Thought leadership

Brian Keegan, Director of Advocacy & Voice writes a weekly column in the Sunday Business Post

Tax

Originally published on Business Post, 22 March 2020 We are all struggling to become used to social distancing, but there is no such thing as fiscal distancing. When almost nothing else works as normal, the tax system does. The additional burdens which coronavirus is placing on the exchequer, due to increased social welfare payments and emergency care measures, will not be offset by tax revenues – in fact, quite the opposite. While often it is the tax paid (or not paid) by wealthy individuals and multinationals that captures the headlines, the bread-and-butter of exchequer funding is the Vat and PAYE collected by the business community throughout the year. Last year one in every four euros of tax collected was Vat and it was the second largest source of money for the exchequer. Generally, Vat is paid over every two months and the Vat collected by businesses on sales during January and February is due tomorrow. Vat is primarily a consumer tax, and the bill could be large. We still ate in restaurants, drank in pubs, bought cars and clothes and attended events during January and February. Many businesses have a PAYE bill due this week as well, reflecting payroll deductions during the month of February on wages paid before the layoffs and closures we have seen in the past fortnight. Vat and PAYE together make for a big tax bill and a cash-flow challenge. There are two fundamental aspects to tax compliance – the payment and the tax return. While the payment is usually the main concern, it is in fact the tax return which can land a taxpayer into serious trouble. Incorrect, late or missing tax returns result in people being fined or penalised or ending up in court or being published on the list of tax defaulters. Late or missing payments on the other hand are mostly pursued using routine debt recovery methods, so the best advice for any business facing problems with tax payments is to make the tax return anyway and worry about the payments later. The Revenue has signalled this week that it will waive interest charges on late payments of Vat and PAYE for businesses with a turnover of less than €3 million. This is an unprecedented departure from its usual policy. Normally, as Donald Tusk might have observed, the Revenue reserves a special place in hell for businesses who default on Vat and PAYE, on the basis that this money has already been recovered from their customers and employees and should be paid over to the Revenue forthwith. Not even during the crash in 2008 did thebRevenue offer any succour like this for businesses. Another step in the right direction is the application of the new PAYE real time system to ensure that workers laid off due to the coronavirus crisis will get their social welfare benefit of €203 per week as quickly as possible. This column has griped in the past about the cost to employers of implementing Revenue-compatible payroll software to make the new PAYE system work, so it is good to see some return on that outlay. Participating employers will be able to pay the emergency social welfare benefit of €203 per week and expect to recover the amount from the Revenue within a matter of days. Terms and conditions apply, because we must recognise that this benefit is to facilitate the rapid payment of social welfare benefits to people who have been laid off as a result of the coronavirus epidemic. It is not an opportunity for payroll substitution, or for manipulating figures, or for taking on ghost employees. Again, to channel Donald Tusk, there should be a special place in hell reserved for anyone trying to game any system which has been established to help workers and their employers deal with this calamity. The current fall off in tax receipts is a result of the evaporation of demand – for fuel, for services, for goods. Because of this we can expect monthly exchequer receipts to fall by hundreds of millions every month over the coming months. It's another compelling argument, even if one were needed, for social distancing. The shorter the crisis, the sooner demand will return, and the less damage will be done to the economy. While the bank bailout is often blamed for the surge in the national debt following the Great Recession in 2008, most of the debt was racked up by the decision to continue paying social welfare benefits and provide services during years when the tax revenues simply weren't there to support them. This is now happening again, but our tax yield is better shielded now than it was in 2008. For one thing, we are less reliant on capital taxes. It may even work out in our favour that corporation tax receipts are derived from a relatively small number of multinationals operating in industries which might not be as badly affected by coronavirus as some others. For many businesses facing tax bills this week, though, the advice is simple. Make sure the Vat return is made to the Revenue, and that your PAYE system is accurate and up to date. If necessary, worry about the payments later. You cannot do fiscal distancing. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Mar 30, 2020
Tax

Originally published on Business Post, 15 March 2020 At an Ireland Funds fundraising dinner in Washington last week, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar pointed out that while much of the time, words don't matter, the words of Nancy Pelosi, the US House of Representatives Speaker, typically do. It was a good line, but it's not just who says things, it is what is said that matters. The House Speaker’s words cited by the Taoiseach were significant because they signalled to the British that any trade deal that disrupted the Good Friday Agreement would not be a runner in the US. Less than 12 hours later, Varadkar himself was in the business of words that matter when he announced the social distancing measures taking effect this weekend to counter the spread of the coronavirus. His announcement acknowledged the disruption to working patterns and to the economy, but the threat of Covid-19 has already been having those effects for several weeks. Even the enormous PR machine of Irish/US business relations was rattled long before the Taoiseach announced that Ireland was to change gear, and before US president Donald Trump announced his nation’s clampdown on international travel. Coronavirus did not knock Brexit off as the hot topic on the Ireland/US business agenda for the week, because Brexit was not the hot topic to begin with. The burning issues for Irish trade with the US at the moment are tariffs and tax. On the tariffs front, Irish problems derive from the World Trade Organisation ruling that France had provided trade subsidies to Airbus. That in turn prompted retaliation from the US which put additional tariffs on goods of many descriptions, like butter and cream liqueurs. That's hardly fair to an exporting country like Ireland, but we are in the EU and it is the US and EU that are in dispute. Rewriting the tax rulebook The other big challenge is the old perennial of tax policy. Much is made in Ireland of the enormous lift in corporation tax receipts, triggered by the relocation of intellectual property assets – patents, knowhow and the like – into the country. This phenomenon has been flagged domestically as a problem if we become too reliant on corporation tax to fund day-to-day spending. It is no harm to be reminded that the exporters of such intellectual property, notably the US, are not delighted by the bonus tax receipts in Ireland either. Ultimately, largely thanks to the US Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Uncle Sam is better off if the intellectual property is located here rather than in one of the traditional warm and sunny island tax havens. Yet the US remains deeply suspicious of the continuing European attempts, driven by the OECD, to re-write the tax rulebook for multinationals, particularly those in the high-tech sector. All of this creates an unwelcome drag on transatlantic trade and investment, particularly as Irish/US investment is a two-way street. State agencies in the US compete for Irish investment just as the IDA competes for US investment here. The effects of coronavirus on the Ireland/US business narrative taking place in New York and Washington last week may be short lived compared to these tax challenges. Instead its main effect could well be to change the increasingly fractious negotiating narrative on Brexit between Britain and the EU. Here's why. Expensive and cumbersome Much of the Brexit discussion so far has had to do with trade in goods rather than trade in services. It's easy to predict the impact of Brexit on the trade in goods, because tariffs are known and quantifiable and business reactions to their imposition are predictable. Tariffs do what they are designed to do, which is to make imports more expensive and exporting more cumbersome. We know what happens when tariff and quota patterns depart from the norm, because we see real-world examples. These can be major, like the US/China trade dispute, or something apparently trivial like a work-to-rule by French customs officers. In both cases, disruption of the existing norms can be measured and quantified. Compared to the trade in goods, there have been relatively few instances where trade in services becomes shifted from the norm, at least up to now. Services are provided by people and, thanks to coronavirus, people are now subject to social distancing. That disrupts the capacity of businesses to provide services both domestically and internationally with a consequent disruption to the economy as the Taoiseach acknowledged. Courtesy of the scourge of the coronavirus the Brexit negotiators are being presented with unprecedented evidence of the consequences of failing to get agreement on cross border trade in services. The next few weeks will show what happens in practice when countries restrict free movement of people, when they limit recognition of qualifications, and when they deny licences to provide services like financial services in different markets. Ireland’s trade surplus with Britain is dependent on services, not goods. We deal more with Britain than with the US. The Brexit negotiators need to get it right. As the Taoiseach pointed out, words do matter and Nancy Pelosi’s words will shape the future trade deal. The bitter experience of coronavirus should shape it as well. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy with Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Mar 30, 2020
Tax

Originally published on Business Post, 1 March 2020 Ten billion dollars is a staggering amount of money. It’s the amount that Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, one of the world’s most prominent business people, promised last week to contribute to fight climate change. It's rare that business imitates politics yet this is what seems to be happening in the growing debate over sustainability. Bezos’s commitment is only an outlier by virtue of the scale of the money involved. A survey last year by environmental consultancy EcoAct found that 99 per cent of FTSE companies measured or reported on their carbon emissions. This kind of behavioural change seems not to be just confined to larger industry. It is being adopted by businesses of every size. At a business panel discussion on sustainable finance held earlier this month in the Irish Embassy in London, a straw poll was taken of more than 100 attendees from all walks of business life. They were asked whether or not their organisations were taking any steps, however small, to protect the environment. Not a single person in the room admitted to their organisation being indifferent or not changing behaviour or policies. Some of the changes identified were obvious, like reducing the use of single-use plastics. More significant approaches also featured, like changing the company's investment strategy in favour of greener industry. Some companies tended towards less obvious tactics, like sourcing supplies for the staff canteen nearer to home to reduce food air miles. If the commitment evident in the business community towards sustainability could be transposed into the political sphere, the likes of the Green Party would have no difficulty whatever forming governments. Yet for all the business commitment, the topic of sustainability itself remains vague and somewhat elusive. Part of the problem is how to define sustainability. When industry speaks of sustainable finance, the underlying assumption is often that it has to do with environmental conservation – the reduction of carbon emissions, the conservation of scarce natural resources, and a general reduction in the generation of pollutants. Other important topics, like reducing the exploitation of labour in developing countries or ensuring diversity and equality of opportunity in the workforce closer to home, feature less. Surely they have as good a claim to being sustainable goals as not setting the planet on fire? Such goals feature less regularly in the debate despite having been identified by the UN as legitimate goals towards sustainability. Lack of transparency Given that omission, it's reasonable to ask whether the business drive towards sustainability is as much about marketing as environmental management. Greenwashing, the practice of businesses advertising their green credentials primarily to secure greater market share, is a widely known phenomenon. It smacks of a lack of transparency. Nevertheless, it makes forming an independent assessment of the green credentials of a business more difficult. The difficulty is more accentuated when investment decisions are being made on the back of sustainability claims. Only slow progress is being made on resolving this problem of transparency. Individual agencies and regulators do set standards to help determine the green credentials of particular types of fuels, equipment and machinery and so on. But regulators and standard setters are still pretty much at sea when it comes to establishing widely accepted norms for reporting credible sustainability behaviours in the annual reports and accounts of companies. There are at least eight different governmental organisations, quangos and professional associations with multinational reach which are currently attempting to formulate or contribute to acceptable industry wide standards. Nothing coherent has yet to emerge from these efforts. It is tricky to put hard numbers on any company's observance of environmental sustainability, human rights, diversity or workplace inclusiveness. Without hard numbers, subjective judgements can raise as many questions as they resolve. The drive for ethical investment, only buying shares in businesses which in some way are believed to be doing the right thing, has impacted many industries such as tobacco and mining. The drive towards corporate social responsibility has permeated all the way up to the American Business Roundtable, a leading US corporate think tank. Last year it posited that the purpose of a corporation should include delivering customer value, employee investment, fair dealings with suppliers and community support as well as the more traditional purpose of creating long term value for shareholders. All this is very worthwhile, but any claims to progress on sustainability should be based on a robust framework of standards, and not merely subjective value judgements. Bezos says his contribution should be applied to “scientists, activists, NGOs — any effort that offers a real possibility to help preserve and protect the natural world”. Included in such efforts should be the development of objective and transparent sustainability reporting standards for business. After all, what gets measured gets done. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Mar 30, 2020
Thought leadership

Originally published on Business Post, 16 February 2020 It seems we now have the most left-leaning Dáil in decades. And although at this stage we are not yet clear on what shape the government is going to take, there is a good chance that we may also end up with the most left-leaning administration in decades too. As a result, it’s apt to ask whether Irish businesses should be concerned about the kind of economic and fiscal policies that might be introduced. Daft economic policies that are damaging to business prospects are not the exclusive preserve of left-wing politicians. The daftest economic policy anywhere, Brexit, was the brainchild of a British Tory government which could be described as many things, but certainly not left-wing. Developed economies tend to have robust governance and civil service implementation structures which ensure that the worst excesses and pipe dreams of politicians don't automatically get anywhere beyond the pages of their manifestos. Those structures at times may seem undemocratic, but just as often, they are the badge of a country which is not a failed state. Ireland has had such public governance arrangements and civil service institutions for a very long time. Some of the checks and balances, for example, the special rules to raise taxes with a finance bill, are written into the Constitution. Some tax-raising mechanisms are almost a century old – the Office of the Revenue Commissioners was founded by an order of a Sinn Féin TD you may have heard of called Michael Collins. Other controls are relatively new, such as the so-called ‘Two Pack’ EU budget rules for the eurozone countries. The result is that the tax policies of any government, be it left-wing or right-wing, must survive triage both from parliamentary and constitutional rules, and from the civil service which must implement them. At this point, there’s little value in revisiting in minute detail the manifestos of the political parties – to do so would be to re-fight the election. Suffice to say that the tax plans of Sinn Féin, the Green party, the Social Democrats and Labour reflect a change in approach to the taxation of income and capital from what we have become accustomed to over the last decade, with wealth taxes and financial transaction taxes in the mix. The degree of fiscal conservatism of the last decade has been unusual. Previously, the cornerstones of our tax policy – inheritance tax, capital gains tax, even corporation tax itself – were all introduced by coalition governments with a left-wing component provided by the Labour Party. Even the 12.5 per cent rate of corporation tax, which for over 20 years has been the effective shorthand for the policy of successive Irish governments’ approach to companies, was the brainchild of a Labour finance minister, Ruairi Quinn. But since then, fundamental changes to our tax system have been rare. USC is just income tax by another name. The local property tax collects less than 1 per cent of the total tax. Instead of reform, we have tinkered with bands and rates, narrowing the base and all the while pushing the system in a more left-wing direction. Our income tax system is based on the 80/20 rule. Roughly 80 per cent of income tax is collected from 20 per cent of individuals. Most goods and services in this country, particularly essential items such as food, healthcare and housing, are either exempt from Vat or are taxed at the lower 13.5 per cent rate. The 23 per cent Vat rate applies to a relatively small category of goods by European standards. The vast amounts of corporation tax collected means that companies pay about €2,000 in tax each year for every person in the country. In tax policy terms, this is about as left as it gets. However, the position at the macro level is different and might even be described as right-wing. Compared with many other OECD countries, Ireland takes only a modest slice of its GDP through taxation. If we aspire to provide more money for healthcare, social welfare, retirement benefits, housing, education, environment and local government, then the choices are not about simply raising the top rate of tax for higher earners. The real choice would involve a major policy decision to increase the overall levels of taxation within the economy. This could involve introducing things like a broader-based local property tax at higher rates. It could involve introducing higher Vat rates and higher PRSI contributions for employers, employees and the self-employed alike. It could mean bringing in a Swiss-style wealth tax, which currently contributes 6 per cent of total revenue in that country, while exempting many gains, gifts and inheritances so that there is some wealth to tax. It could also mean risking our successful corporation tax regime by increasing rates, or reducing incentives for research and development and capital investment. It should mean taxing everyone a little more, because while tax is about redistribution, it is not about punishment. The next government will claim to be more attentive to voters’ concerns and requests, but will it make the big fiscal choices? Will the ground truly tilt left? History suggests not. Dr Brian Keegan is director of public policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Mar 30, 2020
Tax

Business Post 9 February 2020 Now that the scramble for votes is over, the scramble for the big jobs in government begins.  The job descriptions of the 15 ministers allowed under the constitution has changed many times, as successive Taoisigh sought to emphasise or reallocate political priorities.  New portfolios get created, and then can be re-amalgamated as happened with Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform in 2011.  Also as part of the deck shuffling by Enda Kenny in 2011, responsibility for trade was moved to the Department of Foreign Affairs.  The move was broadly welcomed at the time, notably by the Fianna Fáil leader Micheal Martin. Trade is where the diplomatic rubber hits the road for open economies.  When outlining Britain’s trade negotiation strategy on Monday last in Greenwich, Boris Johnson quoted the 19th century Liberal politician Richard Cobden.  Cobden once described free trade as “God’s diplomacy”, the best way of keeping the peace. More pragmatically, Ireland’s tiny pool of natural resources along with a small indigenous market means that we simply cannot go it alone and ignore international trade.  It makes perfect sense to have the trade function directly linked to the Department of Foreign Affairs and, in parallel, for Ireland to increase the number of diplomatic missions abroad in recent years as it has done.  Quite literally, if you're not in, you cannot win. If ever there was a need for Ireland's trade concerns to be in step with our diplomatic efforts, it is now.  There will be no immediate land border issue on the island of Ireland as a consequence of Brexit.  Having this problem resolved diminishes any special negotiation status we may have within the European system, though there is optimism in official circles that the other EU countries won’t throw Ireland to the Brexit wolf as the future relationship with Britain unfolds.  As Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe was quoted as saying last week, “we will be seeking at all times to put both the European interests and the Irish interest first and I believe they are going to be fully aligned”. This is the kind of diplomatic circumlocution that will be required in the coming months from our next Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.  Brexit makes little commercial sense for most Irish and British people in industry.  It will make even less commercial sense for the British if Britain becomes obliged to stick to EU norms and standards to secure a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the EU.  This was the underlying message of Boris Johnson’s Brexit policy speech in Greenwich on Monday last. On the other hand, the EU cannot grant Britain free access to its market unless Britain continues to accept EU standards.  To do otherwise would dilute the necessity for any country to be a fully paid-up member of the EU to gain access to EU markets.  Compounding this problem for Brussels is that several other EU member countries aren’t entirely clear themselves on what constitutes adherence to standards and quite often don’t bother themselves unduly when going about implementing EU legislation.  Nor is Ireland the only EU member country fighting State Aid tax cases against the Commission. The new Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs and Trade will also be embroiled in two further scenarios.  He or she will need to continually reassure investors from outside the EU that Ireland is still the place to be when doing business with Europe, and that because of Brexit we can offer even more opportunities than before, while at the same time dealing with a growing contradiction in the all island economic approach.  Successive governments on both sides of the border have long extolled the virtues of an all-island economy but the Northern Ireland economy is imbalanced.  It is overly reliant on the public sector.  The Brexit withdrawal agreement has created a hybrid form of trading existence (part UK, part EU) for Northern Ireland.  Northern Ireland will have, in effect, dual membership of both the EU Customs Union and the UK Customs territory, and a similar dispensation for VAT.  This makes Northern Ireland an ideal place to consider establishing a business if looking to trade with Britain in high tariff or highly regulated goods.  It follows that the worse the future trade deal is between the EU and Britain, the greater the potential advantage to Northern Ireland of having this dual-regime arrangement.  A thriving Northern Ireland economy should reduce Stormont’s dependency on public sector funding from Westminster which involves a subvention in excess of £1billion sterling a month.  So now, in the course of the negotiations on the future trading relationship between Britain and the EU, the economic interests of the North and South will be directly at odds.  It will take a particular brand of diplomatic skill to square this particular circle. In his Greenwich speech, Johnson without any sense of irony quoted Cobden’s “God’s diplomacy” idea as the best way of keeping the peace. Cobden could not have envisaged, and perhaps Johnson does not care, about the trouble the next Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade will have in ensuring that free trade does indeed keep the peace.  Any takers for the job?   Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland    

Feb 10, 2020
Tax

Last Tuesday’s publication of the Sinn Fein election manifesto was met with the usual howls of derision from their political opponents.  You’d be disappointed if it were otherwise. The Sinn Fein manifesto is provoking extreme responses which was possibly its intention.  Its ideology is firmly rooted in socialist ideas which haven’t the same electoral support here as Labour has in the UK.  Their manifesto out-Corbyns Corbyn.  When he was running for election in the UK last year, Jeremy Corbyn only wanted a 50% percent income tax on the wealthy.  The authors of the Sinn Fein manifesto would probably see that as a half-hearted aspiration.  They want earnings over €140,000 to be taxed at a combined rate of 57%.  That’s 4% PRSI, 8% USC, 40% Income Tax and a 5% high income levy. Just because a particular ideology might not sit well with a majority of the electorate does not mean that it is wrong.  Any form of taxation is essentially about redistribution.  It's about moving income from one cohort of society to another, or towards investing in and sustaining services which are available to all cohorts of society.  Devising tax policy is tricky not because of having to set rates nor indeed because of having to decide which and whose money should be taxed.  What makes it tricky is the need to ensure that the policy can be sustained.  When the financial collapse a decade ago led to a collapse in property valuations, property transactions, and hence the tax yield from the construction and banking sectors, we learnt to our cost what happens when tax policy isn’t sustainable. Politicians can set up the tax system in almost any way they want and be reasonably assured that it will work in year one.  It is not a secret how such tinkering can be achieved.  Each year the Revenue Commissioners publish a “ready reckoner”, explaining the impact to Exchequer receipts from increases and decreases to the various bands and rates of tax.  It would for example be possible for a new Finance Minister to double the rate of Capital Gains Tax this year to 66%.  The ready reckoner says that every percentage point change affects the yield by €33m, so that in theory should generate an additional €1billion or so.  This could be used to eliminate local property tax and still have plenty of spare change to reduce the pensions age, so the minister can claim that the figures add up.  He or she might be right in 2020 but would certainly be wrong in 2021 or 2022.  People would look for ways around such a confiscatory tax, or simply defer sales of capital assets in the hope of better days.  The biggest ticket tax item in the Sinn Fein manifesto, restricting retrospectively the tax allowances available to companies for intellectual property, is at best a cash flow advantage.  It is not a new or additional tax.  Their proposal for a high income levy will create what is known in the UK as the cruise ship point – when it’s no longer worth your while after tax to earn more and you may as well go on holiday.  A vacant site levy of 15% may well bring in an additional €100 million or so in the first year, but what happens when the levy starts to work and the number of vacant sites drops off? For businesses, the mooted 15.75% rate of employer PRSI on incomes over €100,000 will create a pay ceiling beyond which few employers will venture.  And will companies be reassured of the commitment to the 12.5% rate in the Sinn Féin manifesto?  Their own Stormont Finance Minister Conor Murphy announced ten days ago that he is not actively pursuing a 12.5% rate for Northern Ireland, although he has the devolved power to do so. Let’s set aside any objections on ideological grounds.  The problem with the tax proposals in the Sinn Fein manifesto is that they are not sustainable.  They would bring in additional money in year one, but not in years two three or four.  All this is a pity because there is much in the Sinn Fein manifesto to like.  They have got the right idea for instance about carbon tax and the futility of increasing it without providing credible fuel usage alternatives.  The current Sinn Fein election manifesto harks back to their manifesto in the run-up to the 2011 General election.  Ireland was a different place back then.  Unemployment was soaring, the national debt was mounting, tax receipts had fallen off a cliff and international creditors were calling many of the shots.  However the core ideas in the Sinn Fein manifesto are the same now as they were a decade ago – higher taxation on a small proportion of individuals, extensive tax reliefs for cohorts of workers on the lower income brackets, and a significant increase in public sector day-to-day spending.  Ireland has moved on. The Sinn Fein manifesto needs to as well.    Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Feb 03, 2020
Tax

Business Post 26 January 2020 There isn't a politician in the country who isn't afraid of the “grey lobby”.  Successive governments have found to their cost that anything which tampers with the benefits being enjoyed by the retired carries a guarantee of protest. So why all the furore about pensions in the current election campaign?  After all, the grey vote is not bothered because they have their pensions already.  The state retirement age moving to 68 isn’t even a new announcement.   Upping the age at which the state pension kicks in has been known about for a decade.  It wasn’t even the work of the current government but of the previous Fine Gael/Labour coalition government.  It's not the usual grey brigade that's affected – it is the greying brigade. The greying brigade - people born in the 1960s and early 1970s - have not done particularly well from the policies of successive governments.  Many of them first came onto the jobs market during the 1980s when jobs were scarce and inflation was rampant.  In recent years we have almost forgotten what inflation is, but in 1984 for instance, inflation ran at somewhere in the order of 8%.  The State responded to that recession by taxing everyone virtually out of existence.  During the 1980s the corporation tax rate was 50%, the standard rate of VAT hit 35% and the marginal rate of tax and PRSI in 1985 for workers on modest wages was 73%.  If you went to a bank looking for a mortgage, you would be solemnly told (if you were lucky) that the natural cost of money was 10%.  Yet the greying brigade, those late baby boomers and early generation Xers, hung on. Things began to get a little better in the 1990s.  Largesse flowed from Brussels, and the economy entered into a period of recovery.  But property prices began to spiral with house prices in the late 1990s increasing by 25% per annum.  That in turn lead to increases in Stamp Duty.  Just as this generation were having kids of their own, the tax relief for children in the family was abolished.  Still the greying brigade hung on. With increasing prosperity in the 2000s, money was pushed into the National Pension Reserve Fund.  This was the original rainy day fund designed to shelter the Exchequer and citizens alike from the cold winds of an ageing demographic.  That pot of money evaporated in the financial crash and a large chunk of it was used to bail out the banks.  Certainly, the late baby boomers and the early generation Xers didn't see it even though it was their taxes that had largely built it up.  No sooner did this blighted generation get to the stage when their own children might be leaving school and contemplating careers, or perhaps a further term in college, than the great recession hit in 2008.  Taxes and unemployment levels soared again, and many saw their children emigrate and their own jobs disappear. And now, just when they think things might be getting a little better, this same generation is being told that their retirement date will be pushed out time and time again.  Is it any wonder the greying brigade are upset?  The wonder is that they have not begun protesting before. While many people are cynical about elections and election campaigns, they serve to focus the minds of citizens on the way they are being governed.  The hustings prompt an authentic examination of current affairs, where politicians have a real interest in saying and doing not just the right thing but the electable thing.  For a few weeks the court of public opinion is less driven by the usual pundits and keyboard warriors, none of whom foresaw how sensitive the retirement age issue would become.  Delaying the pension age was a money-saving ruse.  It is now becoming clear that it is a ruse which is not going to work.  Transitional payments and interim arrangements will eat into the savings in the state coffers, which the extension of the pension age was designed to achieve in the first place.  Fianna Fail talk of a comprehensive review.  Fine Gael promises transitional payments for retirees at the same effective rate as the state pension.  Sinn Fein wants to reverse current policy entirely and bring back the retirement age of 65.  These all amount to the same thing.  They differ only in the grace of the political U-turn involved. A pension is perhaps one of the most boring topics imaginable, except for those in immediate prospect of receiving one.  People who have had little or no interest in financial affairs all their working careers suddenly become pension gurus when their own retirement is looming.  The private sector seems increasingly conscious of how small the benefits are from their pension savings, as purchasing annuities on retirement simply doesn't cut it anymore because of the low yields on government gilts.  Couple that with the disenchantment of the greying brigade towards government policy generally, after years of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  A new lobby is emerging, of which our politicians would do well to be fearful.  Beware the greying brigade.   Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Jan 27, 2020
Taxation

Business Post 19 January 2020 One of the easiest portfolios for a new minister to pick up in the next couple of weeks could be Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform. Compare it to the lot of the next housing minister or the next health minister, who are bound to pick up their portfolios with some trepidation.  True, we have an enormous national debt, but then international interest rates are at historic lows.  We no longer run a budget deficit and the main tax problem in the economy is that we collect too much tax from companies.  Unless the new finance minister goes on a spending splurge, there will be a budget surplus in 2020.  Paschal Donohoe mastered two of the key requirements for the job of finance minister.  He was clever and he was lucky.  His period of tenure as a minister in the 32nd Dáil coincided with the global economic recovery gaining momentum.  In a small open economy such as ours, economic factors will always trump anything an individual finance minister does or doesn't do.  Our unemployment levels are at a record low mainly because of external factors and only partly because the minister did nothing to hamper employment growth. Nor can any finance minister in any small country dictate the international consensus on cross-border taxation.  Ireland has benefited spectacularly from an unforeseen consequence of the changing international approach to corporation tax.  The so-called BEPS consensus led by the OECD drove income generating assets out of tax havens and into genuine low rate (rather than low tax) jurisdictions.  I'm not aware that anyone predicted the extent of this effect on the Irish economy.  When the New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman sneeringly described the consequent boost to Irish GDP as “leprechaun economics”, he failed to realise that the leprechaun’s pot of gold is actually real and is located on these shores with little apparent sign of it moving anytime soon.  Was this just luck? Donohoe and his officials detected very early on what way the international tax policy wind was blowing.  Although the government was criticised for what seemed to some to be a tardy approach, both Donohoe and his predecessor Michael Noonan eliminated some of the more egregious cross border tax planning schemes.  Less prominent but perhaps as important was Ireland’s role in building a coalition of the cute within the EU.  Simon Coveney and Donohoe orchestrated the responses of the dozen or so smaller nations which became known as the New Hanseatic league.  These countries are linked by a shared alarm over some of the EU tax proposals driven by the larger economies.  Between them they managed to make life a bit more difficult for the EU Commission and sucked the life out of EU proposals for digital taxation. This decisiveness was not always matched by measures on the domestic front.  At times it seemed that the finance minister was paralysed by the fear of doing the wrong thing.  His tenure marked a new way of defining “risk averse”.  Business concerns largely went unheard, and there was little or nothing in the way of new business tax incentives.  The “keep on saying nothing” approach taken by government in the face of Brexit uncertainty meant that many businesses simply could not plan coherently.   The Budget for 2020 was prepared on a worst possible case scenario.  Issues raised at the annual National Economic Dialogue, ostensibly an occasion for civil society to present its ideas to government, went unnoticed. The minister will point towards the economic growth which transpired anyway as justification for this laissez faire approach.   That doesn’t answer whether more could have been achieved, nor does it excuse ignoring the tax system as a lever of policy.  How was it justifiable not to use the tax system to encourage housing development and rental supply to help provide accommodation at a time of crisis?  After all, we know that housing tax incentives are effective.  We even know what mistakes to avoid with them. There were other problems too.  The focus remained on the multinational sector, with little tax support for indigenous industry.  The approach to carbon taxes was hesitant.  Local property tax is no longer fit for purpose.  The valuations are out of date and too many properties are exempt; at this stage LPT is borderline unconstitutional.  Inheritance tax is now largely a tax on Dublin households as the exemption thresholds have not reflected property price growth.  The 40% rate of income tax still applies at low income levels. On balance, I think the history books will be kind to Paschal Donohoe.  It is in the nature of the economic cycle that the term of the next government is likely to span some economic slowdown, if not an actual downturn.  Nevertheless, whoever takes the portfolio next time will be taking it at a good time to become the finance minister.  He or she will have both the economic headroom, and plenty of untapped opportunities, to make a difference.   Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland 

Jan 20, 2020
Tax

Business Post 12 January 2020 It's been a week for job announcements.  Enterprise Ireland and the IDA announced their results for 2019.  It was apparently full steam ahead for the IDA, which supports foreign direct investment into Ireland, but somewhat less so for Enterprise Ireland which supports Irish exporters and whose results were somewhat muted.  Alongside these announcements of what the private sector does best when it's creating jobs, the headline results of the Revenue Commissioners for 2019 also surfaced.  And guess what, they seem to be in the business of job creation as well.  In the past 12 months, the headcount at the office of the Revenue Commissioners has increased from 6,129 full-time equivalent staff in 2018 to 6,621 in 2019.  In parallel, the cost of running the Revenue Commissioners increased by some €25 million year-on-year to a total of €450 million in 2019. A lot of the public service headcount debate in this country tends to focus, rightly, on frontline staff – nurses, teachers and gardai.  If tax receipts are up to the levels achieved prior to the crash in 2008, so now too is the Revenue headcount.  Yet it's not getting any easier for businesses and employers to comply with their tax collection obligations.  So what is the Irish taxpayer seeing for these increases in Revenue staffing and costs? Much of the rationale for this staffing increase was the prospect of Brexit, particularly a hard Brexit.  Additional customs officers were recruited to deal with the additional checking of goods flowing between this country and Britain.  There was also an element of planning involved to secure against staff shortages from pending retirements.  But now that the threat of a hard Brexit has receded, what will all these additional tax officials do? For the 200,000 or so businesses employing people in this country, one of the heaviest tax compliance burdens often has to do with operating PAYE on their employees.  When releasing their 2019 headline results, Revenue made much of the success of their modernisation of the PAYE system during 2019 and portrayed it generally as a boon for all concerned.  The costs to employers to replace or upgrade their software for the change were not in fact seen as a boon by many employers.  There is no doubt that PAYE modernisation has tightened up the PAYE system.  While this can be to the benefit of employees in the long run, the additional cost to employers has gone largely unacknowledged.  There have also been suggestions in the past few months that the vast harvesting of tax data on employees, via their employers, might be further extended to the self-employed.  It's costly enough to do business without having to provide additional statistical data to government. Law abiding taxpayers will by and large be pleased to see that tax audits and enforcement continues, because business tax evaders – businesses not complying with VAT, PAYE or other obligations - are operating illegally but are also effectively stealing an unfair competitive advantage.  Nevertheless, the tax recovered from policing evasion collected from tax enforcement activity declined in 2019 when compared to 2018.  It's probably a little too early to tell whether compliance levels have actually improved by virtue of the additional Revenue staffing and more rigorous PAYE systems.  Or maybe the Irish taxpaying population at large has got that little bit more compliant.  The Revenue results also highlight one of the great unsung costs to Irish business, namely employer PRSI.  Employees fare much better than the self-employed under the social welfare system in terms of contributory non-means tested pension benefits, health and occupational benefits.  These additional social welfare benefits come at a heavy cost to employers, who typically stump up an additional 11% or so onto the cost of payroll to cover employers’ PRSI.  In 2019, Revenue collected over €12 billion in PRSI on behalf of the National Social Insurance Fund.  Those who complain about our welfare state need to remember that over 16% of all revenues collected in Ireland go towards PRSI.  Fully €1 billion more was collected in PRSI in 2019 than in 2018.  Given the scale of the contributions, it's reasonable to ask if PRSI is representing good value for money for the Irish citizen.  For example, how can the health service continue to be in such dire straits given the level of social insurance citizens are paying? The answer to that of course is not in the gift of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners.  Their mission is to collect taxes fairly and efficiently, not to spend them.  While a bumper year for tax receipts is good for the Exchequer, the increasing compliance costs of doing business are worrying. Amounts collected by employers under PAYE amounted to €31.6bn for 2019.  There is a greater obligation than ever on Revenue to provide better support for those who make the headline tax collection figures look so good.   Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Jan 13, 2020
Thought leadership

Business Post, 8 December 2019 Better to have five good one-year plans than one good five-year plan.  It's almost 30 years ago since I was at the receiving end of this advice, from a person whose business success clearly showed it was the right approach.  While long-term planning has always been a good idea, back then strategy development for the medium term hadn't yet become the self-fulfilling industry it is today. Yet, we all try to look a little further down the road than just the next few months, as indeed the Minister for Finance did this week in a speech to the Institute for International and European Affairs.  He identified policy responses to address some of the economic hazards he and his department officials foresee coming down the tracks.  It must be a frustrating business for any government minister to try to lay down plans which might only crystallise long after he or she has been voted out of office.  If a week is a long time in politics, then five years or more must be measured in terms of aeons. In his analysis, the Minister identified 2012 as a nadir for the Irish economy.  He cited the fact that in 2012, unemployment stood at 16% and the budget deficit was 8.1% of GDP.  Tough times indeed, but how well it illustrates the futility of long-term planning.  Whose medium-term strategy formulated in 2012 would have correctly anticipated that long before the end of the decade, we might be back to full employment?  Or that by the middle of the decade, Britain would have decided to pull out of the EU?  Or that the biggest tax problem in 2019 might be a surfeit of corporation tax receipts? Corporation tax receipts traditionally peak in November.  That's because most large companies must pay tax in two instalments and for various practical reasons, the second instalment typically falls due in November.  Not only that, while smaller companies make most of their tax payment in one instalment, that payment tends to fall due in November as well.  The corporation tax receipts for November were announced last Tuesday and, true to recent form, they are almost embarrassingly large.  To put some context on the vast amounts of corporation tax collected, for every person in the country, companies have paid about €2,000 in tax this year so far. The November corporation tax receipts reflect the dominance of the dozen or so very large companies who make the bulk of the corporation tax payments, and they also reflect the contribution of smaller companies within the economy. There is a very simple way to reduce the dependency of the Irish exchequer on corporation tax receipts.  That would be to cut the rate down from 12.5% and thereby collect less.  However badly this might land in a domestic context, it would be totally unacceptable in the current international debate.  The rationale now seems to be that if you can't regulate the biggest tech giants, then at least tax them.  I'm reliably told that at a recent industry gathering in Paris to discuss the current OECD proposals on cross-border digital taxation, everybody in the room welcomed the proposed new rules.  Provided, that is, there were exclusions for their own particular industry. Despite such cynicism it is impossible to disagree with the thrust of Pascal Donohue’s observations that the times are indeed changing for companies.  They need to.  According to a recent OECD report, tax receipts generally in that particular club of wealthy countries are beginning to plateau, and their growth in recent times reflects little more than the growth in their economies.  The inevitable consequence is that most developed economies are going to have to rethink the way they collect tax, not just from companies but also from their population at large. Every time we undertake that kind of rethink in this country however, it falls flat.  There is compelling evidence that we have an ongoing problem with our water supply system, yet we rejected the introduction of water charges.  The funding problems for our national broadcaster (and more broadly the crisis for journalism in all shapes) are acute, yet we resist any notion of a media levy to replace the increasingly irrelevant TV licence.  Despite the introduction of local property tax in 2013, can it be correct that still only 10% of local government funding, according to Thursday’s Seanad Eireann debate, is provided directly by this tax? These are not medium-term policy ideas.  I have some sympathy for a government which is so hamstrung by domestic political events and the risks from the political events across the Irish Sea that it can’t even change the rules of bingo, let alone signal significant tax reform.  Nevertheless, it is this type of single year issue which might change people's lives for the better far more rapidly than medium-term fiscal aspirations. It is still better to have five good one-year plans than one good five-year plan.   Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland  

Dec 09, 2019
Tax

The Sunday Business Post, 1 December 2019, Britain, as the Brexit process constantly reminded us, is our largest trading partner.  It is also a major competitor.   The prospect of Brexit, particularly a crash out hard Brexit rightly put the frighteners on everybody, so much so that our own Minister for Finance could push a Budget through the Dáil with almost no tax benefits for everyone (other than the self-employed) and scarcely a murmur of dissent.   Brexit or not, the British will have a new government after December next.  It will be new either in political hue, or new in the sense that it will be another Tory government operating from a different manifesto.  Now that the manifestoes of the two main parties, Conservative and Labour, have been published, what could change in the competitive environment between our two countries?   Cross-border trade is heavily influenced by tariffs and trade agreements, but it is also influenced by business sentiment and consumer spending power.  Consumers vote; businesses don't, so election manifestoes usually treat most categories of voters with kid gloves.  The Tories are promising that there will be no increases in income tax, national insurance (the equivalent here is PRSI) or VAT over the next 5 years.  The Labour party is making the same promise, but limited to anyone earning below £80,000 per annum, and other terms and conditions (particularly for married people) apply.    Were either party to secure a majority and then follow through on their election promises, it seems that consumer spending power for most voters would be largely unaffected in the UK.  That’s good news for Irish producers and exporters of consumer goods.    For UK companies though the manifestoes from both parties hold less promise.  Previous Tory plans to continue the downward trajectory of the Corporation Tax rate have apparently been reversed, and the promised rate of 17 per cent will not now materialise – the standard Corporation Tax rate in the UK will remain at 19 per cent.  Under a Labour government, the rate is promised to increase to 26 per cent.  Neither of these proposed rates would be the highest by international standards, and both are still lower than the 28 per cent rate paid by companies in the UK a decade ago.    Perhaps more worrying for UK companies is that the manifestoes of the main parties seem tone-deaf to the challenges of attracting foreign direct investment (FDI).  Although the UK economy dwarfs the Irish economy in size, the importance of inward investment is common to both and our industrial agencies compete with their UK counterparts.    It is tricky to make direct comparisons about FDI between countries.  This is because cross border investment can take many forms and can be channelled in different ways.  For example a US company investing into the UK could make the investment via a European subsidiary, blurring the distinction between EU investment and US investment.  Nevertheless, analysis from the UK’s Office of National Statistics identifies the US as the major source of investment into the UK by some distance, but followed by significant annual investments from Germany, France and the Netherlands.  This broadly mirrors the profile of foreign investors into Ireland (if we omit the UK which itself is a source of investment here).   There is a very positive impact of FDI on employment in the UK.  Again according to the Office of National Statistics, despite only 2.0% of UK businesses having any FDI link, they employed 29.8% of UK workers.  That’s 8.5 million jobs.  This also mirrors scale of the impact of FDI on the employment market in this country.   It’s hard to see how either party manifesto will advance the cause of foreign investment into the UK.  Larger industry will balk at the new regulatory regime promised by a Corbyn administration and the prospect of “Inclusive Ownership Funds”.  The idea here is that up to 10 per cent of a company will be owned collectively by employees, with dividend payments distributed equally but capped at £500 a year.    The Tory manifesto isn’t a hazard free zone for companies looking to invest in the UK either.  The Tory slogan to Get Brexit Done is not going to resonate with the very many business people who see Brexit as an impediment to, rather than an opportunity for, trade.  Businesses are also aware of the importance of securing existing EU sourced investment in a post Brexit environment.  Spotting this, the Liberal Democrat manifesto is simply titled “Stop Brexit” and promises a “remain bonus” of £50bn though like Labour they too would push up the Corporation Tax rate.   The competition for FDI is one which it seems to me none of the UK parties are concerning themselves much with at all.  That’s an extraordinary omission for any political system which has been so dominated by three years of Brexit debate on foreign relations and trade.   Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy with Chartered Accountants Ireland

Dec 02, 2019
Thought leadership

Sunday Business Post, 3 November 2019 One of the damaging aspects of the Votergate controversy is that by focusing on sloppy voting habits and practices in the Dáil chamber, the good work which politicians do on a routine basis for their constituents is undermined. The political clinic is a key element in any democracy, and our TDs and councillors are routinely asked for help and advice on all kinds of social and legal issues.  Tax, in all its complexity, features prominently in TDs clinics.  Against that backdrop, Revenue have provided a helpline for TDs dealing with their constituents’ tax queries for many years.  Every revenue authority that was ever formed could have a tense and fractious relationship with the government, oligarchy or dictatorship of the day.  It’s in the nature of what they do, so many countries have created legal walls between the political system and the tax office.  In Ireland the system is by now quite prescriptive and Irish law stipulates that the government of the day can have no influence on how the Revenue Commissioners handle an individual tax case.  Tax law is drafted in a manner as to give very little wiggle room to revenue officers when they make decisions.  It’s not the same everywhere.  For instance, when it comes to publishing the list of tax defaulters, the Irish Revenue must publish the names of anyone who meets the criteria for publication and have no discretion in the matter.  By contrast, under similar name and shame tax rules, their counterparts in the UK may publish names, or for that matter choose not to.  It’s up to them.  In some areas though the Irish revenue are much closer to the legislative process than their counterparts in other countries.  In Ireland, tax law is drafted by officers from the Revenue Commissioners.  In other countries it tends to be drafted by civil servants from other departments.  Does the provision of a special helpline for TDs by Revenue further muddy the distinction between the political process and the tax collection process? Some weeks ago, Michael Brennan of this paper reported on the success of the Revenue’s PAYE modernisation system.  At the start of the year, many employers were obliged to change their payroll software to a system more closely integrated with Revenue’s own collection and analysis systems.  By all accounts, this generated anything upwards of €100 million in additional income tax collected.  All else being equal, this is a good thing.  The employer who operates the letter of the law when paying employees is at a competitive disadvantage to the employer who does not.  At €100 million, the amount of additional PAYE tax recovered is significant.  But in 2018, Revenue collected €17,672 billion through the PAYE system.  This suggests that the PAYE system may have been flawed, but it certainly wasn’t broken.  Now there are indications that Revenue have become intoxicated with the exuberance of their own collection technology. A review is underway at present of flat rate expenses to employees.  In most cases these are relatively modest tax deductions granted to relatively unskilled workers for uniforms cleaning and the like.  They are available to the various categories of worker irrespective of the individual’s circumstances – hence the term “flat rate”.  It’s not even known if the withdrawal of the expenses is even necessary because according to a Parliamentary Question raised by Deputy Sean Sherlock and answered by the Minister for Finance, “it is not possible to accurately quantify the anticipated increase in tax revenue arising out of any abolition or reduction”.  It's very hard for individual employees to make claims for legitimate expenses and deductions, partly because the tax rules are so tight but also because the correspondence with Revenue on such claims can be tortuous.  The flat rate expenses regime is pragmatic response to a requirement for fairness within the tax system, but the signals now are that many of these expenses are to be extinguished for the employees receiving them. That's going to generate a lot of heat for many employees.  Despite last month’s Budget being largely neutral, quite a few people will find that their after-tax income is a bit less in January 2020.  I understand that the employees who will be affected by the withdrawal of the expenses will be contacted later this month.  Revenue will be largely immune from the irritation their administrative decision will cause, but the political system won’t be.  It can be expected that the number of queries arising from the elimination of flat rate expenses will rise in the various constituency clinics.  Just as well then that Revenue have a hotline for members of the Oireachtas.    Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Nov 04, 2019