Case reference Tax head  Legislation  Case stated requested  Matter under consideration    30TACD2025 Capital gains tax   Section 544 TCA 1997 Section 545 TCA 1997 Section 552 TCA 1997 Section 554 TCA 1997 Section 555 TCA 1997 Section 557 TCA 1997 Section 560 TCA 1997 Section 561 TCA 1997  No   The Appellant in this case was a partner in a partnership which had acquired land in 2009. The partnership built and developed a property at a total cost of €23,023,400 which included integrated plant and machinery at a cost of €5,506,195. The plant and machinery qualified in full for capital allowances and the Appellant claimed his proportionate share of the available capital allowances on his income tax returns. Over the period of ownership of the asset, there had been a part disposal and further capital additions leaving a base cost of €19,642,020. The partnership subsequently sold the property to a third party for €20 million; there was no apportionment of the sale price specified in the contract between land and plant and machinery. The property was used solely for the purposes of a trade or profession for the entire period of ownership. The Appellant completed a capital gains tax (CGT) return based on a disposal of a single asset being the land which included the buildings thereon and fixtures therein. The Appellant contended that the qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery was part of the acquisition cost and is an allowable deduction for the purposes of section 552(1). Revenue issued one CG50 clearance for the sale of the land and buildings including the integrated plant and machinery. Revenue submitted that the single asset sold consisted of two distinct elements from a tax perspective. One element was the plant and buildings which had qualified for capital allowances over the period of ownership and the second element being land which had not attracted capital allowances. Revenue stated that as the asset sold comprised of two different types of assets for tax purposes, separate CGT computations were required, and an apportionment was required under section 544 TCA to calculate the capital gain. Revenue argued that the loss accruing on the plant and machinery could not be factored in to reduce the capital gain. It was on this basis that Revenue had issued a notice of amended assessment. The Appellant submitted that when land is sold to a purchaser which necessarily includes all buildings and fixtures and fittings that are integrated into the building, they are an integral part of the building. The Appellant argued that he was therefore entitled to deduct qualifying expenditure on plant and machinery in the CGT calculation. The Appeals Commission held that the method adopted by Revenue was not provided for in Statute and therefore was incorrect.   39TACD2025 Corporation tax   Section 884 TCA 1997 Section 917 TCA 1997 Section 949 TCA 1997 Section 959 TCA 1997 Section 1077 TCA 1997 Section 1084 TCA 1997  No   The Appellant filed corporation tax returns (Form CT1) for the accounting periods 2021 and 2022 by June 2022 and April 2023 respectively and Notices of Assessment were issued by Revenue. The Appellant’s agent encountered IT filing acceptance issues when filing the iXBRL accounts and unknowingly the accounts did not file properly. In 2024, Revenue issued revised Notices of Assessments in respect of both years to include a surcharge for late submission of returns. This was on the basis that iXBRL accounts were not filed by the specified date. The Appellant only became aware on receipt of the revised Notice of Assessments that iXBRL accounts had not been filed. Revenue has issued tax clearance certificates for all years 2021 to 2024 prior to the issue of amended assessments. The Appellant argued that the non-filing of electronic accounts was not intended or deliberate, there was no loss to Revenue and that all taxes were paid on time. Once becoming aware of the issue, there was no unreasonable delay in remedying the matter and accounts were filed within a few days. Revenue stated the Appellant did not provide correspondence at the time of filing the iXBRL accounts for the accounting periods 2021 or 2022 of the technical difficulties encountered. The Appeals Commission held that Revenue correctly applied a surcharge under section 1084(2)(a)(ii) for failing to deliver a return on or before the specified return date. The Appeals Commission held that Revenue correctly applied a surcharge under section 1084(2)(a)(ii) for failing to deliver a return on or before the specified return date.

This edition’s Chartered Accountants Tax Case digest looks at a case in which the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the Upper Tribunal (UT) and restored the previous decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) in finding that the taxpayer was not UK tax resident during the tax year having spent a number of days in the UK due to exceptional circumstances beyond her control that prevented her from leaving. The focus of the case was on the meaning of ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the UK Statutory Residence Test (SRT) with the Court noting in its decision that this needs to be applied to individual circumstance as a whole whilst also highlighting that such circumstances can include the reaction of a taxpayer to matters such as the illness of a close relative, and other moral obligations. Commentators are arguing that this decision essentially appears to loosen the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test. At present it is unclear whether HMRC will appeal to the Supreme Court. The UK’s SRT is used to assess if an individual taxpayer is UK tax resident and took effect from 6 April 2013. This case is the first and only case to date in which the SRT has been the subject of an appeal through the UK court system. Background The case was an appeal by the taxpayer against the UT decision which held that the taxpayer was UK tax resident for the tax year ended 5 April 2016. During 2015/16, the appellant taxpayer had received a large dividend but did not include it on her self-assessment return on the basis that it was not taxable in the UK because she was not UK tax resident in that tax year as she was tax resident in Ireland. The concept of ‘days’ spent in the UK lies at the heart of the SRT. Ordinarily, every day when a person is present in the UK at midnight at the end of the day counts for the purposes of the test. However, certain exceptional days may not be counted. Under her particular circumstances, the second automatic overseas test was relevant meaning that as she was not UK tax resident for any of the preceding three tax years prior to 2015/16, as long as she spent fewer than 46 days in the UK in 2015/16, she would not be UK tax resident. Having spent 50 days in the UK during the tax year, the appellant relied on Schedule 45 para 22 (4) of Finance Act 2013 which provides that a day does not count as a day spent in the UK if a person would not be present in the UK at the end of the day but for exceptional circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from leaving the UK and they intend to leave as soon as those circumstances permit. On two visits totalling six days in December 2015 and February 2016 she was present in the UK at the end of the day because she felt compelled to stay to help her sister who was suffering from alcoholism, was suicidal and was failing to look after her children. She therefore argued that she had only spent 44 days in the UK in 2015/16 and was not therefore UK tax resident. HMRC argued that these reasons did not amount to exceptional circumstances, and that the appellant had not been prevented from leaving the UK. HMRC issued a closure notice amending her tax return to include the dividend as taxable income. The appellant appealed to the FTT which allowed her appeal finding that although the need to care for the consequences of her sister’s alcoholism and depression did not, of itself, constitute exceptional circumstances, the fact that the sister had minor children, for whom the appellant also cared, did in their view change the position. The FTT said that it was unnecessary for a legal obligation to care for the children to exist for there to be an exceptional circumstance and stated that moral obligations and obligations of conscience, including those arising by virtue of a close family relationship, can qualify as exceptional circumstances. Finally, the FTT concluded that those obligations may be strong enough to prevent a taxpayer from leaving the UK. HMRC appealed to the UT putting forward four grounds of appeal, all of which were accepted by the UT. The UT overturned the FTT decision finding that the circumstances of the two visits in question were not exceptional, and that the appellant was not prevented from leaving the UK on any of the days by exceptional circumstances. She was therefore UK tax resident in 2015/16 making the dividend taxable income in the UK. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal on six grounds, including that the UT erred in law in its approach to the test as to whether the appellant was prevented from leaving the UK, and in holding that moral obligations cannot be or cannot be part of the exceptional circumstances. Decision At the heart of the taxpayer’s appeal was whether the appellant’s circumstances were exceptional and whether they prevented her from leaving the UK. The Court held that what prevents someone from leaving the country is not limited to certain defined categories such as a legal obligation or physical impossibility, noting that the statutory example of exceptional circumstances in Schedule 45 para 22 (5) of Finance Act 2013 which refers to a ‘sudden or life-threatening illness or injury’ is not specifically limited to the injury or illness of the taxpayer themselves, or of someone for whom they have a legal duty to care. A moral or societal obligation was suffice and in the Court’s view is likely to have also been intended by Parliament. The Court held that the UT had taken too narrow a view of what could constitute an exceptional circumstance and ruled that the moral or societal obligation that the illness of a relative imposes on a taxpayer can form part of the overall circumstance. This should also be taken account of in considering whether the circumstances as a whole are considered exceptional. The Court allowed the appellant’s appeal on all grounds and restored the decision of the FTT. The full judgment is available at: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2025/106?query=A+Taxpayer&court=ewca%2Fciv

David Reaney and Emma Robinson explore HMRC’s publication, ‘Help with VAT compliance controls—Guidelines for Compliance GfC8’ and consider the implications for businesses. GfC8 was published in September 2024, but its profile has fallen well short of what would be expected for a publication of this level of detail and potential significance. On 25 September 2024 HMRC published ‘Help with VAT compliance controls—Guidelines for Compliance GfC8’. This publication has 10 parts and, if printed, would exceed 40 pages in length. On the landing page for the publication, HMRC states: “These Guidelines for Compliance (GfC) set out HMRC’s recommended approach and are designed to help you understand our expectations as you plan, carry out, and review the accounting and compliance processes that ensure VAT is accurately declared by your business.” In this article we have summarised, at a high level, the content within the publication. This summary is not intended to provide knowledge of the detail but rather act as a series of prompts to spark the reader’s interest in exploring it further. We expect that many of these concepts should be familiar to larger businesses but perhaps less so for small or medium sized ones. In our experience the existence of this guidance is not widely known and with HMRC’s clear statement around expectations, especially in an environment of increased audit activity, it is important for businesses to ensure they have considered the application of this guidance to their business. 1. Overview—Key Takeaways In our view, the best way to understand and digest the content is to start with two key messages which are threads running through the content. HMRC expect businesses to have written processes and procedures for their VAT compliance. HMRC expects VAT to be included in an overall tax control framework which should include risks identified, controls to address the risks, an identified owner of the risks and processes to monitor the risks and the response on an ongoing basis. In our experience many businesses still do not have detailed written procedures for VAT compliance and a range of different approaches to tax control frameworks is applied. Given HMRC’s assumption that the ‘digital journey’ under Making Tax Digital for VAT is able to be evidenced, e.g. by flow diagram, we expect almost all businesses will have work to do to meet the HMRC expectations as outlined in GfC8. 2. Summary of Guidelines for Compliance GfC8 The guidelines encompass a range of topics designed to cover the tax compliance process and are set out into 10 different parts. The best way to understand how these fit together is to split them into (i) topics focused on the end-to-end VAT compliance process and (ii) topics which have been identified as specific risks within that process. A. End-to-end process 1. Purpose, scope and audience The guidelines are for UK VAT registered businesses who use invoice accounting, meaning they account for VAT when invoices are issued and received (essentially this will be all VAT registered businesses aside from those operating special schemes, e.g. cash accounting). They provide the taxpayer with HMRC’s recommended approach and are designed to help the taxpayer as it carries out and reviews the accounting and compliance processes to ensure VAT is accurately declared. 2. General approach to VAT compliance controls This section provides information on good practices to help manage VAT accounting and compliance processes which includes (but is not limited to): Risk management; Control design considerations; and Documentation for internal controls. 3. Order-to-cash The overall control objective of Order-to-Cash (‘O2C’) is the timely, complete and accurate recording of transaction and payments. O2C represents the typical set of business functions used to manage Business to Business customer orders from sales order, fulfilment, billing, customer payments and recording transactions in financial accounts.  4. Procure-to Pay The overall control objective of Procure-to-Pay (‘P2P’) is the timely, complete and accurate recording of transactions and payments received. P2P represents the typical set of business functions used to manage Business to Business purchasing processes and include purchase orders, receipt of supply, tax invoice being received, credit notes and discount adjustments and supplier payments. 5. Record to report Record to report (‘R2R’) is an accounting process which involves collecting, processing and presenting information to provide strategic, financial and operational analysis. It also covers the steps involved in preparing and reporting the overall accounts. R2R covers both external and internal reporting and generally, the R2R function is not engaged in processing transactions but instead focuses on the aggregation of existing data to meet reporting requirements. B. Specific risk areas identified 6. Employee expenses Often viewed as a high-risk area by HMRC, expenses processes exist for capturing, authorising and paying various kinds of reimbursed business costs to employees. HMRC has set out guidance for various control points on employee expenses relating to the system configuration, the expense process, business entertainment and auditing the expense claims. 7. VAT reporting Relevant for business who adopt invoice accounting, it includes detail on VAT reporting control objectives for the following categories (note this list is not exhaustive): Organisational unit structure, General ledger posting, Making Tax Digital for VAT regulations, VAT reports, Consolidation of return figures, and Manual adjustments.  8. VAT reporting—manual adjustments Manual adjustments to VAT reporting can occur for different reasons including consolidation of totals from separate business functions or systems. HMRC have included detail on control objectives for common types of adjustments including adjustments for errors and corrections, how to deal with one-off or irregular supplies such as disposal of assets, adjustments under the capital goods scheme or partial exemption restrictions and bad debt adjustments. 9. Outsourcing Businesses processes such as IT services, legal services, financial and accounting services can be outsourced as well as the businesses VAT compliance function. Even where the business chooses to outsource some functions this does not outsource the risk, and legal responsibility remains with the commissioning organisation. 10. Next steps It is expected that businesses may recognise new elements of good practice and it is HMRC’s view that implementing the guidelines can lead to improvements in systems and processes. Businesses are encouraged to take proactive steps to ensure compliance which might include: Reviewing and updating record-keeping practices; Implementing internal compliance audits; Developing a compliance strategy; Engaging with HMRC; and Stay informed about penalties.  3. Conclusion Despite its low profile to date, this guidance marks a key development in the UK's tax compliance landscape. By outlining clear expectations and emphasising the importance of transparency, accountability, and communication, these guidelines aim to foster a more compliant and efficient business environment. Businesses should take proactive steps to align with these guidelines, ensuring that they are well-prepared. With careful planning, businesses can navigate the new compliance framework successfully and avoid potential penalties for non-compliance. Referring back to the two key messages outlined above, we would encourage businesses to review internal written processes on controls and the overall tax control framework to ensure that these would at least meet, if not exceed, HMRC’s expectations. Perhaps the best way to assess your current position is to consider how you would demonstrate that you meet HMRC’s expectations should you be asked to do so in a VAT visit in the near future. Finally, we would encourage particular attention is paid to the specific areas of risk such as employee expenses. If you have queries about any specific section, please contact us. David Reaney FCA, CTA, is Indirect Tax Partner at KPMG Emma Robinson CTA, Indirect Tax Associate Director at KPMG

David Duffy discusses one Irish High Court case in relation to VAT waivers of exemption, as well as Revenue manuals on various matters. Right to deduct VAT In Killarney Consortium v Revenue Commissioners [2024] IEHC 732, the High Court upheld a decision of the Tax Appeals Commission (“TAC”) that a property owner was not liable to a clawback of VAT previously reclaimed as the relevant provisions of Irish VAT law were held to be in breach of EU law. The judgment considered the Irish VAT rules regarding waivers of exemption from VAT on lettings of property. A waiver was an election made by a landlord before 1 July 2008 to charge VAT on its lettings of property with a term of less than 10 years. While no new waivers could commence from 1 July 2008 onwards (as new VAT on property rules became effective on that date), pre-existing waivers continued to apply to lettings in property which had been acquired by the lessor before 1 July 2008. In addition, the legislation continued to provide for a clawback to Revenue of the excess of any input VAT reclaimed over output VAT paid in connection with a waiver, when it was subsequently cancelled. It was these waiver cancellation provisions that were the specific focus of the case. The taxpayer, Killarney Consortium, (the “Consortium”) purchased a property in 2004 for development and letting. The Consortium exercised the waiver of exemption and reclaimed VAT on the purchase of the property and associated costs. However, due to the property market downturn, the property remained vacant for significant periods and the VAT charged on rents was significantly less than the VAT reclaimed. The Consortium sold the property in 2017 at a significant loss. While was paid on the sale of the property, the VAT originally reclaimed still exceeded the VAT paid by approximately €590,000. Irish law provides that where a waiver has been exercised and is subsequently cancelled a clawback of the deficit is payable. Consequently, Revenue issued an assessment to the Consortium for the deficit amount. The Consortium appealed against the Assessment on the basis that the property had only and ever been used by it for taxable activities. It argued that EU VAT law made no provision for a clawback of VAT merely because the level of input VAT deducted exceeded the level of output VAT paid. The TAC had found in favour of the Consortium and determined that the assessment should be reduced to zero. The High Court, in upholding the decision of TAC, confirmed that where a business is fully engaged in taxable supplies (i.e. supplies of goods or services subject to VAT) it has a right to deduct input VAT incurred on purchases used for the purposes of those taxable supplies. This right to deduct arises irrespective of whether VAT charged on supplies exceeds VAT incurred on purchases. Provided VAT is chargeable on supplies, there is a right to deduct VAT incurred on costs associated with those supplies. The High Court held that the waiver cancellation was in these circumstances contrary to EU law and the principle of fiscal neutrality. The High Court referred to several cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union in support of its conclusion, including for example Feudi di San Gregorio Aziende Agricole SpA (C-341/22), where it was held that the right to deduct VAT cannot be limited by future economic performance. As such, the High Court upheld the decision of the Commissioner to disapply section 96(12) and reduce the Assessment to zero. We are not yet aware if the judgment will be further appealed by Revenue to the Court of Appeal. Revenue guidance updates Revenue have issued a number of new or updated guidance notes in relation to VAT since 1 January 2025. eBrief No. 001/25 updated the Tax and Duty Manual (“TDM”) on the management of special investment funds. This includes reference to changes in Finance Act 2024 which updated the definition of special investment funds to clarify that an alternative investment fund (“AIF”) managed by an Irish alternative investment fund manager (“AIFM”) comes within the scope of the VAT exemption for fund management. eBrief No. 001/25 issued a new TDM on the VAT treatment of heat pump heating systems. This again ties back to Budget 2025 and Finance Act 2024 changes to introduce the reduced 9% VAT rate to the supply and installation of heat pumps. The TDM notes that, “[t]he supply and installation of a heat pump heating system can include key equipment such as heating controls, radiators, underfloor heating emitters and the associated pipework where required to facilitate the effective/efficient operation of a heat pump.” eBrief No. 051/25 issued a new TDM on the VAT treatment relevant to taxi drivers. This confirms that while taxi services are exempt from VAT, VAT can nonetheless arise on related supplies such as taxi radio charges and facilitation fees charged by online platforms. David Duffy FCA, AITI, Chartered Tax Advisor, is Indirect Tax Partner at KPMG

Leontia Doran takes a look at the key tax changes which take effect from April 2025 and looks ahead at what we can expect in the coming years.    The new tax and financial year always sees a plethora of previously announced tax technical and administrative changes; 6 April 2025 and the start of the new Financial Year 2025 on 1 April 2025 are no different. This article aims to provide a flavour of the key changes taking effect from April 2025 and looks ahead to some major changes in the coming years. Employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) From 1 April 2025, employers are required to pay an increased rate of the National Minimum Wage and just days later from 6 April, a range of changes to employer NICs is resulting in higher wage bills. From 6 April 2025, the rate of Employer NICs increased from 13.8 percent to 15 percent and the 0 percent Employer NICs threshold reduced from £9,100 to £5,000, although the Employer NICs employment allowance increased from £5,000 to £10,500. These increased Employer NICs costs rise more sharply for businesses with lower-income employees which particularly impact on businesses who rely on part time staff such as in the retail and care sectors but especially for hospitality businesses. End of the non-domicile regime From 6 April 2025, the rules for the taxation of non-UK domiciled individuals, and specifically the remittance basis (RB) for foreign income/gains, came to an end. However, any foreign income/gains that arose on/before the 5 April 2025 which fell under the remittance basis are taxed under the previous rules when remitted. The concept of domicile as a relevant connecting factor in the UK tax system has now been replaced by a tax residence-based system. The new regime provides 100 percent relief on foreign income/gains for new arrivals to the UK in their first four years of UK tax residence provided the individual was not resident in any of the 10 prior consecutive years. For Capital Gains Tax (CGT) purposes, past remittance basis users are able to rebase foreign assets held on 5 April 2017 to the value at the disposal date provided they were non-UK domiciled up to 5 April 2025. A new Temporary Repatriation Facility (TRF) is also available for individuals who previously claimed the RB. This enables them to designate and remit at a reduced tax rate foreign income/ gains prior to 6 April 2025. The TRF is available for a limited period of three tax years commencing in 2025/26 at a 12 percent rate for the first 2 years and 15 percent in the final year. The domicile-based system of Inheritance Tax (IHT) has also been replaced with a new residence-based system for long-term residents owning non-UK property not previously within the scope of UK IHT. An individual is long-term resident when they have been UK tax resident for at least 10 of the previous 20 tax years and they will remain as such three to 10 years after becoming non-resident.  Business asset disposal relief (BADR) and Investors’ Relief (IR) As a result of the increased rates of CGT from 30 October 2024, BADR and IR both increased from 10 percent to 14 percent from 6 April 2025 and both will further increase to 18 percent from 6 April 2026. The lifetime limit (LL) for BADR remains at £1 million. In contrast, the LL for IR reduced from £10 million to £1 million for all qualifying disposals made on or after 30 October 2024. To compound these phased increases, anti-forestalling rules aim to limit potential planning in this area. Treatment of double cab pick-ups (DCPUs) From 1 April 2025 for Corporation Tax and 6 April 2025 for Income tax and NICs purposes, HMRC treats most DCPUs as cars, and not vans, for direct tax purposes. HMRC has therefore changed its policy on these vehicles potentially leading to increased tax bills for employers, employees and businesses. Previously HMRC treated a DCPU with a payload of one tonne or more as a van for the purposes of benefit-in-kind calculations, capital allowances, and certain deductions from business profits. In so doing, HMRC was following the definitions of ‘car’ and ‘van’ that apply for VAT purposes. From April 2025, a vehicle will therefore only be treated as a van if the construction of the vehicle at the time it was made means that it is primarily suited for the conveyance of goods. Tax reporting requirements At the start of each new tax year, HMRC’s self-assessment returns get a bit of a makeover to reflect any changes to legislation. This year, those changes will not only reflect some previously announced decisions but also help deal with late rate changes. CGT rate changes Last October, the Chancellor announced that for gains on assets other than residential property, the basic rate of CGT rate increased from 10 percent to 18 percent, and the higher rate from 20 percent to 24 percent with effect from 30 October 2024.  At that point HMRC had already updated the 2024/25 SA100 return therefore unrepresented taxpayers must use a HMRC calculator to calculate and report an adjustment figure to get the correct CGT position in their return. Agents using commercial software should check that this is reflected correctly in their client’s return.  For trustees/personal representatives, a new adjustment box will be added to that return and a similar calculator will be provided for taxpayers. As a result, HMRC has requested that trusts/estates wait until the 2024/25 SA900 return is published to ensure that the correct rate of CGT is used. Cryptoassets For the first time, individuals with cryptoassets are required to report income/gains arising on these transactions separately on their return. A policy first announced by the previous Chancellor in 2023, this aims to assist HMRC in making use of the data it expects to start receiving from 2027 about these transactions. 2025/26 tax returns  New regulations also bring in further changes for 2025/26. If an unincorporated business commences/ceases in the tax year, the taxpayer must include the date of commencement/cessation in their return. This could prove challenging in scenarios where the relevant date is not easily determined, for example where an individual has been trading under the trading allowance and first needs to begin reporting trading income. Also from 2025/26, director’s receiving dividends from close companies must include the following in their return: Name and registered number of the company; Amount of dividend received from the company (declared separately from other dividends); and Details of the highest percentage of share capital held in the year. Looking ahead It’s also important to look ahead and plan for what future changes are hurtling down the tax tracks at us. 2026/27 will be another exceptional year for tax practitioners with a wide range of changes previously announced and already expected to take effect from 6 April 2026. Mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind In January 2024 the previous Government announced that from 6 April 2026 employers will be required to report and pay Income Tax and class 1A NICs on most benefits in kind (BIKs) in real-time via the employer’s full payment submission, effectively introducing mandatory payrolling of BIKs. Feedback provided to the Government about this change mainly centred around the potential for increases in employer administrative burdens in relation to reporting all BIKs in real-time and that due to potential delays in receiving invoice details of BIKs provided by third parties, accurate real-time reporting would not be possible for invoices received after the end of provision of the benefit. As a result, the Government has announced some amendments as follows:  the real time reporting of and payment of tax on BIKs will not commence from April 2026 for employment related loans and accommodation but will for all other BIKs with voluntary payrolling available for these BIKs from April 2026, The P11D/P11D(b) process will still be available for those that do not want to voluntarily payroll employment related loans and accommodation which will be mandated in due course, an end of year process will be introduced to amend the taxable values of any BIKs that cannot be determined during the tax year. However, the taxable values of most BIKs will still need to be reported as accurately as possible during the tax year, and HMRC will continue to monitor the penalty position in 2026/27 whilst employers get used to the new process of reporting BIKs in recognition that there will inevitably be a period of adjustment in the first year. IHT future changes The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the 2024 Autumn Budget that following the April 2025 changes to IHT territoriality, there would be further significant changes to IHT in the next two tax years.  Firstly, controversial reforms were announced to the IHT reliefs, agricultural property relief (APR) and business property relief (BPR) which are expected to commence from April 2026. A new £1 million allowance will apply to the combined value of property that qualifies for 100 percent BPR or 100 percent APR or both. After this £1 million allowance has been exhausted, relief will apply at a lower rate of 50 percent to the combined value of qualifying agricultural and business property, effectively resulting in a 20 percent rate of IHT. The Government has already stated that it will not be consulting on this policy change, however a technical consultation is expected to take place on the draft legislation and a consultation is currently open seeking views on aspects of the application of the £1 million allowance for property settled into trust. Chartered Accountants Ireland has already discussed its concerns in relation to these proposals with HMRC and has highlighted the particularly damaging impact for Northern Ireland businesses and farms. Secondly, the Budget announced that from 6 April 2027 most unused pension funds and death benefits will be included within the value of a person’s estate for IHT purposes. Pension scheme administrators will also become liable for reporting and paying any IHT due on pensions to HMRC. Making Tax Digital (MTD) for Income Tax MTD for Income Tax is now less than a year from commencement with the first quarterly returns due to be submitted to HMRC on or before 7 August 2026. From 6 April 2026, the first phase of mandation for this major project commences for unincorporated businesses and landlords with total gross income from self-employment (excluding partnership income) and property in 2024/25 exceeding £50,000. Those with total gross income exceeding £30,000 will be mandated from 6 April 2027. Other income sources are not counted when assessing if the MTD turnover limit for mandation has been breached. In the Autumn Budget, the Government announced that the total gross income limit will drop to £20,000, the timeline for which will be set out at a later date within the current Parliament with no timeline currently set for the mandation of partnerships. Currently, taxpayers can voluntarily sign up to participate in testing MTD for Income Tax ahead of mandation. If a taxpayer is exempt or chose not to sign up voluntarily during the testing period, they must continue to report income and gains in a Self-Assessment tax return. If certain conditions are met, a taxpayer may be automatically exempt from MTD and does not need to apply for an exemption. MTD requires mandated taxpayers to: maintain digital accounting records in a software product/spreadsheet (paper records will not satisfy the legislative requirements), and submit quarterly updates to HMRC by the seventh day of the month after each quarter end (5 July, 5 October, 5 January and 5 April unless calendar months are elected for), and finalise their tax position after the end of the tax year (the final declaration is due by 31 January after the end of the tax year). Quarterly updates must be submitted using functional compatible software which can interact with HMRC's API (application program interface). This will require the taxpayer to either purchase a suitable commercial software product or appoint an agent to submit information to HMRC on their behalf using such software. Quarterly updates are intended to be a simple summary of transactions and a final, year-end return will also be required within which any tax and accounting adjustments will be made. The due dates for paying tax will be unchanged. Agents and taxpayers should take action now to prepare for this major change and consider signing up voluntarily to testing in 2025/26 which is subject to a number of eligibility conditions. Agents should also plan ahead and consider the impact on their practice and the steps needed to prepare both their business and their clients. Leontia Doran is UK Tax Manager and Tax NI Subject Lead for Student Education with Chartered Accountants Ireland. Email: leontia.doran@charteredaccountants.ie

Maura Ginty of Gintax discusses the Start-up Relief for Entrepreneurs. She explains how this all too often overlooked relief is potentially extremely valuable to new-stage entrepreneurs leaving employment to commence their own business venture.  Start-Up Relief for Entrepreneurs (SURE) is an Irish income tax relief targeted at founders of new businesses who leave employment to start their own company full time. The relief works so the individual can receive a refund of Irish income tax paid over the prior seven years on an investment in their new company. A total of twenty-seven individuals claimed the relief in 2022, with only a slightly higher number of claimants in 2021 and 2020.  Anecdotal experience suggests that many more could have been entitled to the relief.  To my mind there are two primary reasons for this—the complexity and the investment requirement.  While in some respects these are valid concerns, they are not insurmountable, and should not be the immediate ‘dealbreakers’ they seem to have become.  This article gives a general overview of the relief and the key provisions that are likely to have an impact in practice. It does not attempt to be comprehensive and is intended to be a general overview to establish potential eligibility. First, some further background on the two challenges noted above. The headline challenges 1. The regime generally / complexity The SURE regime is complex and convoluted.  SURE is drafted as an add-on to the Employment Investment Incentive Scheme (EIIS) rules with the EIIS being the tax incentive scheme for third party individual investors in Irish SMEs. For SURE, a founder needs to meet specific SURE requirements in addition to general EIIS rules. The specific EIIS sensitivities are well trodden by now but to refresh: EIIS is niche area of tax law with any eligible investments triggering a tax risk for the business – even an administrative error can result in full clawback of investor tax relief as a company liability.  The EIIS regime is a form of EU State Aid, with many terms in Irish law imposed directly from EU regulation albeit with no formal definitions attaching to these terms (which would be the norm in Irish tax law). Helpfully, this is one of the few areas of tax law in which a taxpayer may request an advance opinion from the Revenue Commissioners.  However, there is no time limit for Revenue engagement, and this creates further uncertainty for clients (usually in midst of a fundraising round with a 31 December deadline). Notwithstanding the above, in my view, many of the peculiar EIIS sensitivities resulting from EU regulations should not impact a new stage business, such as a SURE company, particularly in cases where a founder was simply an employee with no other business or family business interests. Certainly, there are aspects which will require careful management, such as preparation of a formal business plan, but these should not lead practitioners and their clients to discount a SURE claim. 2. Requirements for founder to invest in share capital Another reason for low take up is the requirement for a founder to invest in actual share capital of the company.  In contrast, the default market practice tends to be the issue of nominal share capital to the founder with any further investment being simply lent by them to the company, as a director’s loan. The latter is straightforward and as the company generates cashflow, the loan can be repaid in a tax neutral manner.  The initial client conversation in relation to SURE usually stops on this topic. However, to my mind, two further factors need to be borne in mind: Where a company is to subsequently seek external investors, then it is often a commercial requirement that any directors loan is converted into share capital at that point in time.  In many cases, at that stage it is too late to claim SURE in relation to the founder investment. Even after a SURE investment, it is still possible for the founder to take a salary from the company which will enable them to finance their day to day living expenses at startup stage. While salary is taxable income, it should be noted that the effective Irish tax rate for a single individual on a €30,000 salary is circa 12 per cent (being USC, PRSI and income tax after credits). This can be contrasted favourably with SURE tax relief which now can result in maximum refund of up to 50 per cent of the amount invested. Overview of the relief On paper, the relief appears generous with a maximum relief in any single tax year of €140,000 but this can potentially be claimed over 7 separate years. As a result, technically a single cash investment of up to €980,000 would be eligible for relief.  The relief ideally suits an individual who had a substantial employment income in recent years (such as share option gains, termination payment or even simply a significant salary), has no other business interests and wishes to commence a new business. Tax relief available There were significant changes introduced to the EIIS regime, effective from 1 January 2024 as a result of amendments to the underlying EU regulation. Prior to this, the quantum of tax relief available was at a person’s marginal rate (up to 40 percent) for qualifying investments, subject to an overall cap. The new changes result in varying amounts of relief, depending on the particular stage of the business life cycle.    These changes now apply to SURE investments. I would expect that most qualifying SURE claims could be eligible for tax refunds at up to 50 per cent or 35 per cent of the amount of investment. The differing rates apply as follows: Where the company is not yet operating in any market, the rules operate so that an income tax refund of up to 50 per cent of the investment could be available (relief is available at 125 per cent of the amount invested;  the marginal income tax rate is 40 per cent).  The term “not operating in any market” derives from EU regulation and Irish Revenue regard this as an operation that has not yet made its first commercial sale.  Where a company is operating in a market, then a tax refund of up to 35 per cent could be available (relief available at 87.5 per cent of the amount invested). For the reliefs noted above (50 per cent and 35 per cent), the investment would need to be classified as “initial risk finance” which relates to early-stage companies (as defined). Most SURE eligible investments should be in this “initial risk” category. However, there is a technical provision for a lower rate to apply. In the context of the terms above, the requirements (as to first commercial sale/initial risk finance, etc.) technically need to be met by all entities within an “RICT group”—a concept derived from EU Regulation.  Further, many other EIIS conditions apply by reference to this concept. For SURE specifically, I would expect that a newly established business owned by an individual who had been in long term employment (with no other business interests) to be a standalone “RICT group”. Thus, the references in this article are to a singular company. SURE – headline conditions The key conditions for SURE are:  A company must be established carrying on a new business. There is two-year window to make the SURE investment and it must be made by 31 December in the second year after the company’s incorporation. The trade activity must be new, and the company cannot have taken over an existing trade, such as a sole trade.  The individual must: Have mainly employment (PAYE) income in the previous four years. Take up full-time employment in the new company - an existing employment can be retained for up to 10 hours per week (there is no stipulation as to salary level). Invest cash in the new company by acquiring shares - there is also a provision for relief on conversion of existing directors’ loans within a certain timeframe (this route will require an auditor’s statement). Retain the shares for at least four years. Hold at least 15 percent of the shares in the company. Not hold more than 15 percent of any other company (this requirement can rule out many employees who have had other business ventures). There is a requirement that the company carry on “relevant trading activities”—this definition includes most trades apart from those on an “excluded” list. Excluded trades include financing activities, professional services, and land dealing. Professional services are specifically defined and include legal, accounting and medical services.  The exclusion does not extend to engineering or computer programming. “Research and Development and Innovation” activities may also be permissible. The relief could apply to new tech startups or also to those entering traditional sectors, including consultancy services.  Specific EIIS requirements for SURE investments Qualifying company The company will need to be regarded as a “qualifying company” which is the same requirement as the current EIIS rules. This involves tests such as being an SME, satisfying the “undertaking in difficulty” test, and the requirement to have tax clearance. The conditions can be limiting—especially the requirement that the company cannot be under the control of another company—limiting flexibility for founders, or other controlling shareholders, with a holding company structure often their preference.  Qualifying investment Similarly, the EIIS “qualifying investment” requirements will need to be met—key here is that the money must contribute directly to the creation or maintenance of employment.  While the EIIS conditions requiring there to be no arrangements to reduce investor risk are still applicable, in practice they should not cause any commercial difficulty for a founding shareholder. The investment must be based on a business plan. In drafting the plan, consideration should be given to the scenario where EIIS is either to be offered or potentially offered to new external investors. Administrative requirements / clawback risk There are administrative requirements which need to be met including submission of a specific tax return (RICT return) by the company and provision of a Statement of Qualification (SQSURE3) to the founder. The actual technical administrative requirements are not unduly onerous, but it is critical they are met. Similar to EIIS, there is a provision which deems clawback of tax relief to be a liability of the company in certain cases, e.g. where the Statement of Qualification is incorrect, such that the company will not be considered a “qualifying company”. Summary In conclusion, while SURE relief offers significant potential benefits for founders of new businesses, its complexity and specific requirements (outside of commercial norms) have clearly limited the uptake. There has been much lobbying of Government to simplify the entire suite of investment reliefs, with particular focus on the prohibition of a holding company and for SURE specifically, its restriction to employees only. Given the lack of success to date, one would suggest that all stakeholders reconsider the SURE rules as they stand—especially for cases where founders are satisfied to progress with a standalone company. One also hopes the soon-to-be updated Irish Revenue guidance documentation on SURE/EIIS will better assist all parties navigate matters here. Maura Ginty is a Chartered Accountant and Chartered Tax Advisor with over 20 years of professional experience advising clients. She advises Irish and international businesses at all stages of development from start-up, expansion in Ireland and abroad, acquisition, day-to-day operations, and restructuring to succession and disposal.

As the “year of elections” continues to unfold, Ireland faces a changing global tax environment, but with change comes the opportunity to position the country as a beacon of stability for continued FDI. Cillein Barry and Susan Buggle dig into the details As a small, open economy, Ireland is a competitive location for foreign direct investment (FDI). However, we are also subject to the impact of changes to tax regimes globally, most notably those driven by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the European Union (EU) and the US. Changes to the tax regime in the US, in particular, have an indirect material impact on Ireland’s attractiveness as a location for FDI.  This year has been cited as “the year of elections”, with roughly half the world’s population going to the polls in 2024. The outcome of elections across the EU and, later this year, in the US may serve to shape future tax policy impacting Ireland.  Here at home, though the Irish Government has denied claims of an early election in 2024, an anticipated “giveaway” budget on 1 October means an early Irish election remains a distinct possibility. The US presidential election and tax policy While the outcome of the US presidential election cannot be predicted with any certainty at this time, we do have some insight into the tax policy objectives of both the Democrats and the Republicans should they come to power this year.  In considering possible changes to US tax policy, it is important to note that the approval of tax legislation generally requires 60 votes out of 100 in the US Senate.  This means that one party must hold a large majority or, alternatively, there must be bi-partisan co-operation to approve any proposed changes to tax policy. Neither of these scenarios seems likely in the aftermath of the upcoming presidential election.  While tax legislation may also be passed by a simple majority using a process known as “budget reconciliation”, the relevant tax measures cannot increase the long-term deficit of the US.  In an era of limited bi-partisan co-operation, significant US tax reform is therefore unlikely, as it would require either a super-majority in the Senate or the introduction of tax measures regarded as fiscally neutral over the long-term.  Understanding the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act In 2017, then US President Donald Trump’s Republican administration introduced some of the most significant reforms to the US tax code in three decades under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA).  The key measures for US businesses were broadly designed to lower the US corporate tax rate to one more comparable with competitors among OECD member countries and to protect the US tax base. These included: Corporate income tax rate: a reduction of the US corporate income tax rate from 28 to 21 percent. Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI): a 10.5 percent tax on a portion of the income earned by foreign subsidiaries of US companies. Foreign-Derived Intangible Income (FDII): a preferential rate of 13.25 percent for income earned by US companies outside the US on certain intellectual property. Base Erosion and Anti-Abuse Tax (BEAT): a minimum 10 percent tax on base erosion payments made by US entities to related parties outside the US. The TCJA was introduced using the budget reconciliation process at a time when there was a Republican congressional majority combined with a Republican president – not a single Democrat voted in its favour.  Having already introduced such significant reform, what more could the Republican side seek to introduce in 2025? In answering this question, it is important to note that a large part of the TCJA measures were temporary, with 25 of the tax cuts introduced under the Act due to expire in 2025. This includes a slated increase in the rate of GILTI (10.5% to 13.125%), BEAT (10% to 12.5%) and FDII (13.125% to 16.406%). The Republicans are likely to face pressure from US businesses to reverse these planned increases and preserve the impact of the TCJA.  However, the Republicans are also likely to face pressure to extend several individual tax cuts included in the TCJA, which together impact more than half of US households. Indeed, both Democrats and Republicans are in favour of retaining at least some of these measures. The Democrats’ tax proposals The Democrats’ preferred tax policy was outlined in March 2024 in Joe Biden’s “Green Book” budget proposals. These proposals seek to reverse many of the TCJA tax cuts and include: Increasing the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent; Increasing to the GILTI rate from 10.5 to 21 percent; and A repeal of the preferential rate for FDII. To introduce such tax proposals under a new leader, the Democrats would likely require a significant majority, as it would be challenging to introduce such measures while balancing the books to achieve a fiscally neutral outcome.  US Presidential elections: the likely outcome Many US commentators predict a split government in the aftermath of the US presidential elections, with neither party controlling the House and Senate.  Marrying this with the complex procedures required to pass tax legislation and the political pressure to preserve tax cuts for individuals, the most likely outcome for US business taxation is little change to the status quo regardless of who will be elected as the new US President.  Though Republican rhetoric has centred on cutting the federal corporate income tax rate to 15 percent, this should be viewed in a similar light, although the threat of 10 percent tariffs and the EU’s response will need to be monitored closely.  The other key area to watch is US engagement with the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 tax proposals. Under Pillar Two of BEPS 2.0, this year has seen the most significant change in international tax in recent memory, with many countries, including Ireland, introducing a minimum 15 percent tax on the corporate profits of large multinational groups.  Despite positive indications from the US Treasury, achieving sufficient political support to introduce the Pillar Two proposals in the US has proved elusive. However, the mechanics of these rules will mean that US-headquartered groups are likely to be affected by the global minimum tax rules from 2026 onwards.  If Pillar Two plans proceed as anticipated, it remains to be seen how the US will react and whether the party in power will seek to introduce retaliatory measures.  Republicans sitting on the powerful Ways and Means Committee have already outlined proposals to impose an additional five percent tax rate each year on the US income of entities located in foreign jurisdictions applying the Pillar Two rules.  The outlook in Europe We have witnessed significant political developments across Europe in recent weeks, including the election of a new European Parliament in June and domestic parliamentary elections taking place in several neighbouring European countries, most notably France and the UK.  In July, Hungary took over its Presidency of the Council of the European Union and Ursula von der Leyen was re-elected as the President of the European Commission. EU commissioners and working groups will be appointed in the coming weeks. These developments will play a key role in shaping the future direction of taxation policy in the EU.  Recent years have seen the introduction of a swathe of EU-wide tax initiatives, including measures aimed at tackling tax avoidance (e.g. the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive), measures to increase transparency (e.g. the EU public Country-by-Country Reporting Directive) and measures to introduce OECD BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two provisions across the EU via the Minimum Tax Directive.  While Pillar Two has progressed, work on the OECD’s other key initiative to reallocate a portion of the profits of the largest multinational groups to jurisdictions in which customers are located (known as Pillar One) is at best delayed, but more likely dead.   With progress on Pillar One potentially stalling, a renewed focus may be placed on introducing alternative Digital Service Taxes (DSTs), either unilaterally or on an EU-wide basis. In this regard, the current moratorium on introducing DSTs at an EU level is due to expire on 31 December 2024. EU-wide tax measures EU institutions are continuing to work on a range of other tax measures, including Business in Europe: Framework for Income Taxation (BEFIT), a proposal for a consolidated EU tax base that would be allocated to Member States, and the proposed “Unshell Directive” aimed at tackling the potential misuse of entities without sufficient substance for tax purposes. It remains to be seen which tax initiatives will get priority treatment under the incoming Hungarian Presidency of the Council of the EU, with its stated slogan – “Make Europe Great Again” – focusing on European competitiveness as a key priority.  This is likely to signal shifting sands ahead for EU taxation policies, particularly in the context of Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban publicly calling BEPS 2.0 Pillar Two “a catastrophic failure,” serving to dampen competitiveness.  EU Member States have also advised the European Commission to slow the pace of development of direct tax proposals, given the significant volume of measures introduced in recent years. Therefore, a more benign approach to tax policy is expected at an EU level for the foreseeable future. Shifting taxation policy: the Irish impact  In an environment of increasing uncertainty, it is worth bearing in mind Ireland’s unique position as an economic gateway for both Europe and the US.  While US investment in Ireland is well-publicised with more than 950 US companies located here, Ireland now also ranks as the ninth largest foreign direct investor in the US, employing about 100,000 people in the States.  Ireland is also the only English-speaking common law trade and investment gateway to the EU. Ireland’s competitive corporate tax rate and transparent and stable tax policies have been a crucial factor in attracting FDI. This tax policy has consistent cross-party support.  Other key factors include our highly educated and skilled pool of graduates, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), our clear and consistent regulatory environment in key areas such as data protection, and Ireland’s attractiveness as a place to live and work. Ireland must, however, guard against complacency. In a constantly evolving environment, it is essential that we focus on ensuring that Ireland remains a competitive and attractive location for FDI. This includes reducing the cost of doing business and facilitating access to talent.  On a global basis, tax competition remains alive and well and a new wave of incentives and subsidies is being introduced by competing jurisdictions.  Our regimes for attracting high-value jobs and businesses – particularly our research and development (R&D) tax credit, reliefs for intellectual property and international assignees – continue to be key pillars in this space.  With ongoing uncertainty within the EU and across the Atlantic, we now have an opportunity to position Ireland as a beacon of stability and a safe harbour jurisdiction for foreign direct investment. This opportunity must be grasped.    Cillein Barry is Tax Partner with KPMG  Susan Buggle is Tax Principal with KPMG

Business owners must consider the tax implications of key business decisions to avoid pitfalls and realise the full benefits, advises Kerri O’Connell  For many successful business owners, tax planning and wealth management will be inextricably linked, requiring a careful approach to future considerations at a relatively early stage in the development of their business. According to Kerri O’Connell, Tax Adviser and Principal at Obvio Tax Services, not all owners are aware of the tax implications of the decisions they make as they build their business, however. “The time for considering these issues is before significant value has built up in the business as problems can arise when there has been no consideration of the potential sale of some or all of the business, or the investment assets, or for the future reliance on tax reliefs on business transfer,” says O’Connell. A Registered Trust and Estate Practitioner with the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners Ireland, O’Connell has been advising SMEs in Ireland for over 25 years as both a Chartered Accountant and Chartered Tax Advisor. She founded Obvio Tax Services in 2015 to advise business owners on tax matters at each phase of the business cycle from start-up through to expansion and sale or succession. “What I’ve learned is that, for many owners, their focus understandably will be on getting their business onto a sound footing and then building it from there,” she says. “When their business becomes valuable, however, problems can arise if they fail to focus on their personal finances. This issue can be particularly acute when the business is incorporated, the owner has no pension scheme or some of the business surpluses have been used for investments.”  It is crucial, therefore, that business owners consider their exit plans at a relatively early stage in the development of their business and avail of good tax advice. “It is very important to get tax advice specific to your business when it is growing and making profits,” O’Connell says. Access to retirement relief on Capital Gains Tax (CGT) could potentially exempt the transfer from CGT. Alternatively, CGT entrepreneur relief may apply: “this relief applies a 10 percent CGT rate on the first €1 million of gains with the usual 33 percent CGT rate applicable to any surpluses,” O’Connell explains. Several conditions must be met in order for these CGT reliefs to apply, requiring advance planning.  “In a family succession situation, the beneficiaries, be they children or grandchildren, will look to rely on Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT) business property relief or CAT agricultural relief,” O’Connell says. “Again, many conditions must be met, but if either of these reliefs are available, they can potentially reduce the taxable value by 90 percent and so potentially reduce the effective CAT rate to 3.3 percent.” Other exit options open to owners include selling their business, or passing ownership on to senior leaders in the business through an internal takeover. “If you are selling your business, pre-sale restructuring may be required to separate different trades, or to separate business and investment assets. This restructuring will attract tax liabilities unless various restricting reliefs can be relied upon,” O’Connell says.  If your exit involves an internal takeover, meanwhile, pre-sale restructuring may be required to isolate the sale asset.  “You may also need to consider the potential impact of some anti-avoidance legislation, which can operate to turn a capital event – subject to CGT and potentially attracting CGT reliefs – into an income distribution, taxable to full income taxes, USC and PRSI,” O’Connell says. Business structure As businesses grow and expand into new markets, it is also important to consider tax implications from the point-of-view of business structure, O’Connell advises. “Once the decision has been made to develop a new income stream or enter a new market, it is important to stop and think first about the right business structure going forward,” she says. “Don’t put off thinking about structure until a year or two of trading to ‘see how it goes’ – you’re potentially storing up tax problems. “If you have identified new income streams with different plans for each stream, a group structure may be appropriate in terms of the retention of different businesses, their future sale or the introduction of key employees as shareholders.” Tax issues arising from the creation of a group structure can be managed if conditions are met for the relevant tax reliefs to apply, O’Connell says.  “You will also need to think about business structure if you are expanding into overseas markets and deciding whether to set up a separate company or overseas branch in a new country. Tax advice in that country will be required either way and you will also need to consider the tax implications of profit repatriation. “Do bear in mind that, if you have sales staff operating in another country, this will likely create payroll tax issues in that country as well as potential exposure to corporation tax.” As growth ramps up and business owners look to the next stage of their company’s development, it is a good idea to consider the tax-based financing options open to them – for example, the Employment Investment Incentive Scheme (EIIS) or repayable tax credits for research and development (R&D) activities. Employment Investment Incentive Scheme “Changes introduced in Finance Act 2019 resulted in the entire EIIS becoming self-assessed so there is no longer a requirement to secure advance approval from Revenue,” O’Connell says. “In my view, this was a positive step as the timeframes for securing approval had become unworkable. Recent Finance Act 2023 changes will potentially continue this positive momentum, with the maximum investment on which an individual can claim income tax relief now increased to €500,000.” A tiered system of relief has also been introduced depending on a company’s stage of development, as follows: 50 percent income tax relief for entirely new businesses; 35 percent tax relief for businesses operating for less than seven years; 20 percent tax relief for expansion/follow-on investment in businesses in operation for more than seven years.  “EIIS investors are used to the previous 40 percent rate of tax relief. In order to achieve more than a 35 percent rate now, they must invest in entirely new businesses,” O’Connell says. “It remains to be seen if there will be increased EIIS funding available for younger riskier businesses and if this will change when an EIIS scheme might fit into the financing mix for a young business.” R&D repayable tax credits  Changes to the R&D tax credit regime, introduced in recent years, mean that this credit may be wholly repayable to the recipient, making it a de facto source of finance for companies. “Finance Act 2023 changes introduce an uplift in the rate of R&D tax credit from 25 percent to 30 percent,” O’Connell explains.  “For SMEs with claims of up to €100,000, the repayments continue to be made across three instalments, but more of the repayment can now be frontloaded with up to €50,000 repayable in the first instalment.” Tax incentives: recent developments Finance Act 2023 introduced changes to retirement relief on Capital Gains Tax (CGT), effective from 1 January 2025, writes Kerri O’Connell The relief available on a transfer to anyone other than a child was previously subject to a cap of €750,000 total proceeds from qualifying assets, as long as the transfer took place after the owner turned 55 years of age and before they turned 66.  This later age restriction has been pushed out to 70. Any transfer made once the owner has turned 70 will be subject to a €500,000 cap.  For higher value businesses, the changes are negative as they introduce a maximum cap on retirement relief of €10 million total value of qualifying assets on any transfer to a child where the business owner is aged between 55 and 69. This cap is reduced to €3 million from age 70 onwards.  Previously, a claim for retirement relief on a transfer to a child before the age of 66 was unlimited as to the value of the qualifying assets transferred.  The reason for introducing different tax treatment depending on the age of the owner is to encourage the earlier transfer of businesses, but this policy aim may yet be defeated by the introduction of the new €10 million value cap.  Business lobby groups have come out firmly against the changes and understandably so, as the gift of a business to the next generation may now trigger significant tax charges, without any cash proceeds available to cover this.  While the 2022 Commission on Taxation and Welfare recommended such a cap, it did not set a proposed figure, and many would view the €10 million value as too low.  The Commission did, however, note that it should be ensured that the payment of tax on these gifts ‘does not undermine the viability of the enterprise’ and suggested the introduction of deferral arrangements or long payment schedules with low/no interest. These recommendations have not, to date, been taken up.  Another recommendation from the Commission is also worth highlighting. Typically, taxpayers will look to rely on CAT agricultural relief or CAT business property relief when receiving a gift of a farm or business.  The Commission recommended that these 90 percent reliefs be reduced and that the conditions attaching amended to ensure that the beneficiary actively participates in the farm/business they have been gifted. At the time of writing, however, this recommendation has not been taken up by the Department of Finance.

The Pre-Budget Submission 2024 tackles challenges in Ireland, from the ‘green’ transition to inflation and housing supply, offering recommendations to benefit businesses, says Gearóid O’Sullivan Each year, Pre-Budget Submission is prepared under the auspices of the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies – Ireland (CCAB-I).  It is a particularly influential document as it represents not only the views of Chartered Accountants but also our peers in other professional accountancy organisations. The Pre-Budget Submission is overseen by the CCAB-I’s Tax Committee South, of which the membership is predominantly Chartered Accountants. Pre-Budget Submission 2024 This year’s Pre-Budget Submission addresses several key issues impacting business in Ireland, from the so-called ‘green’ transition to the impact of inflationary pressures and, of course, ongoing supply issues on all sides of the residential property market.  The aim of any tax measure is ultimately to support the economy and wider society. Therefore, to the extent a measure represents an initial cost to the Exchequer, the hope and intention is that there is a corresponding benefit that exceeds the cost.  In some instances, the benefit is purely financial, e.g. our recommendation to permanently legislate for the Special Assignee Relief Program (SARP) and, in others, the benefit is a desired change in behaviour, e.g. our recommendation to introduce a ‘Help-to-Insulate’ scheme. Measures to alleviate capacity issues in the residential property market The residential property market faces issues on both the rental and retail sides.  On the rental side, we continue to advocate for measures to make renting more attractive, particularly for small-scale and accidental landlords.  Despite tax legislation recognising taxable profits in many cases, often small-scale and accidental landlords find themselves in a cash-flow negative position when the tax bill and any loans on the property are taken into account.  While it is reasonable to mention the economic benefit achieved through property ownership over the longer term, the cash-flow impact is often driving these small-scale and accidental landlords out of the rental market.  If this cohort of landlords were, in turn, selling their investment properties, there could be a sound basis from a policy perspective in maintaining the rules in their current iteration.  However, landlords will often have to first seek to evict and then sell. As such, vacancy represents a key policy issue for government when designing appropriate taxation rules for landlords. With the above in mind, CCAB-I has made several recommendations that we suggest will make letting sufficiently attractive for smaller-scale and accidental landlords: Local property tax should be available as a deduction against rental income. Expenses deductible under section 97 TCA 1997 should be aligned with Case I/II principles. Expenses that are revenue in nature and incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the rental business should be deductible, and rental losses should be available for offset against other income. Capital allowance rates for fixtures and fittings should be increased from 12.5 percent to 25 percent per annum to facilitate landlords investing in the maintenance of properties, providing the works do not result in the termination of an existing tenancy. Landlords who retrofit a property to enhance the property’s energy rating should be able to claim a 100 percent capital allowance where the renovations do not result in the termination of an existing tenancy. The Government should introduce measures to bring parity to the taxation of corporate and individual professional landlords by introducing a flat rate of 25 percent on Case V income for small landlords who opted to become ‘professional landlords’ by waiving their rights under Section 34 of the Residential Tenancy Act (2014), giving additional security to their tenants. We have also suggested a reasonable capital gains tax (CGT) relief to incentivise property sales with tenants in-situ: Professional landlords should be given access to succession reliefs (e.g. CGT retirement relief) to improve the long-term investment proposition of the residential rental business. To encourage landlords to remain in the private rental market, CGT relief of four percent per annum should accrue for the length of time the asset remains a rental property. (This was specifically examined in a 2017 Report of the Working Group on the Tax and Fiscal Treatment of Rental Accommodation Providers.) In addition to the above, we are also recommending that Government increases ‘Rent-a-Room’ relief to match standardised average rents and to remove the ‘cliff-edge’ over which relief is completely removed. Measures to combat inflationary pressures The level of inflation in the Irish economy is putting significant pressure on households.  The European Central Bank began increasing interest rates in a bid to dampen inflation. There is a balance to be struck between tax measures to combat inflation and the policy aim of reducing spending capacity. With that said, there is scope for a reasonable change in the personal tax regime, which should not be incongruent with the policy objectives of the European Central Bank.  Earlier this year, CCAB-I responded to the Department of Finance’s consultation on Ireland’s personal tax system. The Pre-Budget Submission includes many of the points raised in that earlier submission, including a recommendation to move to indexation of the income tax bands and credits.  In Ireland, a taxpayer begins to pay tax at the higher rate from €40,000, although the average industrial wage is €46,800. Therefore, the application of an indexed approach to increasing bands and credits should ensure that tax bands and credits remain valuable year to year. Otherwise, while the Government may not raise bands and credits in a particular year, the real value of after-tax wage is likely to have decreased due to the impact of inflation. We also recommend changes to other areas of the personal tax system, including several changes to the CGT and capital acquisition tax (CAT) regimes. These include: The CGT annual exempt amount available under section 601 TCA 1997 should be increased to €5,000.  The CGT indexation tables in section 556 TCA 1997 should be extended beyond 2003 to the present day. The rates of CGT and CAT should be reduced to 20 percent. The lifetime limit for claiming revised entrepreneur relief under section 597AA TCA 1997 should be increased to €5 million. The category A threshold for CAT should be increased to €350,000 in line with a rate reduction. The CAT small gift exemption should be increased to €5,000. Employers’ PRSI should not be increased at this time. As in 2022, we are also recommending that further consideration is given to an intermediate rate of income tax. This is a longer-term ambition.  However, the current system is complicated by the fact that we have three separate taxes on personal income (income tax, USC and PRSI). As such, all these taxes could be redesigned into a single tax, and in this scenario, an intermediate rate of tax becomes a key tool. Further recommendations Pre-Budget Submission includes further recommendations on measures to assist climate change, support foreign direct investment, SMEs and entrepreneurs, and enhance the tax system generally.  The document is a key feature of the tax department’s annual output. It reflects the views of professional accountants across the country and is presented directly to the Department of Finance each year.  While the Government faces several challenges in this year’s Budget as it balances a substantial surplus with increasing societal needs, it is hoped that our recommendations will be considered in terms of the benefit we believe they will bring to businesses in Ireland. Gearóid O’Sullivan is a Tax Manager at Chartered Accountants Ireland 

Irish Government finances are in surplus and Ireland’s debt-to-GDP ratio has stabilised, so why are there calls for higher taxes? asks Dr Brian Keegan It’s hard to avoid concern fatigue setting in. What with the war in Ukraine, the cost-of-living crisis, the continued Northern political stalemate, multiple dire warnings amplified at COP27 over climate change and another possible COVID-19 surge—the list of concerns seems particularly endless at the moment.   Some time ago, the commentator Marc Coleman projected that population growth—and, by implication, skills growth—would drive prosperity in Ireland. Coleman’s ideas have been given additional credence by the current situation in the UK. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s November budget looks towards an extended period of economic stagnation. British productivity has not grown in line with government spending in recent years. In the moribund British economy, there is a record low level of people out of work while the number of job vacancies is at a record high.   There is a straightforward, one-to-one relationship between economic growth and the growth in tax yield, which permits more government spending without further borrowing. When the growth in gross domestic product (GDP) stalls, so too do the tax figures.   In his book The Best is Yet to Come, Coleman pointed out some of the links between more workers, growth and greater resources for public services and benefits. Though the timing was unfortunate (the book was published just months before the 2008 financial crisis), Ireland is now indeed in a better place, at least economically, than it has been for many years. Government finances are in surplus and the debt-to-GDP ratio, at around 50 percent, is back under control.   Unlike the British situation where a Budget bordering on the austere was required to meet existing public spending commitments, without an intolerably high borrowing requirement, the recent Irish Budget took a cost-of-living crisis in its stride, with grant aid against soaring energy bills for households and businesses alike being met through current tax receipts. Nevertheless, a narrative has emerged that the burden of taxation in Ireland will have to increase.   Why this should be the case is not always specified. There are unquestionably problems with housing, health, and education, but it does not automatically follow that these problems arise from underinvestment. At the time of writing, close to half a billion euros set aside in 2022 for local authority housing remains unspent. This points to management or capacity problems, not funding challenges.   The much-heralded report of the Commission on Taxation and Welfare has not had a huge impact on the political debate. This may be because it presents solutions in search of a problem. As research from the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has pointed out, “its work was not framed around any specific shortfall in funding that needed to be filled. Instead, it was guided by a broad intention to generate additional revenue”.   Even government politicians, who are rarely scathing about the output of an expert group, which the government itself commissioned, were dismissive of the recommendations. Clearly, there are some areas of the economy where additional tax funding will be required, if not immediately, in the medium-term.   Unless there is an unforeseen level of immigration of people of working age, the ratio of workers to pensioners is going in the wrong direction. Climate change management, ironically being driven more by energy security concerns than global altruism, will come with a price tag. The sustained high corporation tax take may have peaked. In Britain, the urgent need for higher taxation has been unanswerable. In Ireland, there needs to be a clear business case for any form of new or additional taxation. We have enough to be concerned about without the prospect of unnecessary taxes. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Advocacy and Voice at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Jane O’Hanlon explains the common tax-related issues facing members in business and how to deal with them before Revenue comes knocking. As a tax advisor working in a specialised tax practice, I encounter similar tax issues in various businesses. This article will focus on the most critical issues and help ensure that your business is tax compliant. What should I do when Revenue knocks on my door? The answer to this depends on the nature of the knock! Any correspondence issued by Revenue must be looked at carefully to understand the purpose of the query. A letter might issue from Revenue with queries due to an incorrect entry on a tax return (referred to as an ‘Aspect Query’ letter). Where a business files a VAT return and is in a VAT recovery position, standard VAT verification letters are often issued by Revenue seeking documentation to support the VAT refund due. This type of correspondence is routine and while it should be dealt with promptly, it should not result in undue concern. If an error is discovered as you prepare your response, it is usually possible to make a ‘qualifying disclosure’ to Revenue. By making a qualifying disclosure, you can reduce the penalties payable, avoid prosecution, and avoid publication in the list of tax defaulters. A disclosure is unprompted if it is made before notification of a Revenue audit is received. Any disclosures in relation to items covered by the audit made after the audit notice is received is prompted, and the penalty reductions for unprompted disclosures are higher than for prompted disclosures. However, Revenue recently indicated that it intends to move disclosures made by a business under an ‘Aspect Query’ to the ‘Prompted Disclosure’ category. Although publication can still be avoided, higher rates will be applicable if penalties apply. When a Revenue audit letter issues, depending on the tax head and the period covered, the taxpayer should conduct a full review of all tax matters. Common problems include businesses making cash payments to casual staff without PAYE, incorrect claiming of VAT input credits, incorrect operation of benefit-in-kind (BIK), and incorrectly claiming a tax deduction for income or corporation tax purposes. When that audit letter is received, it is essential to at once consider whether the business will need to make a prompted qualifying disclosure. If it does, it can write to the Revenue auditor requesting time to prepare the disclosure. In my experience, the time spent at this stage is well worth it as it often results in the audit running more smoothly and concluding promptly. It is not in the interest of any business to have an audit process continue any longer than it needs to. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that a full disclosure, if needed, is made and that all supporting documentation is gathered and available to the auditor. Cooperation is the best policy. * Review your tax compliance position on VAT and PAYE. Cooperation is the best policy when dealing with Revenue and, if necessary, make a voluntary disclosure. What VAT can I recover? At a high level, VAT can only be recovered by a business providing VATable products or services. This means that the business charges VAT on sales to customers. You may think that a business providing only products or services subject to VAT can recover all VAT charged by its suppliers. However, that is not the case. It is never possible to recover VAT on the purchase of food and drink items for use in an office kitchen. I frequently encounter cases where VAT is being reclaimed on bottled water purchased by the business, for example. Similarly, if a business owner purchases items for personal use, VAT should not be recovered as that purchase has not been made to provide taxable (i.e. VATable) supplies. Furthermore, if a company carries on a trade and owns several rental properties, you must determine if the expense relates to the trade or the rental properties. For example, if repairs are carried out on the business premises and all supplies by the business are liable to VAT, the VAT charged can be recovered. However, if repairs are carried out on a rented residential apartment owned by the business, the VAT cannot be recovered as the rental income from the residential apartment is not liable to VAT. In summary, consideration must be given to each invoice to determine if the business can recover the VAT charged. In addition, businesses can recover 20% of the VAT incurred on the acquisition or leasing of a car, provided it is used for business purposes at least 60% of the time. Businesses must also be aware that, in most cases, the supplier will not have charged VAT when the business purchases goods or services from outside Ireland. The business must self-account for Irish VAT at the appropriate rate and claim an input credit if it is entitled to do so. If foreign VAT has been charged, the business should satisfy itself that this is correct before payment is made to the supplier. A business cannot include an input credit in an Irish VAT return for foreign VAT charged. A business can only include a claim for a VAT input credit where a valid VAT invoice has been received. Accounts payable staff should be trained to ensure that all invoices are valid VAT invoices before settling them. It is easier to seek a proper invoice from a supplier when the invoice has not yet been paid. * Check that you are correctly claiming VAT input credit on cars and foreign purchases. How long do I need to keep documentation for? In general, documents must be kept for six years after the tax year in question. However, that is not as straightforward as it may sound. For example, I know of one situation where an individual claimed capital allowances on a building, with the capital allowances available over seven years. The tax return covering the sixth year in which the allowances were available was selected for verification three years after the return was filed, and Revenue sought copies of documentation to confirm the nature and the availability of the allowances. In this case, the taxpayer needed to provide documentation from nine years earlier. The key point from a tax perspective is that the burden of proof rests with the taxpayer. Therefore, you need to ensure that you can prove your entitlement to a deduction for any expenses or any capital allowance claimed in your tax return. Many recent tax appeals decisions have referred to this point. An Appeals Commissioner cannot decide a case in favour of a taxpayer where the taxpayer cannot discharge the burden of proof. Regarding an asset that is a capital asset, it will be necessary to keep documentation for six years after the property is disposed of. If a property was bought in 2000 and sold in 2021, for example, documentation regarding the purchase of that asset must be retained until 2027. Doing so enables you to prove your entitlement to a deduction for the costs of acquisition incurred in 2000 in determining the capital gains tax payable (or indeed the capital loss) on the disposal of the asset. The retention of documentation is also important in the context of VAT and the Capital Goods Scheme. When an asset is disposed of, the vendor is often obliged to complete Pre-Contract VAT Enquiries (PCVE) as part of the sales process. The PCVE contain full details of the purchase/development of the property, how it has been used since it was acquired, and how it is currently being used. To determine the correct VAT treatment of the sale, there can be no gaps in terms of how the property has been used. It is easier to maintain this information on a contemporaneous basis rather than pulling together information on all prior years as you prepare to sell the property. * Review your document retention policy as in some cases, you may need to keep certain records for more than six years. How do I ensure compliance with BIK rules on the provision of company cars? Employers who provide employees with company cars are obliged to keep contemporaneous records of business mileage. BIK operates by applying a percentage rate to the original market value of the car provided to the employee (other than electric cars, where different rules apply). The applicable percentage depends on the annual business mileage driven by the employee and ranges from 30% down to 6%. If any rate other than 30% is used, the employer must be able to prove the business mileage. Where an employee is provided with a car, they must complete a monthly log of the business journeys for their employers. While the tax is payable by the employee, the obligation is on the employer to operate the tax correctly. In addition, if the vehicle provided is a commercial vehicle or a van, the appropriate BIK rate is 5% regardless of the business mileage. * Review how you are calculating PAYE on the BIK on company cars and keep appropriate contemporaneous records of staff business mileage. What information does my tax advisor need to prepare my tax return? Where your accountant prepares your business’s financial statements, they will generally have sufficient information to prepare an accurate tax return. Where the financial statements are prepared by the business and provided to the tax advisor, however, they will generally need answers to the following questions: Are all expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade? For example, consider business entertainment, charitable and political donations, personal expenditure, and expenses paid for by the business that may not relate to that business. Was the employer’s pension contribution paid during the year, or is there an accrual in the profit and loss account? A tax deduction is only available on a paid basis. Can you provide an analysis of professional and legal fees? Fees that relate to capital transactions (e.g. asset purchases/sales) are not deductible in calculating trading profits. Can you provide a schedule of fixed asset additions to include the date of acquisition, the cost of acquisition, and the nature of the asset? Also, can you provide a schedule of fixed asset disposals so that accurate capital allowances claims and balancing charges/allowances can be prepared? Can you provide a reconciliation of any finance lease creditors from the opening position to the closing position? Can you provide a schedule of directors’ remuneration split by director? Can you provide details of any dividends or distributions paid during the year? Can you provide details of any non-trading income? Where medical insurance is paid on behalf of the staff, can you provide details of the tax relief at source (TRS) amount and confirm whether the gross or net amount has been included in the profit and loss account? * Save time and fees by completing the checklist your tax advisor will need to prepare your tax return. These issues occur in a wide range of businesses. You should aim to ensure that your business is compliant with tax legislation on an ongoing basis. Careful consideration should be given to amending any errors you discover – before you get that knock on the door. Jane O’Hanlon is a Director at Purcell McQuillan and a Fellow of Chartered Accountants Ireland.

In response to requests from charities and their lead bodies, Benefacts produced a special report on Irish charities last May. Patricia Quinn explains the findings. In Ireland’s charity sector, just as across the rest of the economy, the COVID-19 pandemic cast a long shadow. A sector of predominantly small and micro entities, charities experienced the full gamut of disruption to their not-for-profit businesses in 2020, ranging from temporary closure to rapid adaptation to digital working and developing new solutions to meet the needs of vulnerable people in local communities. For some – especially providers of hospital, hospice, residential care, and homelessness charities – the impact for their staff and served communities was a matter of life and death. Other charities – especially in emergency relief, mental health, local development, and social care – experienced increased demand for their services. In some sectors such as the arts, heritage, and museums, charities without the capacity to move to digital working methods could not operate, or only to a minimal degree. They report staff cutbacks and other cost-saving measures, but most have limited reserves and cannot avoid fixed costs. Fundraised income, which is a significant proportion of the revenues of some Irish charities, was expected to take a severe hit. In some sectors that rely predominantly on traditional fundraising, including door-to-door or church gate collections, charity shops, fun runs and other event-based approaches, this has been the case. Where charities were already geared up to appeal to donors and collect gifts digitally, or transitioned successfully to online giving, some reported an increase in income from this source. What do we know about charities? Charities form a subset of all non-profits in Ireland, which number more than 32,000 if you drill down to the level of local clubs, societies, and associations. The 11,405 charities on the Register of Charities today include just under 3,600 primary and secondary schools. For practical purposes, they are regulated elsewhere. The Register also includes about 2,700 unincorporated associations, trusts, and non-incorporated bodies that file accounts to the Charities Regulator which – for various reasons – are not published on the Regulator’s website. Anybody wanting to study the financial and governance profile of the charity sector therefore relies mainly on the CRO (Companies Registration Office) filings of incorporated charities, of which there are about 5,000. These form the basis for a new benchmark report on the charity sector in Ireland released by Benefacts last month. Benchmarking the state of the sector There has never been a time when current, reliable data was more relevant to charities. In boardrooms around the country, trustee directors have been grappling with tough choices. Even the best risk register was unlikely to include a worldwide pandemic involving the near-total shut-down of whole sectors of the economy. And most charities are particularly ill-equipped to cope with financial adversity; by definition, they have no equity, no investors, and limited capacity to trade their way out of financial trouble. Few charities entered 2020 with significant financial reserves. Although the aggregate reported value of reserves in the sectors under review in the Benefacts report was €3.73 billion based on available data for 3,628 incorporated charities, most of these reserves (€2.5 billion) are held by just 80 larger charities – in particular, voluntary hospitals and social housing providers. The remaining €1.2 billion in reserves is distributed across smaller charities, primarily in local development, social housing, health, and services for people with a disability. Moreover, charities’ assets – unlike most commercial organisations – typically cannot readily be liquidated as they are essential for delivering services or may be of a heritage or highly specialised nature. When reserves are converted to the number of weeks of average weekly expenditure (using data from full accounts), our analysis found that more than one-third of charities have fewer than ten weeks’ reserves, with arts charities particularly heavily exposed. Not all bleak In preparing its report, Benefacts reviewed more than a dozen surveys and other reports prepared by sector lead bodies, policy-makers, and regulators. Many positive effects have been reported. These include heightened public awareness of the value of charities’ work, better engagement across geographic divides, cost and time savings, a better quality of life for staff, and the adoption of more diversified fundraising solutions – especially digital ones. In fact, it appears that a small percentage of charities that were already well-geared for digital fundraising will be reporting 2020 as a better year than usual. Philanthropists stepped up in response, especially to pandemic-related causes, and social enterprises were encouraged to bid for new additional funding. The State permitted some charity employees to avail of pandemic unemployment benefits and allocated additional funding to address areas of acute need. Using financial reporting data shared with us in advance of the publication of their own financial statements by the nine State bodies that are the principal funders of charities, we were able to identify a 10.7% year-on-year uplift in funding for charities – mainly in health, social care, arts, and culture. But in 2020, there were nearly ten pandemic-free weeks at the start of the year and lockdowns were partially lifted mid-year. Additional State support will undoubtedly have sustained some charities that might otherwise have gone under. But there’s already a recognition that 2021 – with the exit from full lockdowns only starting in the middle of the second quarter – will be a tougher year, and 2022 probably tougher again. Planning for better The last 30 years have seen considerable professionalisation in the charity sector. The 5,000 charities whose financial statements form the basis for this new report employ more than 101,000 people. Fundraising, a critical discipline in the 273 charities that rely on this as their principal source of income, has become highly specialised. The larger charities now have professional staff to manage their volunteer supporters. Even the voluntary directors of charities themselves are increasingly recruited using the kind of competency framework approach that would have been unheard of in this sector 20 years ago. And perhaps it’s as well, since understanding the drivers of charity business success is a crucial function of charity boards. Contingency planning will surely come to the fore, as well as a searching review of some of the fundamental assumptions about funding. Benefacts has already received queries from charities trying to understand their position relative to their peer organisations in a given sub-sector, anticipating perhaps an even more competitive environment in the future. Audited financial statements are a hugely valuable source of granular data that makes up the picture of any sector and its component entities. Like analysts in commercial sectors, Benefacts relies on charity company disclosures as the bedrock on which we build a profile of the charity sector and its sub-sectors. Common financial reporting standards bring consistency and reliability to the data that can be used to create a picture of the whole sector and track changes year-on-year at the level of individual charities and sectors such as hospice care, addiction support, or animal welfare. Thanks to its database, augmented each year with more than three million new data items harvested from non-profit company disclosures, Benefacts has been able to provide charities, funders, policy-makers and other stakeholders with a powerful knowledge asset to help them navigate uncertain times. The impact of regulation The range of data underpinning our analysis of this multi-billion euro sector suffered a setback with the new Companies Act reform in 2014. For the first time, small non-profit (limited by guarantee) companies could avail of the same exemptions from filing full accounts as commercial companies. While this is only fair and equitable on the face of it, it has diminished the public disclosures of thousands of charities that rely on public donations, state funding, or both to support their operations. Unfortunately, the Charities Act 2009 did not foresee this change and exempts charity companies from filing their accounts to the Charities Regulator to avoid the burden of double regulation. Again, fair and equitable – except for the unintended side effect of making the financial disclosures of thousands of charities less transparent to the very people on whom they rely for income and something more precious – trust. Here are the numbers: of the 3,628 charities that have already filed their 2019 accounts, 36% have filed abridged accounts and 26% have filed unaudited accounts. 106 of these charities receive funding from the State. This means that their unaudited accounts breach the reporting standards for any body receiving State funding set by the Department of Public Expenditure & Reform (Circular 13, 2014). Rules are there to be obeyed, and over time, the compliance authorities will surely iron out these wrinkles in the provisions of the various legal and regulatory frameworks. But charities are not like other small businesses. The principle rather than the letter of the legislation regulating them is one of transparency. To that, I would add informed self-interest. Sector lead bodies preparing a brief for their board or a presentation for an Oireachtas Committee hearing are often disappointed to discover that Benefacts analysis of their members is missing some critical dimension – especially an analysis of their income. That is because so many of the source documents lack an important few pages: the income and expenditure account. This is all the more galling as funders require the full accounts to be provided to them. We therefore experience a double standard – full accounts to go in the State filing cabinet, abridged ones for the rest of us.

Having read the 1,246-page Trade and Cooperation Agreement, which was agreed to “in principle” by the EU and UK on Christmas Eve, Cróna Clohisey shares her thoughts on the critical elements causing concern and highlights areas that warrant further work. In recent weeks, there has been as much discussion about what the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) reached between the EU and UK on Christmas Eve doesn’t cover as what it does. The deal, spanning some 1,246 pages, threw up some surprises and certainly left a lot for discussion between the two sides in the months ahead. The main areas covered in the document include trade in goods and certain services, energy, aviation and road transport, fisheries, social security coordination, law enforcement, digital trade and intellectual property. Certain big-ticket items, including decisions relating to equivalence for financial services, the adequacy of the UK’s data protection regime, or an assessment of the UK’s sanitary and phytosanitary regime were excluded, however. These three areas, in particular, are unilateral decisions of the EU and were never subject to negotiation. The TCA does not govern trade in goods between Northern Ireland and the EU where the Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland will apply, bringing a whole other set of rules – not least in customs and VAT. Implementing, applying, and interpreting the TCA falls to the newly created Partnership Council. This political body will be co-chaired by a European Commission member and a UK government minister, and decisions will be made by mutual consent. Several specialised committees, including a trade partnership committee, will assist the Partnership Council. Therefore, it seems that negotiations between the EU and the UK on their future relationship are set to continue long into the future.  In this article, I will look at the TCA elements that are causing concern or require further work. Trade in goods and customs The real test for cross-border trade between the UK and EU is really just beginning, given that traffic at ports and borders is generally quieter in the weeks after Christmas. Still, problems with paperwork (which could never be removed by a free-trade agreement), health checks and systems were reported by many companies in the first few weeks of the year. We have heard reports of large retailers reporting shortages on their shelves with retailers in Northern Ireland significantly affected given the customs declarations required for goods brought into Northern Ireland from Great Britain – a requirement that seems to have taken some by surprise.   The TCA’s chapter on rules of origin is particularly cumbersome and has already hampered, and is expected to continue to hamper, existing supply chains. The ‘zero tariffs, zero quotas’ headline celebrating free trade is not all it seems, particularly when only eligible goods qualify for this approach. Rules of origin determine a product’s economic nationality and where products ‘originate’ is the fundamental basis for determining if tariffs apply. The TCA says that for products to benefit from zero tariffs and zero quotas, goods must be wholly obtained from, or manufactured, in the EU or UK or be substantially transformed or processed in the EU or UK in line with the specific origin rules that apply to the product being exported. Minor handling, unpacking and repacking won’t qualify as sufficiently processed. There could be issues for goods not wholly grown, farmed, fished or mined in either the UK or EU.  The amount of non-originating materials (i.e. materials not originating in either the EU or UK) that a product can have in order to still benefit from the TCA differs depending on the product. The annexes to the TCA set out the product-specific rules, and you will need to identify the commodity code as a starting point. Some products allow a maximum level of non-originating content (e.g. 50% of the ex-works selling price), but again this varies from product to product. If, for example, products are processed in the UK, the TCA states that EU origin materials and processing can be counted when considering whether UK exports to the EU meet rules of origin requirements. There is a qualifying production level, for example, called ‘cumulation’. Another nuance is that some rules of origin require that non-originating inputs used in the production of a good must have a different tariff heading, while some rules require a specific operation to take place in the UK for the goods to be classed as being of UK origin. For certain chemicals, for example, a chemical reaction must occur in the UK. It’s also important to remember that when goods are exported from a customs territory, origin status is lost (preferential origin status can only apply once). Take leather shoes originating in Spain as an example. When the shoes move from Spain to Great Britain and are then shipped to Ireland, they lose their EU preferential origin status when they leave Great Britain. Because they haven’t been processed or altered in Great Britain, they don’t have UK origin. Therefore, unless the goods move under a special and complicated customs procedure, duties arise on the goods entering Ireland. The now infamous case of Marks & Spencer’s Percy Pig confectionery is an example of this issue. These issues add to supply chain headaches and give rise to hidden costs. The rules are undoubtedly complex and don’t suit the UK’s significant role as a distribution hub. Business travel Free movement of people between the EU and UK ended on 1 January 2021. Of course, Irish and UK citizens are still free to live, travel and work in either country under the rules of the Common Travel Area (CTA). Beyond this category of people, immigration requirements – including securing permission to work and restrictions on the activities that can be performed as business travellers – are now a key consideration for UK nationals moving throughout the rest of the EU, including UK citizens residing in Ireland. Similar policies are in place for EU nationals seeking to travel to, and work in, the UK. The CTA allows short-term business visitors to enter either jurisdiction visa-free for 90 days in any given six-month period, but there are restrictions on the activities that can be performed. Activities such as meetings, conferences, trade exhibitions, and consultations are allowed. However, anything that involves selling goods or services directly to the public requires a work visa. The specific business situations where a visa is required are set out in the annexes to the TCA. The environment In a first for the EU, the fight against climate change has been included as an “essential element” in a bilateral agreement with a third country. This effectively means that if the EU or the UK were to withdraw from the Paris Agreement or take measures defeating its purpose, the other side would have the right to suspend or even terminate all or part of the TCA. The TCA paves the way for a joint framework for cooperation on renewable energy and other sustainable practices, as well as the creation of a new model for energy trading. However, it allows both sides to set their own climate and environmental policies in areas such as carbon emissions/carbon pricing, air quality, and biodiversity conservation. Divergence from respective environmental and climate laws will be monitored, but this area is not subject to the TCA’s main dispute resolution mechanism. It will instead be governed by a ‘Panel of Experts’ procedure. Time will tell how effective this will be. Data transfers Many businesses rely on the ability to transfer personal data about their customers or employees to offer goods and services across borders. A company based in Belfast, for example, might outsource its payroll processing to a company based in Galway. In this case, any restriction on this data’s ability to flow freely would act as a trade barrier. The EU and UK haven’t concluded a deal yet to allow data to continue to flow freely across borders, but the EU has committed to a decision on the adequacy of the UK’s system (UK GDPR) by 30 June 2021. Until then, the UK will be treated as if it is still part of the EU on data protection grounds, and data can continue to flow freely between jurisdictions. If the EU doesn’t reach an adequacy agreement (although reports suggest that a deal is close), provisions such as standard contractual clauses may be needed in future transfers of data between the UK and EU. Financial services Currently, the UK has identical rules to the EU in terms of the regulation of financial services. Supplementary documentation published with the TCA states that the UK Treasury and European Commission aim to sign a cooperation agreement covering financial services regulation by March 2021. The EU has already deemed the UK equivalent for a time-limited basis in clearing and transaction settlement, while the UK has provided the EU with specific findings that would enable EU member states to conduct such business in the UK. Many other areas of the TCA will be digested and interpreted in the weeks and months ahead. Trade deals are predominantly about trade. Only time will tell if they go far enough in other areas such as environment, security and intelligence, or healthcare, for example. Let’s hope that in the long run, a deal is better than no-deal. POINT OF VIEW:  Barry Cullen, Silver Hill Duck Silver Hill Duck is a perfect example of a cross-border business and the various challenges posed by the new trading relationship between the EU and the UK. Silver Hill Duck is a duck manufacturing company based in Emyvale, Co. Monaghan, with operations in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The company controls all aspects of the breeding, farming, production and packaging of its famous Silver Hill Duck breed. Established in 1962, it has supplied the best Chinese restaurants in the UK for the past 40 years. During this time, the company has expanded its customer base to include retail and foodservice, including a range of raw and cooked products. Barry Cullen, Head of Sales at Silver Hill Duck and President of the Irish Exporters Association, shares the background to his company’s commercial decisions. “The UK was historically our largest market, and we took some steps before 1 January 2021 to avoid the expected delays that were predicted at the ports. This involved setting up a Northern Ireland company with the appropriate VAT and EORI numbers, and a customs clearance agent to handle the paperwork. Silver Hill also had to source a warehousing partner in the UK that could hold frozen stock for our UK customers. Trading with our fresh retail customers was suspended for the first few weeks in January due to the uncertainty around delays at ports and the documentation required. The first few weeks of 2021 has shown that this was a prudent decision, as it has become apparent that the UK is nowhere near ready for the new trading requirements. There are major delays at Holyhead with hauliers unable to access the Irish market due to incorrect paperwork and a COVID-19 testing regime that has exacerbated the problem. It’s a case of learning on the job as our sales team feels its way through the many documentation requirements to send a pallet of product to the UK. For example, despite having done due diligence for over three years, we were not aware of the REX system and the need to be registered to self-certify our goods. Even though there are no actual tariffs, the customs clearance costs are high at approximately €120 per order, regardless of size, if you act as exporter and importer for the UK customer. This will make much retail business commercially unviable and will have a significant knock-on effect on small- and medium-sized enterprises in the coming months. There will undoubtedly be a settling-in period for the new trading requirements, but the cost for traders, hauliers and suppliers is as yet uncertain.”   Cróna Clohisey is Public Policy Lead at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

With international tax reform progressing at unprecedented speed, Susan Kilty explains why Irish businesses must continue to participate actively in the discussion. With all the global uncertainty that Ireland is facing due to COVID-19 and Brexit, there is a risk that the OECD global tax reforms – the other major threat to Irish business and the economy – will be pushed further down the corporate agenda. But to do so would be very risky. Ireland must engage with this process now, at both the political and corporate level. The world of international tax is in a state of extreme flux as governments grapple with changes in the way multinationals do business. It is worth reiterating that Ireland has attracted healthy levels of foreign direct investment (FDI) over the past 30 years, and the multinational community has contributed significantly to our economic success. According to the OECD, Ireland received more foreign direct investment in the first half of this year than any other country. Along with Ireland’s near-iconic 12.5% tax rate, a crucial element in our continuing ability to attract international investment is the stability and transparency of the corporate tax regime here. Investors from abroad who establish activities in Ireland tend to be quite sensitive to changes in the taxation system. They like certainty and stability in a tax code, which is why Ireland presents such an attractive proposition. Ireland cannot afford to lose FDI as a result of turbulence in the global tax landscape at this time. As corporation tax accounts for almost 18% of Ireland’s total tax take, any change to the regime threatens to seriously undermine the attractiveness of our FDI model and negatively impact our revenue-raising ability. The crux of the matter is that we, and many other countries, apply 20th century tax systems to 21st century e-commerce business models. Businesses have an increasingly digital presence, and many no longer trade out of brick and mortar locations. This is not limited to so-called technology companies, but can be seen across industries and in businesses of all sizes. Businesses sell freely across borders without ever needing to set up operations abroad. This new digital way of trading is not always captured in our analogue tax rules, and the rules must be realigned with the reality of modern e-commerce. However, to tax a multinational business, you need a multinational set of rules. This is where the OECD comes in, but the uncertain shape that the new rules might take brings more uncertainty for businesses at a time when it is least needed. Many clients cite the changing international tax environment as one of the top threats to potential revenue growth. And although countries now face enormous bills for COVID-19, one sure thing is that BEPS, OECD and tax reform will not go away. International corporate tax reform is happening, and it will impact many businesses and our economy. Companies need to stay on top of these changes and prioritise the issues that will affect them. OECD proposals The OECD proposals offer a two-pillar solution: one pillar to re-allocate taxing rights and ensure that profits are recorded where sales take place, and a second pillar to ensure that a minimum tax rate is paid. At the time of writing, a public consultation is open for stakeholders to share their views with the OECD on the proposals that were recently summarised by way of two “blueprint” documents, one for each pillar. Pillar One seeks to give market jurisdictions increased taxing rights (and, therefore, increased taxable income and revenues). It aims to attribute a portion of the profits of certain multinational groups to the jurisdictions in which their customers are based. It does this by introducing a new formulaic allocation mechanism for profits while ensuring that limited risk distributors take a fair share of profits. Several questions remain as to how the Pillar One proposals, which constitute a significant change from the current rules, will be applied. Pillar Two, on the other hand, seeks to impose a floor for minimum tax rates across the globe. This proposal is very complicated. It is much more than a case of setting a minimum rate of tax. It is made up partially of a system that requires shareholders of companies that pay low or no tax to “tax back” the profits to ensure that they are subject to a minimum rate. At the same time, rules will apply to ensure that payments made to related parties in low-tax-paying or no-tax-paying countries are subject to a withholding tax. Finally, it can alter the application of double tax treaty relief for companies in low-tax-paying or no-tax-paying countries. Agreeing on the application and implementation of this pillar will be incredibly difficult from a global consensus point of view. Several supposed “safety nets” in Pillar Two are also likely to be of limited application. For example, assuming that the minimum tax rate is set at 12.5%, this does not mean that businesses subject to tax in Ireland will escape further tax. Similarly, assuming that the US GILTI (global intangible low-taxed income) rules are grandfathered in the OECD’s proposal, this does not mean that the US GILTI tax applies as a tax-in-kind tax for Pillar Two purposes. Pillar Two poses a significant threat to Ireland, as it reduces the competitiveness of our 12.5% rate to attract FDI and, coupled with the Pillar One profit re-allocations, could reduce our corporate tax take. The OECD estimates that once one or both of the pillars are introduced, companies will pay more tax overall at a global level, but where this tax falls is up for negotiation – and this is why early engagement by all stakeholders is critical. While the new proposals will undoubtedly have an impact, it is not certain that Ireland’s corporation tax receipts will fall off a cliff. Ireland has already gained significantly in terms of investment from the first phase of OECD tax reform, and this has helped to drive a significant increase in corporate tax revenue. But the risks must nevertheless be addressed. There is, of course, the risk that the redistribution of tax under the rules directly under Pillar One and indirectly via Pillar Two will impact our corporate tax take. But even if the rules have no impact on a company’s tax bill, they could still impose a considerable burden from an administrative perspective, and the complexity of the rules cannot be overestimated. At a time when businesses are grappling with other tax changes, led by the EU and domestic policy changes, this would be a substantial additional burden on the business community. The OECD is progressing the rules at unprecedented speed in terms of international tax reform. The momentum behind the process comes from a political desire for a fair tax system that works for modern business. However, does this rapidity risk the international political process marching ahead of the technical tax work? This is where Ireland, both government and corporate, needs to play a vital role. While the consultation period on both pillars is open, the focus for stakeholders should be on consulting with the OECD on the technical elements of its plan. Considering the OECD’s stated objective to have a political consensus by mid-2021, this could be one of the last opportunities for stakeholders to have a say in writing the rules. The interplay between the OECD and the US Treasury cannot be ignored when considering the OECD’s ability to get the proposals over the line. The US Treasury decided to step away from the consultation process with the OECD for a period in mid-2020. This, of course, raised questions around whether the OECD proposals could generate a solution that countries would be willing to implement. Added to this, the OECD has always positioned Pillar One and Pillar Two as an overall package of measures and has stressed that one pillar would not be able to move forward without the other. The “nothing is decided until everything is decided” basis of moving forward is a risky move, but the OECD recently rowed back on this stance. If the OECD fails to reach a political consensus by 2021, we could very well see the EU act ‘en bloc’ to introduce a tax on companies with “digital” activities. This could result in differing rules within, and outside of, the EU. It would also increase global trade tensions, all of which would not be good for our competitiveness. As a small open economy, Ireland will always be susceptible to any barriers to global trade. A multilateral deal brokered by the OECD therefore remains the best option – the last thing we want to see is the EU accelerating its own tax reform or, worse still, countries taking unilateral action. For the Irish Government, providing certainty where possible about the future direction of tax is critical. Where we have a lead is in how we provide that stability and guidance where we can. The upcoming Corporate Tax Roadmap from the Department of Finance will be an opportunity to give assurances in these uncertain times. Next steps for business The public consultation will be critical for businesses to have their say in shaping the rules. Ireland Inc. must continue to engage constructively with the OECD to try to shape the outcome so that we maintain a corporate tax system that is fit for purpose, is at the forefront of global standards, and works for businesses located here. Doing so would ensure that we articulate the position of small open economies like our own. Each impacted business must take the opportunity to comment on the proposals, as this may be the last chance to have a say. Indeed, what comes out of the consultation period may be the architecture of the rules for the future. We know that difficult decisions must be made at home and abroad in terms of the new tax landscape, and made with additional pressures we could not have foreseen 12 months ago. Although it may seem that much is out of our control, Irish businesses must continue to participate actively in the discussions and ensure that their concerns are heard. The game may be in the final quarter, but the ball is in our hands. Susan Kilty is a Partner at PwC Ireland and leads the firm’s tax practice. Point of view: Fergal O'Brien Since the start of the BEPS process in 2013, Irish business has recognised the importance of the work to our business model and the country’s future prosperity. At its core, BEPS has seen a further alignment of business substance and tax structures at a global level. This has resulted in an often under-appreciated surge in business investment, quality job creation and, ultimately, higher tax revenue for the Irish State. With its strong history as a successful location for foreign direct investment, and substance in world-class manufacturing and international services, Ireland was well-placed to benefit from the new global order. The boom in business investment, which last year reached over €3 billion every week, and increase in the corporate tax yield from €4 billion in 2013 to €11 billion in 2019, are evidence of the further embedding of business substance in the Irish economy. The current round of BEPS negotiations will have further significant implications for the Irish economy, and particularly for the rapidly growing digital economy. Ibec is working directly with the OECD to ensure that any further changes to corporation tax recognise the central role of business substance and locations of real value creation. Fergal O’Brien is Director of Policy and Public Affairs at Ibec.  Point of view: Norah Collender The OECD’s proposals to address the challenges of the digitalised economy will have a disproportionate negative impact on small, open exporter economies like Ireland. Earlier consultation papers issued by the OECD on taxing the digitalised economy suggested that smaller economies could benefit from international tax reform emanating from the OECD. However, the OECD now openly admits that bigger countries stand to benefit from its proposals more than smaller countries, and the carrot has turned into the stick in terms of what will happen if smaller countries do not support the OECD. Ireland is acutely aware of the dangers ahead if countries take unilateral action to achieve their vision of international tax reform. But that does not mean that countries like Ireland should be rushed into accepting international tax rules that fundamentally hamstring Irish taxing rights. Genuine consensus must be reached to ensure that international tax reform is sustainable in the long-term. Likewise, the new tax rules must be manageable from the multinational’s perspective and from the perspective of the tax authority tasked with administrating the rules. A rushed outcome to the important work of the OECD will make for tax laws that participating countries, tax authorities, and the all-important taxpayer may not be able to withstand in the long-term. Norah Collender is Professional Tax Leader at Chartered Accountants Ireland. Point of view: Seamus Coffey How Pillar One and Pillar Two of the OECD BEPS Project will ultimately impact Ireland is uncertain. One sure thing, however, is that there will be changes to tax payments. This will be a combination of a change in the location of where taxes are paid and perhaps also an increase in tax payments in some instances. But there will likely be both winners and losers. From an Irish perspective, there might have been some comfort in that the loser could have been the residual claimant – the country at the end of the chain that gets to claim taxing rights on the profits left after other countries have made their claim. As US companies are the largest source of Irish corporation tax revenue, it might have been felt that most of the losses would fall on the US. However, significant amounts of intellectual property have been on-shored here. Ireland, therefore, has become a residual claimant for the taxing rights to some of the profits of these companies. At present, Ireland is not collecting significant taxes from these profits as capital allowances are claimed. If BEPS results in a significant reallocation of these profits, we might never collect much tax on them. Seamus Coffey is a lecturer in the Department of Economics in University College Cork and former Chair of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council.

David Duffy discusses recent Irish and EU VAT developments.Irish VAT updatesVAT rate decreaseAs most readers already know, the standard rate of Irish VAT has been reduced from 23% to 21% for the period from 1 September 2020 to 28 February 2021. We expect that most businesses will already have made the necessary changes to their systems and processes to apply the new rate to affected transactions from 1 September 2020 onwards. However, when preparing your September/October VAT return in November, it may be helpful to check that the new rate has been correctly applied. Some of the points to check may include:Has the new VAT rate been correctly applied to your sales? The tax point and corresponding VAT rate for your sales may differ depending on whether the sale was to another business or consumer, whether you operate the invoice or cash-receipts basis of accounting for VAT, and whether a payment was received in advance of the supply. The Revenue Tax and Duty Manual on changes in rates of VAT, available on the Revenue website, provides further guidance on how to apply these rules.Has the appropriate VAT rate been applied to purchase invoices received in the period?Has the appropriate VAT rate been applied to credit notes issued or received during the period? In general, the VAT rate applied to the credit note should match the VAT rate applied to the invoice to which the credit note relates.Does VAT charged at the new rate correctly map to the appropriate general ledger accounts and is it correctly captured in your VAT reports for the period?Extension of COVID-19 reliefsRevenue has confirmed an extension of a number of temporary, indirect tax reliefs introduced earlier this year to help combat COVID-19. These reliefs were originally due to expire on 31 July 2020, but have now been extended until 31 October 2020, subject to further review. The temporary reliefs include:The zero-rate of VAT applies to personal protective equipment (PPE), thermometers, medical ventilators, hand sanitiser, and oxygen when supplied to the HSE, hospitals, nursing homes, care homes and GP practices for use in providing COVID-19-related healthcare services. Relief from import VAT and customs duties applies to the import of medical goods to combat COVID-19 by or on behalf of State organisations, disaster relief agencies and other organisations approved by Revenue, and which are provided free of charge for these purposes. No VAT clawback will arise for the owner of a property used to provide emergency accommodation to the State, HSE or other State agencies in order to combat COVID-19. EU VAT updatesDeferral of VAT e-commerce rulesThe EU has recently agreed to defer the introduction of significant changes to the EU VAT rules for e-commerce transactions from 1 January 2021 to 1 July 2021. The deferral was in response to potential challenges of meeting the 1 January 2021 deadline for tax authorities and businesses as a result of COVID-19. While this deferral gives businesses more time to prepare, it is important for businesses that will be impacted by the changes to begin their preparations. Businesses which will be most affected include retailers with online stores, online platforms and marketplaces which facilitate sales of goods to consumers, and postal and logistics operators which handle imports of goods on behalf of retailers or consumers. A brief summary of the changes coming into effect on 1 July 2021 is set out below. The current domestic VAT registration thresholds for cross-border business to consumer (B2C) sales of goods in each EU member state will be abolished. As a result, a retailer selling goods to consumers in other EU member states will be obliged to charge VAT at the appropriate rate in the member state to which the goods are shipped regardless of their value, subject to a very limited exception where the value of sales to consumers across all EU member states is less than €10,000 per year. The VAT payable to tax authorities in other member states on these sales can be remitted through a quarterly One Stop Shop (OSS) registration rather than requiring an overseas VAT registration. VAT will apply to all goods imported into the EU, at the appropriate rate in the EU country of import, regardless of their value. This is as a result of the abolition of the import VAT relief for low-value consignments with a value of up to €22. This is likely to significantly increase the volume of packages imported on which VAT must be paid. To help facilitate the payment of VAT, the retailer or, in certain cases, the online marketplace facilitating the sale can charge the VAT at the time of sale and pay this VAT to the tax authority in the country of import through a new Import One Stop Shop (IOSS). This return would be filed, and related VAT paid, on a monthly basis. However, this will only apply to imported consignments with a value of up to €150. Packages above that value will be subject to import VAT and customs duty in the normal way at the time of import. An online marketplace that facilitates sales of goods to consumers will be deemed to have purchased and resold those goods in two scenarios: first, the goods are imported from outside of the EU in a consignment of up to €150; or second, the goods are sold within the EU by a retailer established outside of the EU. This will bring additional VAT collection and reporting obligations for these platforms.Additional VAT record-keeping requirements will apply to platforms and marketplaces which facilitate other supplies of goods and services to consumers within the EU.VAT on property adjustmentIn the HF case (C-374/19) the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that a VAT clawback was payable by a German retirement home operator where it ceased to carry out taxable supplies in a cafeteria attaching to the main retirement home building. The operator constructed the cafeteria and fully recovered VAT on the construction costs as its intention was to sell food and beverages to visitors. This activity would be subject to VAT. It was subsequently determined that there had been approximately 10% use of the café for VAT exempt supplies to residents of the retirement home, which resulted in a partial adjustment of the VAT reclaimed. This was not in dispute.However, subsequent to that initial adjustment, the taxable activity of sales of food and drinks to visitors ceased entirely. The only remaining use was in respect of the VAT exempt supplies to the residents, albeit there was no absolute increase in their use of the building. The question was, therefore, whether this triggered a further adjustment of VAT.The taxpayer had sought to rely on earlier court judgments which support the position that where VAT is reclaimed based on an intended taxable activity but that activity does not subsequently take place, the taxpayer’s right to VAT recovery is retained. However, the CJEU distinguished this case from the others because the intended taxable activity had commenced but ceased and the property was now only being used for VAT exempt activities. Ireland has adopted similar rules (referred to as the capital goods scheme) which can result in a clawback or uplift in VAT recovery where the proportion of taxable/exempt activity in building changes. This typically needs to be monitored over a period of up to 20 years. It is, therefore, important to carefully consider any changes in use of a building as this could have significant VAT consequences.David Duffy FCA, AITI Chartered Tax Advisor, is an Indirect Tax Partner at KPMG.

The pandemic has broken several business taboos and accelerated the role of digitisation in all walks of life. The UK tax system is no different. HMRC’s role in developing the job retention and self-employed schemes’ online portals at speed to deliver support to employers and businesses at a time of crisis has shown that digitisation can be done quickly. It might not have been perfect, but it was very good. On the back of these lessons, the UK Government published its vision for tax administration in the UK in July: building a trusted, modern tax administration system. The strategic importance of this goal has clearly been brought into sharper focus by the pandemic.An important part of the July publication was the announcement of further steppingstones in the roadmap of the Making Tax Digital (MTD) project, starting with extending MTD for VAT to VAT-registered businesses with turnover below the current £85,000 VAT registration threshold from April 2022. MTD for income tax will commence for self-employed businesses and landlords with income over £10,000 from April 2023.But there’s one glaring issue missing from the picture: UK tax legislation is extremely complex. Unless this is seriously addressed, efficient, problem-free, further digitisation of the UK tax system cannot be effectively achieved. For that reason, the Government should also develop a roadmap for simplification of the UK tax system which should work as a precursor to any new digital services developed. This should begin with income tax complexity. If this doesn’t happen, having to navigate legislation that continually increases in complexity coupled with a requirement to make multiple filings to HMRC has the capacity to be extremely challenging for both HMRC, the taxpayer and their agent. The UK Government must simplify to digitise.Leontia Doran FCA is a UK Taxation Specialist with Chartered Accountants Ireland.

Budget 2021 is the next instrument in the government's response to the impacts of COVID-19 on the Irish economy. Between the pandemic and a possible disorderly Brexit, Budget 2021 will not be a normal budget, says Kim Doyle.COVID-19 has presented unprecedented challenges for the global economy. Governments, along with their tax authorities worldwide, have adopted and administered emergency measures to preserve the health of their people and defend against collapse of their economies. In Ireland, we had a mini-Budget in the form of the July Jobs Stimulus, a €7.4 billion package of measures aimed at supporting the Irish economy in response to the impact of COVID-19. We also have a number of administrative measures in operation by Revenue to ease taxpayers’ compliance burden. Brexit also brings challenges. At this stage, we do need to respond to the immediate impacts of Brexit, and a possible disorderly Brexit, and plan for the long-term stability and robustness of the Irish economy. Climate change is, too, the ‘defining challenge of our generation’, according to the Minister for Finance. And, indeed, a raft of measures were introduced last year to tackle this challenge, while others were promised in the future. EU and OECD tax reform proposals continue to pose challenges and bring additional uncertainties into play. The impact of these on the Irish economy could extend well beyond corporation tax receipts and may influence unwanted changes in investment decisions by MNC groups going forward.Framing Budget 2021Budget 2021 may target revenue raising measures to cover the expenditure introduced to deal with the recent challenges brought about by COVID-19 and a possible disorderly Brexit, but any budgetary measures must avoid undoing the impact of the July Jobs Stimulus Package. Health and housing priorities will also have to be addressed in the budget. The government has said the measures will focus on the short-term and not beyond 2021.The government has pledged no increases to income tax credits or bands. (This is also promised in the Programme for Government.) The level of government expenditure over the coming months is unlikely to fall substantially, if at all. Despite the backdrop, tax receipts for the first eight months of 2020 are only 2.3% behind the same period in 2019. Given that some of this deficit is a timing issue and will be recovered in 2021, this is a remarkable outturn. September tax returns will be the final “piece in the jigsaw” before the final Budget 2021 is decided, according to the government. ExpectationsPre-COVID-19, Budget 2021 was expected to be framed around Brexit and climate change. Now, amid a pandemic, what are we more likely to see in the Budget from a tax perspective? Income taxConsidering the government has stated there will be no broad based increases in income taxation, we don't expect to see much by way of income tax measures. We may see some modest tax cuts in the form of increased tax credits for stay-at-home parents and other credits and reliefs targeting lower and middle income earners. We would like to see a long-term commitment to a reduction in our high marginal tax rates of 52% and 55% for employees and self-employed respectively; however, there is no fiscal space to make any pledge to reduce these rates in the short-term.The concept of broadening the tax base, so more people pay a little, has long been debated with very little reaction by government. The main reason may be it is likely to be unpopular with constituents. However, considering the challenges for the Irish economy, the government may need to embrace this concept but balance it with the pledge for no broad income tax increases. A new form of tax relief for individuals working remotely is a possible outcome of the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation public consultation on Guidance for Remote Working. Some responses to this summer consultation called for changes to the tax rules for reimbursement of employee expenses and changes to the tax treatment of expenses incurred by employees. We may see some tweaks to the Irish Tax Code in response. Corporation taxThe government reaffirmed its commitment to the 12.5% corporation tax rate in the Programme for Government. The importance of this commitment is evident in the remarkable tax receipts for the eight months to end of August 2020, which are largely driven by large corporation tax increases along with a strong start to the year pre-COVID-19 and more resilient income tax receipts. Ireland is obliged under EU law to implement changes to our tax code to restrict the interest tax deduction taken by companies. At the time of writing, these changes are more likely to take effect in 2022. The EU agreed last year to park its digital tax proposals in order to allow global consensus be reached through the OECD digital tax discussions. Changes to accommodate any digital tax proposals will be premature in 2020 and, therefore, unlikely to be a feature of Budget 2021. Capital taxes In order to further stimulate the economy, lowering both the CGT and CAT rates will likely promote activity in the market and should ultimately see assets put to a more productive use. This rate reduction has been called for and debated in recent years. Perhaps Budget 2021 will deliver. Considering residential property prices have fallen in recent months, there may be scope to increase the related Stamp Duty rate. However, such a rate increase will likely be unpopular among constituents and not helpful considering the struggles reported by many in getting a foot on the property ladder. VATThe extension of the 9% VAT rate to construction services would help encourage the scale of property development needed to absorb the current demand and address the housing shortage. The re-introduction of the 9% VAT rate to stimulate the hospitality sector would complement the other measures, such as the Stay and Spend Tax Scheme. An extension of the new temporary 21% VAT rate, while desirable by many, is unlikely; the headline VAT rate is a useful revenue raising measure. Increasing the threshold for cash-receipts basis of accounting, and the VAT registration thresholds, may support businesses to deal with the current challenges. Old reliablesPetrol and diesel excise increases may feature, particularly in the context of requirements to address climate change. Increases in the excise to diesel only to bring it in line with the cost of petrol at the pumps is more likely. Excise increases on alcohol and cigarettes is possible but the hospitality sector has already taken a battering due to COVID-19 and any further perceived attacks may not be in favour. ConclusionOverall there isn’t the fiscal space for wide-ranging and significant tax reductions and reliefs in Budget 2021. But the Budget 2021 equation must consist of tailored tax measures to support and stimulate the hardest hit sectors of the Irish economy and defend against the impacts of a possible disorderly Brexit on the economy while also satisfying climate change targets.Kim Doyle FCA is Tax Director, Head of Tax Knowledge Centre in Grant Thornton.

Paul McCourt and Fiona Hall consider the possible tax implications of current low asset values and what individuals can do to help protect family finances for the long-term.The COVID-19 outbreak is having a range of effects on families and individuals, with many investors seeing family finances suffer and the value of their assets fall in recent months. An important factor to remember at this point is that when an individual makes a gift, it is the current market value of the asset being gifted that applies for both inheritance tax (IHT) and capital gains tax (CGT) purposes.TrustsThe creation of a trust to hold assets for the benefit of the wider family or dependants has been a long-standing solution for many individuals seeking to pass assets to the next generation. Settling a trust is generally a chargeable IHT event. However, if the settlor’s nil rate band is fully available, individuals can transfer £325,000 of assets into the trust without incurring an IHT liability. This could increase to £650,000 for married couples jointly settling a trust with the availability of two nil rate bands. CGT hold-over relief may also be available so that the gift to trust does not trigger a CGT liability.For those considering using a trust, or who have already established one, now may be the time to gift or sell assets. When assets pass out of the trust to a beneficiary, either by way of an entitlement or an appointment by the trustees, any IHT and CGT liabilities are based on the current market value of the assets passing. Trustees may wish to consider whether the trust continues to meet its objectives and whether it is now appropriate to appoint assets out to trust beneficiaries.Personal giftsGifting an asset to another individual is often a potentially exempt transfer for IHT purposes. As such, if the donor survives for seven years from the date of the gift, it falls out of their IHT estate. However, if the donor does die in this period, the value of the assets gifted at the time the gift was made could become taxable.Where a gift fails the seven-year rule, subject to reliefs and the IHT nil rate band (currently £325,000), IHT could be payable on the gift (by the recipient or the executors) or the value of the estate. Making a gift when asset values are low will mitigate the potential IHT exposure for the individual considering gifting an asset.A gift is treated for CGT as being a disposal of the asset at market value by the donor. This could trigger a capital gain if the value exceeds the allowable cost unless the assets qualify for business assets hold-over relief.When asset values are lower, the likelihood of a gift triggering a gain is reduced, or a gift may give rise to a loss. Care should be taken in generating a loss on gifts, as any losses arising from the disposal of an asset to a connected person can only be set against gains that arise from other disposals to that same person. Capital losses generally carry forward to future years, but not back so timing is vital.Crystallising ‘paper’ lossesIndividuals may consider crystallising a current ‘paper’ or book loss on an investment and repurchasing a similar asset. Any such loss can then be offset against capital gains arising on asset disposals made in the same, or later, tax years. It is important to note, however, that ‘bed and breakfasting’ of shares is often ineffective for tax purposes and particular care is required with transactions conducted personally, via an individual savings account or between spouses.As with any investment decisions, independent investment advice should be sought before proceeding.Exercising share optionsWhere an individual exercises an option to acquire shares in an employer through a non-tax-advantaged share plan, income tax is charged on that exercise on the difference between the market value of the shares at the date of exercise and the amount paid for the shares under the option. If the shares acquired are ‘readily convertible’ (i.e. easy to sell for cash or shares in a subsidiary company) National Insurance contributions will also be due on the exercise of the option.Exercising such options while the value of a company is temporarily reduced could reduce tax liabilities in the longer-term. However, this is clearly a risk-driven investment decision on which independent investment advice should be sought before proceeding. One of the key benefits of holding an option is that it would often be exercised before an exit event (e.g. the sale of the company) so that there is an immediate return of value. In the absence of such an event, the implications of becoming a shareholder in the company, and the risk to the value thereby invested, should be considered carefully.Pensions – lifetime allowanceAn individual whose pension pot was previously above the lifetime allowance of £1,073,100 (and with no protection/enhanced protection) might choose to crystallise pension benefits now while the fund value is reduced to reduce/eliminate the lifetime allowance tax charge.There are many financial, investment and IHT issues to consider carefully before proceeding, but acting now may save tax in the long-term. Action should only be considered as part of overall wealth planning, including advice from an independent financial adviser.Short-term opportunity to achieve long-term goalsThis is a difficult time, but any temporary reduction in asset values may allow clients to pass assets into trust or to the next generation at a lower tax cost than both a year ago and a year from now.Fiona Hall is Principal, Personal Tax, at BDO Northern Ireland.Paul McCourt is Tax Principal at BDO Northern Ireland.

The Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme is ever evolving in the face of uncertainty, writes Maud Clear.The Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme (TWSS) was introduced on 26 March 2020. Looking back 20 weeks on, in a world turned upside down by COVID-19, it is fair to say that the Scheme has evolved since its inception. With many businesses facing an uncertain road to recovery, the July Jobs Stimulus package was the next eagerly awaited phase in this evolutionary process.Revenue offered its services to the Department of Finance to pay out the subsidy through real-time reporting tools – an extraordinary move from an institution whose function is to collect tax.While the initial assessment in establishing eligibility was a significant exercise for many employers, Revenue provided consistency and support in their operation of the Scheme.That is until a programme of compliance checks was announced on 23 June for all employers availing of the Scheme. This was an unforeseen turn in the Scheme’s evolution, particularly when Revenue issued guidance on 20 April indicating: “We may in the future, based on risk criteria, review eligibility”.Such a broad stroke approach and the requirement for a response within five days have many employers questioning what is yet to come in the operation of the Scheme.Chartered Accountants Ireland, under the auspices of the CCAB-I, sought an extension to this response time. In response, Revenue may now allow for an extension of the five days where an employer contacts them to explain their difficulty in returning a response within the required timeframe.The announcement of an extension to the TWSS until the end of August came with a warning from the Minister for Finance that “this support cannot last forever”. As the challenges facing employers in re-opening continue to mount, assurance has since been provided by the Minister that the Scheme will not come to “an abrupt end”.  Most employers need the support of the TWSS to get back on their feet. Clarity on how they will get it, and for how long, will be a determining factor in their recovery. It is hoped that the ‘July Jobs’ stimulus package will provide that certainty.Maud Clear is Tax Manager at Chartered Accountants Ireland.

The prospect of an EU-wide digital tax raised its head again in June following developments at the OECD. Peter Vale and Kim Doyle consider if we are now closer to implementation of an EU digital tax across all member states, and the impact on Ireland’s offering.The EU agreed last year to park its digital tax proposals to allow global consensus to be reached through the OECD digital tax discussions.Both the EU and OECD proposals aim to allocate a portion of profits based on the location of consumers, reflecting the increasing value that businesses place on consumer data.In June, the US withdrew from the OECD’s digital tax discussions. This has increased the likelihood that the EU will push ahead with its own proposals.In the short-term, the impasse at OECD level is also likely to see other countries push ahead with unilateral digital tax proposals. Indeed, many EU countries have either implemented or proposed their own digital tax proposals.An EU digital taxThe EU’s original digital tax proposals envisaged a simple 3% turnover-based tax as an interim measure, subject to reaching agreement on a means of allocating profits based on digital activity. Given the complexities involved in arriving at such a means, the risk is that any interim ‘quick fix’, such as a flat turnover-based tax, could potentially become permanent.While countries are free to introduce their own digital tax measures, as several have done, implementation of an EU-wide digital tax regime would require unanimity across all EU member states. The need for unanimity could make it challenging to implement as certain countries, including Ireland, are not in favour of the existing EU digital tax proposals.However, the EU is looking to replace unanimity over tax decisions with a form of “qualified majority voting”. While such a change will itself require unanimity, political factors may lead to the removal of the requirement for unanimity in the future. This could potentially pave the way for easier implementation of EU-wide tax changes.Although the removal of the requirement for unanimity on significant EU tax decisions is some years away, countries are often reluctant to use a veto to block EU tax proposals. Hence the real possibility of an EU-wide digital tax in the short- to medium-term.COVID-19 will also drive countries to seek out additional tax revenues to fund spending, with digital tax from large multinationals likely seen as an easy target.What does it mean for Ireland?In recent years, many multinational companies (MNCs) with substantial operations in Ireland have moved their valuable intellectual property (IP) here. Over time, this would be expected to increase corporation tax revenues in Ireland.A simple 3% tax on the ‘digital’ revenues of large MNCs would increase the effective tax rate of these companies and thus dilute the benefit of our 12.5% corporate tax rate. This would impact low-margin businesses most and from a tax perspective, would make it less attractive to operate from Ireland.While the movement of IP to Ireland should see an increase in our corporate tax revenues, an EU-wide digital tax could see a pull the other way; it may cause some groups to reconsider their Irish presence.However, even if our tax regime becomes relatively less attractive, our 12.5% corporate tax rate may still make Ireland the most compelling location in Europe in which to do business and help us retain key employers.Digital tax optionsThe EU acknowledges that a 3% turnover-based tax is a blunt instrument and that more refined taxation of digital activity is the end goal. The OECD considered other options, which would involve looking at the level of activity in the selling country in determining an appropriate allocation between the selling country and the market jurisdiction. However, it is acknowledged that this is a difficult exercise – one that potentially involves a rewriting of transfer pricing principles – hence the EU proposal to start with a straightforward 3% turnover-based tax.Ideally, there would be agreement at EU level on a more sophisticated and accurate means of profit allocation rather than simply jumping into a turnover-based tax regime. While this might take some time to develop, it could be part of negotiations at EU level given that unanimity is required to implement any digital tax proposals (although countries would remain free to continue to develop their own digital tax regimes, which is far from an ideal scenario). A longer-term solution that reflects the value-added activities taking place in the selling jurisdiction, not merely market jurisdiction factors, would be better for Ireland. It would also encourage more knowledge-based businesses to locate here.Wider impactIf the price of any negotiation on digital tax proposals is that unanimity over tax decisions is removed, there is a longer-term vista of other EU proposals being pushed through. This would include the dreaded Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), which would again look to rewrite the rules in terms of the allocation of a group’s profits. Such moves would be bad for a small, open economy such as Ireland with significant profits diverted to larger market jurisdictions diluting the benefit of our 12.5% corporate tax rate.Once again, we are at a critical juncture in terms of global tax rule changes. Developments to date have generally been positive for Ireland. However, it would be dangerous to think that this will continue to be the case. In practice, our options are limited in terms of influencing the direction of changes to the tax landscape. In any future scenario, however, the location of high value-add activities should continue to play a key role in the allocation of a group’s profits. One thing that is not good for Ireland is uncertainty. Groups cannot make robust plans in an uncertain environment. The sooner there is clarity on digital tax changes, the better for Ireland.Ongoing robust corporate tax receipts evidence the generally positive impact that global tax changes have had in Ireland to date, with a movement away from tax havens to jurisdictions with substance. If Ireland can maintain a regime that both encourages and rewards innovation, we will be in the best possible place to emerge relatively unscathed from the latest round of changes.Kim Doyle FCA is Tax Director, Head of Knowledge Centre at Grant Thornton.Peter Vale FCA is Tax Partner, Head of International Tax at Grant Thornton.

Peter Vale considers the items that could become long-term features of Ireland’s tax regime under the new government. In the April issue of Accountancy Ireland, I wrote about the expected impact of COVID-19 on Exchequer receipts for 2020 and beyond. We have now seen the evidence with both VAT and excise down roughly 50% on similar months last year. While some of the drop in VAT receipts might be down to timing with companies deferring payments, a large chunk is an unquestionably permanent loss in VAT revenue due to lower spending. The income tax figures for May are also expected to show a significant drop, due to vastly lower numbers in employment. The Department’s view is that corporation tax figures will hold up better. I hope this forecast is right, but I fear that the hit to corporate profits will be higher than anticipated, with refunds for prior years and losses carried forward likely to feature. What is next? So, what does this mean for future taxes? Will the relatively healthy state of our public finances entering the crisis make for a less painful exit? The Minister for Finance, Paschal Donohoe T.D., has stated that he will not raise taxes this year as doing so would stifle the ability of the economy to recover. This makes sense, assuming we can afford to do it. You also cannot simply raise taxes and expect to collect more tax revenue; you reach a tipping point, after which further hikes result in less tax collected. And many of our taxes are already high. Tax reliefs Of course, ruling out impending tax increases does not mean that there will not be a focus on tax reliefs. While many tax reliefs have been abolished over the last decade or so, certain targeted reliefs remain available to taxpayers. It is unlikely that tax reliefs incentivising environmentally friendly behaviour will be targeted. Furthermore, the research and development (R&D) tax credit is also unlikely to be affected as it encourages more sustainable jobs. Reliefs that allow business assets to be passed (typically) to the next generation are more likely to be in scope. Generous reliefs exist for both the disponer and the recipient. These reliefs escaped the guillotine in the past as they continued to make economic sense; a large tax bill was avoided on a potentially illiquid event, allowing the business to be driven forward by the next generation. Capital taxes Capital taxes are likely to be targeted by the Minister, perhaps initially by way of curtailment of reliefs and in the medium-term via an increase in rates. That said, capital tax rates are already high with our 33% rate one of the highest in the EU. In contrast, the UK capital gains tax rate is 20%. We know that when the capital gains tax rate was halved from 40% to 20% some years back, the tax-take doubled. An increase in capital gains tax rates could see the opposite effect, with fewer transactions and potentially more tax planning resulting in a lower tax yield. Broadening the tax base One thing the Minister may look at in the future is broadening the income tax base. It is questionable as to whether this would be regarded as an increase in taxes, but it would generate more tax revenue. Broadening the tax base would mean more people paying tax, albeit many would pay very little. Adjusting the current exemption limits and credits would facilitate this. Broadening the tax base was a recommendation of the Commission of Taxation over a decade ago, but we have not seen it followed by governments since. While the notion of everybody contributing something may resonate more in the current environment, it may still prove politically unpalatable. Property tax In the medium-term, depending on the state of the public finances, other tax-raising measures may be considered. The options aren’t exactly limitless. Our VAT rate is already comparatively high, as are our income taxes. Our corporation tax rate is low but effectively untouchable. One tax rate that is low in a European context is property tax, in particular for residential property. Many economists see property taxes as the least distortive, so an increase in property taxes might be the ‘least bad’ way to raise taxes. Tackling property taxes would be a brave move for a new government, but potentially something that could be done in year one or year two of a new term. Conclusion In summary, tax increases later this year are unlikely – although we may see certain reliefs targetedand the ‘old reliables’ such as cigarettes and alcohol are unlikely to escape. In the medium-term, COVID-19 will mean that tax-raising measures are likely to feature. In my view, a broadening of the tax base and an increase in property taxes are the most likely outcomes. Both of the above could be long-term features of our tax regime, although much will depend on future government priorities.   Peter Vale FCA is Tax Partner at Grant Thornton.