioural changes would be highly speculative and I am not convinced of the value of such an exercise.”
“There is, therefore, no underlying data available to Revenue on which to base reliable estimates. The Minister made that clear on Committee Stage. Consequently, the Department prepared indicative estimated costs based on the information available and shared those with the Deputy and others in the House in response to parliamentary questions, most recently on 21 October. The then Minister also gave a perspective on these costings during the Committee Stage debate, including a commitment to provide whatever information could be gathered in relation to the number of persons in 2023 who have availed of the option to pay it over 20 years. In this regard information was supplied by the NSSO on this matter. The information that was supplied is independent of politics and is the best information available.”
“I am not being argumentative but when we talk about these people, this is about roles in the public service and making sure we can recruit and retain people in the public service, including in senior positions involved in the security of the State and the running of public services. The purpose of the amendment, and of the identical one proposed on Committee Stage, is to require the preparation of a report on the costs of increasing the SFT to €2.8 million. My understanding is my predecessor explained there are difficulties in costing the changes to the SFT, perhaps for some of the reasons the Deputy outlined, in particular that information on the numbers and values of individual funds or on individual accrued benefits in pension schemes are not generally required to be supplied to Revenue.”
“For context, I remind Members the SFT was reduced to €2 million in 2014 and has remained at this level since then. During that time there have been significant changes across a range of economic factors, including consumer price inflation and wage inflation. The then Minister therefore considered a targeted and focused examination of the current calibration of the SFT should be carried out. It was not carried out by the Government but by an independent expert, Dr. Donal de Buitléir. He was appointed to lead the examination with support from the Department of Finance. It looked at the current pension landscape, the current calibration of the SFT and the potential impact on recruitment and retention in the public service.”
“I thank Deputies Doherty and Gould for their contributions. I should point out for clarity these changes in relation to the standard fund threshold were legislated for in the Finance Act 2024. It set out three specific aspects of the SFT regime, one of which was a technical change. The then Minister for Finance did not bring forward further changes to the standard fund threshold above and beyond what was legislated for and outlined last year. In many ways - not to speak for his thinking but I was privy to it as a member of the Government - that was because we did not have an income tax package in this year's budget and it was important to have a balanced approach. Future changes to the SFT will be considered in the context of annual budgets during the lifetime of this Government.”
“There is a further offset for electric vehicles to try to incentivise the transition to them as well. I take the point the Deputy makes. What we are trying to avoid is a moment of cliff edge. You could have a cliff edge in the here and now or in 2028 but we are trying to adopt a gradual, tapered approach to provide that policy certainty and, over time, incentivise and enable people to move to the lower emission vehicles.”
“The gradual phase-out of the relief will ensure that by 1 January 2029, BIK will revert to the structure as initially legislated for in the Finance Act 2019. The large-scale transition to electric vehicles is crucial to Ireland meeting its national and EU emissions reduction targets. We often talk about climate action and the importance of transitioning in this House. Continuing to subsidise fossil-fuelled vehicles through the BIK system is incompatible with such ambitious climate action targets. The OMV relief is being extended on a tapered basis in order to provide more time for employers to provide a lower emission car to employees over the next number of years in order to reduce the BIK liability. For the reasons outlined, I do not propose to accept these amendments.”
“As part of this Finance Bill, the OMV deduction is being extended for three further years of assessment on a tapered basis to the end of 2028. The OMV will be reduced by €10,000 for the 2026 year of assessment, reducing thereafter to €5,000 for the 2027 year of assessment and €2,500 for the 2028 year of assessment. With the temporary changes made to the BIK regime in recent years, there has been a level of uncertainty for employers when it comes to planning long-term fleet investments. A more strategic approach is required to give policy certainty to employers and employees. The tapering out of the temporary universal relief and the introduction of a new BIK rate for zero-emission cars provide greater long-term certainty in this area.”
“I will take amendment Nos. 17 and 18 together. These amendments relate to the temporary reduction applied to the original market value of cars in categories A1 to D, inclusive, and all vans for the purpose of determining the benefit in kind, BIK, payable. The amendments seek to keep the OMV reduction at €10,000 until 31 December 2028, in contrast to what we believe to be the tapering out of the relief provided for in the Bill as it stands. The Government remains committed to the environmental rationale behind the current emissions-based vehicle BIK regime, which has been in operation since the start of 2023. Temporary changes were made in 2023 in light of the inflationary context at the time. It is now appropriate that these changes are gradually phased out and we are trying to avoid a cliff-edge approach in this regard.”
“It found that the policy objective to support Irish businesses seeking to develop exports to new markets remains valid, particularly considering emerging challenges, heightened levels of uncertainty across the global economy and trends towards geoeconomic fragmentation. As colleagues will be aware, the report contained a number of recommendations. We also shared a note with the finance committee relating to any potential concern about misuse of the relief. We reaffirmed to the committee that it is considered that the relief is being availed of appropriately. I acknowledge the Opposition Deputies who raised this issue on Committee Stage. I acknowledge, too, my constituency colleague Deputy Timmins, who also highlighted it. I welcome this rare moment of unanimity in the House on this matter.”
“If there is any other relevant data from Revenue, I am happy to share it with the finance committee. Deputy O'Callaghan asked an interesting question that I, too, asked, which is why the exclusion is only taking effect from 1 January. The answer is that it would be very difficult to implement a retrospective application. Therefore, we consider a prospective amendment in the Finance Bill, applying from 1 January, is the most practical way to give effect to the provision because of potential legal issues considered in implementing it. It is appropriate as well considering the no previous claims for Russia in 2023. I take the Deputies' points regarding the deduction scheme. I am happy always to keep it under review and it is important that we do so. We published the foreign earnings deduction review on budget day.”
“Those are all very fair points. My first response to the question of why Russia was included until now is that I do not honestly know the answer. I do not want to mislead the Dáil but what I can imagine from my involvement in past postings is that as the sanctions regime evolves and do-not-travel notices are issued, we are constantly looking at both the domestic and European levels for more opportunities to tighten up in terms of sanctions that can have an impact economically on Russia. As I said, based on the latest Revenue data, this scheme did not seem to have any Russian claims in 2023 and, therefore, it probably was not seen as particularly, or in any way, impactful as an economic sanction because it was not truly being utilised in that year.”
“As indicated on Committee Stage, officials engaged with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and, following that Department’s analysis and recommendation, an amendment is now being brought forward to rightfully remove Russia as a relevant state for FED. I would note that in 2023, the last year for which Revenue data is available, there were no claims for the deduction for business travel to or time spent working in Russia. The effect of this amendment will be that from 1 January 2026 it will not be possible to claim relief under the FED in respect of time spent working in Russia, bringing the relief into line with the wider Government and Irish policy in this area. As this Report Stage amendment is now being introduced, I will not accept the other amendments. We are all endeavouring to achieve roughly the same thing.”
“The foreign earnings deduction, FED, is an income tax relief available to employees who are tax resident in Ireland but who travel out of the State to temporarily carry out duties of their office or employment in certain qualifying countries. By incentivising employees to make overseas trips, the deduction aims to support Irish businesses seeking to develop and expand exports and business in new and emerging markets. The Finance Bill 2025 provides for a number of amendments to the scheme, including a five-year extension to the end of 2030 and, in view of further encouraging market diversification, it also includes an increase to the maximum potential level of relief as well as its extension to the Philippines and Türkiye.”
“I move amendment No. 13: In page 29, to delete lines 25 to 28 and substitute the following: “ “ ‘relevant state’ means, as regards the years of assessment 2012 to 2025, the Russian Federation, and as regards the years of assessment 2012 to 2030, the Federative Republic of Brazil, the Republic of India, the People’s Republic of China or the Republic of South Africa, and includes—”. While taking this Bill on Report Stage having not taken it on Committee Stage, I want to acknowledge that this issue arose on Committee Stage. From my recollection, Deputies O'Callaghan and Nash and perhaps others highlighted this matter. I thank them for that. While there is a grouping of amendments, on this occasion we are all trying to achieve pretty much the same thing.”
“I do not want to be overly argumentative because we have a lot to get through, but the amendment is only looking for another report. I am simply saying to people watching that we do not need another report about the report. We need to consider the recommendations of the report. This is an important area to get right for the reasons the Deputy referenced, including competitive advantage that matters to this country in terms of attracting jobs and keeping investment in the country. We will make decisions on the recommendations. We will complete our engagement with stakeholders and I will keep the Oireachtas and relevant committee up to date on our deliberations.”
“We are considering all of the recommendations made in the review and as part of these considerations, my Department has started engagement with relevant stakeholders. We intend to continue to do that and then decide how to respond to these recommendations. For that reason, I do not consider it necessary to carry out a further report on the PRSI exemption for share-based remuneration at this time. I want to assure the Deputy that work on considering how to respond the recommendations is under way.”
“I thank Deputy Doherty. I will emphasise some of what he said. My Department commissioned Indecon Economic Consultants to carry out an independent review of the share-based remuneration scheme. The review made a number of recommendations pertaining to share-based remuneration and the PRSI exemption. The review found that the PRSI exemption is regarded as an important support for SMEs and other businesses in Ireland. We are all in agreement on that. Recommendation 1 of the review suggests that a cap on the level of the employer PRSI exemption should be considered as part of the process of determining future policy in this area. It is important that we get these calls right, in particular given the volatility in terms of trade and investment currently in the world. We are considering how best to determine future policy in the area.”
“I am advised that taxpayers in receipt of PAYE income now have the option to claim tax reliefs in respect of their health expenses during the year via Revenue's real-time credit facility, which can be accessed through a taxpayer's MyAccount. If the taxpayer is putting in a real-time claim, he or she is required to provide receipts at the time of the claim via the receipts tracker. I say that just to be helpful to people who, as the Deputy says, may need to recoup that benefit more quickly.”
“I am happy to genuinely engage on this and engage with my colleague, the Minister for Health. The Deputies would expect me to say this as a finance Minister, but my sense of this is that it is probably something in the direct expenditure and mapping out space and probably a broader whole-of-government discussion, which I am, of course, a part of, as to how we support people in these situations and whether the tax system is the best way to do it. I take the point. There is a gap no matter how we take this forward. I say the following just to be helpful because the point Deputy Doherty made about people having to wait to get the credits is a real fear people have.”
“Once we have that, I will immediately furnish it to the committee, and I am happy to engage on this further in the time ahead.”
“Once I get more specific information back from the Department of Health on home dialysis patients, we will forward that to the committee. If taxpayer units with no income tax liability could claim tax relief in respect of health expenses incurred for home dialysis or other health expenses, it would effectively introduce a system of refundable tax credits. That is a debate to have. I think the Deputies are okay with that; we are not sure we are. It could open this up to many more areas. What would be the cost to the Exchequer and so on? We have a bit of thinking to do on this. As was committed to on Committee Stage, the Department of Finance has sought clarification as to what direct expenditure supports are in place, or indeed could be put in place.”
“Specifically for home dialysis patients, tax relief may be allowed in respect of the following expenses: electricity, laundry, protective clothing, telephone and travelling. The flat rates available for kidney dialysis patients are operated by Revenue on an administrative basis and are updated annually in line with the consumer price index. Relief is calculated on these flat rates at the standard rate of income tax. Separate to this administrative practice, an individual may claim for the actual vouched costs of healthcare necessarily incurred by them, subject to relevant conditions being met. That, however, is not the point the Deputies are making. The point they are making has to do with people who do not reach the threshold of actually paying tax.”
“On the refundable tax credit - I say this to be helpful on an important matter - the Deputies will be aware that, in advance of budget 2024, the tax strategy group looked in its series of papers at the whole issue of refundable tax credits and outlined its concerns, not only about it being a fundamental change to the personal tax system but, on the other hand, that it would not necessarily assist as many people as we would like in the way we would hope. Based on that, I am not sure this is the best way to go. The Deputies have already acknowledged that there is a tax relief available where an individual proves that he or she has incurred costs in respect of qualifying health expenses.”
“This is a payment that is exempt from various taxations and the likes but it is a Department of Health scheme. The Deputies have been at this a long time, but these are generally schemes devised by parent Departments and then my Department advises or assists on the tax treatment piece of the schemes. It is not a matter of passing it to another Department, but it is a discussion for maybe the Department of Health and my Department to have together.”
“I acknowledge the very constructive way Deputies Doherty and Cullinane are engaging on this issue. While I am not certain an amendment to the Finance Bill is the way to go about this, I am willing to work with them and maybe the relevant Oireachtas committee, at which I think Members had a decent discussion about this on Committee Stage. From listening to the two Deputies, I think they are pondering how best to address this issue. We have requested more information from the Department of Health because I accept there is a gap here. Deputy Doherty made a fair point about living donors. Section 5 of the Finance Bill relates to compensation payable to a living donor of a kidney or part of a liver under conditions defined by the Minister for Health.”
“At present, section 477C of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 defines "qualifying residence" as one in respect of which the construction work is subject to the 13.5% rate of tax as specified in section 46(1)(c) of the Value-Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010. Consequent to the application of the 9% VAT rate to the construction of new apartments, which will be discussed further at amendment No. 31, it is necessary to amend the definition of "qualifying residence" to reflect the change to the rate of VAT. This amendment will ensure that apartments subject to the VAT rate of 9% will remain within the scope of the help to buy scheme.”
“I move amendment No. 7: In page 13, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 477C of Principal Act (Help to Buy) 5. Section 477C of the Principal Act is amended, with effect as on and from 26 November 2025, in subparagraph (ii) of the definition in subsection (1) of “qualifying residence”, by the substitution of “paragraph (c) or (cac), as the case may be, of section 46(1)” for “section 46(1)(c)”.”. This amendment, much of which we probably discussed in recent days, endeavours to address an issue that arises with the help to buy scheme, as a consequence of the reduced rate of VAT applying to apartments.”
“The programme for Government is very clear in its commitment to progressively increase the rent tax credit during the lifetime of this Government.”
“One day, if Deputy Doherty can ever form a Government or can find people in this House who wish to form a Government with him, he will realise that you go out to the people and seek a mandate from the people on your manifesto. You get as many votes and seats as you can in Dáil Éireann. If you do not have enough seats to form a Government, you then seek other parties in the Dáil to work with you. You then sit down together. You bring your policy proposals and they bring their policy proposals and you agree a programme for Government. The programme for Government is then the contract between the people and their Government and the contract between the Government and the Civil Service. It is what we answer for in this House.”
“In 2023, which is the latest year for which data are available, 315,000 taxpayer units benefited from the credit. That equates to almost 400,000 individuals benefiting. The extension of the credit in the Bill before the House tonight represents a commitment of approximately €350 million per annum in terms of support for renters. The programme for Government commits to "progressively increase the rent tax credit". That remains a commitment in the programme for Government. The priority this year was to extend the credit for a further three years. I intend to consider further increases to the value of the credit as part of each forthcoming annual budget and finance Bill.”
“To date, more than 4,500 new cost-rental homes have been delivered since the launch of this tenure through various different channels, including local authority delivery, approved housing body delivery, LDA delivery and through the cost-rental tenant in situ scheme. In relation to increases in the credit, for the years 2022 and 2023 the rent tax credit was valued at a maximum of €500 per single individual and €1,000 per jointly assessed couple. For the years 2024 and 2025 the rent tax credit is valued at a maximum of €1,000 per single individual and €2,000 per jointly assessed couple. The Finance Bill extends the relief for a further three years. We should remember that the relief was due to end but we are now deciding to extend it in this legislation before the House for a further three years.”
“They include the introduction of tenancies of minimum duration and further restrictions on no-fault evictions. As Deputies will be aware, we have introduced new comprehensive rental reforms, which will take effect from next March for new tenancies. More broadly, the Government recently published the delivering homes, building communities action plan. Additional supply over time will help to moderate the housing costs in both the purchase and rental sectors. That is why the focus has to continually be on supply. This year, the Government has allocated €6.8 billion to capital expenditure on housing delivery, a more than sixfold increase in just a decade. This will help to moderate the housing costs in both the purchase and rental sectors as additional supply comes on stream.”
“When the Government came to office people were wondering if we would continue rent pressure zones but not only did we continue them, we have extended them to the entire country. That benefits counties including Deputy Doherty's that were not previously covered by rent pressure zones. The CSO consumer price index shows that private rents increased by 3.2% on an annual basis in October 2025. This is the tenth month in a row in which the rate of rent inflation has either decreased or remained stable. I know that rents are extraordinarily high for people, but it is now the tenth month in a row in which the rate of rent inflation has either decreased or remained stable. Other steps are also being taken to enhance the security of tenants.”
“I thank Deputy Farrell. The Deputies are requesting a report on the rent tax credit operating in the absence of a cap on rents, and making a direct comparison between the amount of the credit and rent increases. They suggest that the rent tax credit should be complemented by rent caps. There are currently certain limits to rent increases. Rent increases in a rent pressure zone cannot now exceed general inflation. The ESRI published research in 2022 on the positive impact of rent pressure zones. This research found a clear downward trend in rental inflation following the introduction of the rent pressure zone legislation. We have now taken a decision as a Government to ensure that rent pressure zones cover the entire country.”
“As recently as today, we were considering how we can make further improvements in relation to this horrific humanitarian situation.”
“I will engage constructively with those line Departments in relation to that. There is going to be a review of the scheme and there will be legislation next week. I will engage constructively with the Minister, Deputy Browne, in this regard. If a Department brings forward a scheme, my Department engages with regard to the tax treatment of that scheme. On the ARP more broadly and with regard to people from Ukraine, we are reducing the level of income that can be generated from that scheme. I would like to see us continue in that direction in light of Deputy Doherty's legitimate points regarding the effect this scheme is having on the rental market. We will engage constructively on this. There will be legislation in the House next week. There will also be a broader review of the scheme.”
“In truth, this is not about compassion, from our perspective. We feel very seriously and strongly about what people are enduring in relation to this situation. The time available to me is not enough to outline a number of the measures we tried to take to assist. These include significant changes to the current scheme, more legislation to come forward next week, and the review of the scheme that is to take place next year. I hope it will be as early as possible next year. I am genuinely grappling constructively with the point the Deputy made on the idea of the ARP. It is not an unfair point. That scheme is administered by the Department of justice. My Department carries out the tax treatment element of the scheme. It is open to other Departments to consider schemes in relation to this area.”
“That is a point that merits further consideration by us. While I am not in a position to accept the amendments, there is the legislation coming forward next week and there is also the commitment in terms of the planned review of the scheme. The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage will, as required by section 51 of the 2022 Act, carry out a review of the operation of that Act. Legally, that has to start by June of next year and I believe it is now likely to start earlier than that as a result of the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, standards. I will certainly constructively engage, as part of that review, with the Minister on the issues that have been raised in the House this evening.”
“I do not want to misrepresent Deputy Doherty, but one of the issues I think I heard him mention was that some of the schemes in place to enable people to rent a place tax-free up to a certain amount are no longer proving effective, or as effective, because people are there much longer than that amount of money would cover. He referred to a figure of €15,000.”
“Even today at Cabinet, we had proposals in relation to legislation on defective concrete blocks that will come to the House next week. We have approved the priority drafting of the remediation of dwellings damaged by the use of defective concrete blocks (amendment) Bill, which will include details of the wider group of relevant owners who can avail of the increases. A number of additional amendments to the legislation are also proposed, including changes to payments of ancillary grants, whereby they can be applied for when the remediation grant determined has reached the scheme cap, which I think is part of the issue the Deputies were raising.”
“That is probably an understatement. I did not meet people yesterday - I was not in a position to do so – but I have met people in Donegal who are affected by this. I cannot imagine the horror people are facing. This is the reason the defective concrete blocks scheme provides for up to up to €27,500 for alternative accommodation costs, storage costs and immediate repair works for eligible relevant owners who are yet to receive a determination in respect of remediation options and grant amounts. I also acknowledge these homeowners may face great difficulties in the face of shortfalls in the local rental accommodation supply. That is the issue the Deputies are trying to constructively engage on. We are committed to trying to address issues with this scheme.”
“I thank Deputies Doherty, Conway-Walsh and Ward for this amendment. Let me first read out some of the factual answer for the record and then I will try to engage on some of the issues being raised. Two amendments have been grouped and we are discussing amendment No. 4, which calls for tax-based measures to support rental property activation in areas affected by defective concrete blocks. Deputy Doherty referred to amendment No. 11 as the substantive amendment in terms of its effect being the disapplication of income tax, USC and PRSI from rental income received by a landlord where a property is being let to a person who is an applicant under the defective concrete blocks scheme. I appreciate there are real, unique difficulties faced by homeowners forced to vacate their homes temporarily because of this issue.”
“My sense in terms of how we best take this forward now is that, given that the Indecon review of share-based remuneration considered and made recommendations on EOTs, and that my Department is currently engaging with relevant stakeholders in this regard, I am not sure it is necessary to carry out a further review on this matter. However, I accept it is necessary to have further engagement on the matter. I would be happy to meet with Deputy Lawlor, as he requested. I am happy to engage with interested Deputies, including the three who have spoken on this amendment and to keep them up to date with our stakeholder engagement.”
“As part of any consideration of amendments to the tax Acts in light of this recommendation, we need to analyse and evaluate both the potential benefits and Exchequer costs of implementing changes to facilitate the establishment of EOTs, in line with my Department’s guidelines for tax expenditure evaluation. Generally speaking, and I will make this point alongside what I have already said, the Deputies will appreciate the decision to adopt an EOT, or similar structure, is a strategic decision for any individual business or company. Many other factors can also influence this decision that are ultimately outside my remit or the remit of my Department.”
“Preferential tax treatment is not available for these structures in Ireland. That is the issue people are trying to tease through. I want Deputies to know consideration is being given to all recommendations arising from the review, and my officials have engaged with relevant stakeholder groups in this regard. As was discussed on Committee Stage of this Bill, Department officials have met with representatives of the Irish Pro-Share Association, IPSA, to discuss industry proposals on employee ownership trusts in recent months. Following these discussions, I am informed by officials that changes to discretionary trust tax, capital gains tax, which was referenced here, and to the close company surcharge, have been raised by stakeholders as potential necessary amendments to the tax acts to facilitate EOTs.”
“The Deputies will be aware that last year, an independent review of share-based remuneration was carried out by Indecon on behalf of my Department, which was published last year. This review, which included a public consultation, considered EOTs, and makes a recommendation pertaining specifically to this matter, suggesting that there is "merit in considering reforming the taxation of employee ownership trusts in line with the treatment of such arrangements in the UK." The Deputies have contrasted the current situation here with the situation in the UK in their comments. The term employee ownership trusts does not appear in Chapter 2 of Part 17, or Schedule 12 of the Taxes Consolidation Act. However, as alluded to by the recommendation of the Indecon review, preferential tax treatment exists for EOTs in the UK.”