Originally posted on Business Post 20 June 2021. Given Ireland’s pandemic-related national debt, significant income tax cuts in the near future seem unlikely, but moving abroad to work remotely will not always result in savings either. As if it wasn't enough to have ongoing upheaval over corporation tax, events are now conspiring to push the income tax burden into the spotlight. Tánaiste Leo Varadkar has been warning that Ireland's personal tax rates are a major disincentive for attracting mobile workers. Highly paid workers, he believes, could avail of new remote working possibilities to move overseas. Any government minister should be wary of losing high-paid executives from this economy. Broadly speaking, Ireland operates the 80/20 rule when it comes to tax receipts from individuals – roughly 80 per cent of income tax is paid by the top 20 per cent of earners. In common with some other countries, Ireland has tax measures for foreign executives coming in on assignment. A special assignee relief programme, or SARP, allows people coming into this country to have part of their income ignored for tax purposes, provided certain terms and conditions are met. Numbers in the public domain suggest that just under 600 jobs were eligible for SARP in 2018. Given that there were some 2.7 million employees in the country before the pandemic hit in early 2020, SARP doesn’t appear to be making a huge difference either to overall employment, or to the overall tax take. Whatever about coming in, what about people who might leave the country because of the increased acceptability of remote working? Every other day, companies are announcing policies to permit their workers to work remotely from their homes for a proportion of the working week or working month. It's not clear, however, that this will translate to a mass exodus of largely white-collar, higher-paid workers from the jurisdiction. Except for company directors, who are always caught by the Irish tax system irrespective of where they live, taxing rights are usually determined by the employee’s place of residence rather than their place of employment. A worker in Mullingar who emigrates to Marseille, while still working remotely for their Westmeath employer, will be subject to French income tax and not Irish income tax on the earnings. The position of social welfare contributions (PRSI) and the corresponding entitlements is not as clear cut as that of income tax and may differ from country to country. The position also gets tricky if the work involves travel to meet clients, customers or suppliers. Tax-free reimbursement of travel expenses in Ireland is only permissible where the travel is from the normal place of work, which can become problematic for remote workers, even within the jurisdiction. Moving abroad will not always achieve tax savings. An OECD study of the income tax and social security paid by single workers on the average wage in 2020 shows that the tax take in Ireland is more or less in the middle ground by international standards. A person moving from Ireland to Germany or Belgium or Austria will have a lot less after-tax income to spend than if they had stayed put. The difference is mainly due to social security contributions. That person might fare better by moving to Australia or Britain or Canada, but only marginally so. Higher-paid workers may do better than their counterparts on average pay, but few territories offer workers a tax crock of gold. Any telecommuting move, of course, depends on a willing employer. A recently published study from the University of Chicago, analysing personnel and analytics data on professionals in the IT industry, found evidence that while the total hours worked by people working from home did increase, the average output did not significantly change. Not only that, time spent on coordination activities and meetings increased. In short, there seems to have been more management, but less productivity. It is unlikely that company employment and benefits policies will require significant adjustments if a person is to work three days from the house and two days from the office. However, if the person wants to move to another jurisdiction entirely, the chore of administering that employee’s insurance, terms and conditions becomes far more onerous and perhaps without much commercial benefit to show for it. There undoubtedly will be even more studies on the benefits or otherwise of telecommuting, but the University of Chicago findings will resonate with many people who have been involved in telecommuting since the start of the pandemic lockdowns. Part-time telecommuting opportunities may become a part of an employee benefit package, but it doesn't necessarily follow that those opportunities will routinely extend to permitting employees to work offshore. The pandemic has resulted in higher national debt and a bigger state apparatus to pay for. The pressure on taxes generally, and on social security contributions particularly, will increase if government finances are to recover. If corporation tax receipts are indeed under threat – though I suspect that the €2 billion plus estimates may be overstated – it will be difficult on purely budgetary grounds to make a strong case for income tax cuts as well. The threat of income tax loss from offshore working may also, I suspect, be overstated. While the grass may be greener, the tax benefits of offshore working are not black and white. Originally posted on Business Post 13 June 2021.   Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

  Originally posted on Business Post 13 June 2021. Corporation tax might be dominating the headlines now, but environmental matters are of more long-term importance to international finance. Ideas for what constitutes sustainable behaviour change over time too. Over a decade ago, motor tax on diesel cars was reduced here to reflect lower greenhouse gas emissions From the headlines you could be forgiven for thinking that the G7 finance ministers discussed nothing but multinational corporation tax last week. Accounting standards rarely deserve such coverage, but the G7 statements about how businesses should account for their environmental behaviour will have repercussions long after the tumult over tax has subsided. The fundamental issue considered by the G7 finance ministers is that there is no universally accepted standard to measure claims by a business that it is conducting itself in a sustainable way. Misleading impressions are getting created. When it comes to food, for example, there is much talk about the environmental impact of shipping produce from far afield. Yet, as the chief executive of Bord Bia pointed out last week, transport accounts for only about 3 per cent of the carbon footprint of Irish produce. This figure is undoubtedly valid, but without agreed standards, her counterpart in another country may be doing the same calculation a different way and getting a different result. Ideas for what constitutes sustainable behaviour change over time too. Over a decade ago, motor tax on diesel cars was reduced here to reflect lower greenhouse gas emissions. Now there is a pushback from some quarters on the role of diesel cars on the grounds of high particulate emission. If all this confusion makes sustainable consumption choices difficult for the consumer, the problems are even greater for fund managers looking to make planet-friendly returns on behalf of the individuals, unit trusts and pension funds for whom they act. These investment choices are really what prompts the G7 concerns over the lack of generally recognised accounting standards. The idea of obliging companies to report on their sustainability agenda activity is not new. Since 2014, an EU directive on non-financial reporting has required large businesses to report not only on their financial results, but also on things like their approach to human rights, steps to take against corruption and their promotion of diversity in the workforce. It is estimated that perhaps 20,000 companies across Europe have been including this material in their published reports and accounts, some of whom volunteer to do so. The system is not without its drawbacks. It is only a legal requirement for the very largest businesses and it allows companies to choose whatever reporting standards they feel appropriate. This makes it difficult to form objective comparisons between companies. Nevertheless, the directive has promoted the key idea that sustainability reporting needs to be seen in two ways. First it has to show how sustainable conduct contributed to the value of the business – the euros on the balance sheet. Then it has to show what impact the company’s performance has on the broader environment. This idea is known as “double materiality” in the jargon. Persisting with the notion of double materiality will be crucial to any fair measurement of a business in terms of its environmental impact. There are already at least five voluntary consortiums involved in devising reporting standards and the EU now wants to establish yet another standard for itself. The G7, however, seem to be saying that the work should be given to the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Foundation, the organisation which sets the existing accounting standards to calculate profits, losses and balance sheet values. That approach seems logical, but it is also problematic. The IFRS Foundation will have to develop expertise in sustainability matters. It took well over a decade to devise the current financial reporting regime, but that kind of timeframe surely cannot be repeated if proper sustainability reporting is to be part of a meaningful response to the climate change crisis. These initiatives will affect more than just large multinationals. To be credible, larger entities will have to be able to show that their supply chain also operates with good sustainability credentials. That in turn means that smaller enterprises will have to develop similar credentials to secure their position in supply chains, even if they are exempt from formal reporting themselves. All this will come at a cost. Currently, the relatively modest requirements of the EU non-financial reporting directive drive average costs per company of some €150,000 a year. While such costs would be only a tiny fraction of the total operating costs of a large manufacturer or insurer, they are certain to become proportionately higher as the reporting requirement increases. In addition, there will be training costs for staff, and new systems to be implemented. It's one thing to meter the number of items processed on a production line, but quite another to meter, for instance, the energy consumption per item. The piece missing from the G7 approach is that it is all very well for them to mandate more regulatory change cross their own industries in their own territories, but climate change is a global problem. Regulatory compliance is not always a top priority in every country across the world. The current tax proposals have teeth because the US is threatening to discriminate against countries that don’t apply the proposed 15 per cent minimum rate. There will have to be similar sanctions for countries where their major industries do not have to account for what they are doing to the planet.   Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

The experience of working remotely, of having our contact with colleagues and customers mediated through technology, has highlighted the need to think about the positive role humour can play in closing the gap between people, in creating a feeling of togetherness and inclusion, where people can bring their whole selves to work. In their book Humour, Seriously: Why Humour is a Superpower at Work and in Life, Jennifer Aaker and Naomi Bagdonas argue that organisations and teams perform better if they allow room for laughter.  Teams that can laugh together demonstrate better communication and problem-solving skills. And laughter, if used appropriately, is a valuable tool for leaders.  Aaker and Bagdonas report their research finding that employees who regard their bosses as having any sense of humour rate them as 23% more motivating.  This kind of edge can make a big difference, given the influence this relationship can have on people’s happiness.  According to Tera Allas and Bill Schaninger, writing in the McKinsey Quarterly, relationships with immediate management is the top factor in employees’ job satisfaction, which in turn is the second most important determinant of employees’ overall satisfaction with their lives.  Having a boss with a positive, inclusive sense of humour can be a life-changer. As any good salesperson will tell you, humour can be a highly effective way of defusing tension in a high-stakes situation, when pitching for business or presenting to a client.  If it lands well and works, humour can break down barriers, connecting people and building relationships. But, of course, there are risks: the joke may fall flat, the story fail.  Humour by its very nature is a gamble. It involves risk, a leap of faith (particularly when attempted on a Zoom call!). Cultures of countries and organisations differ, and some people may be uncomfortable with the use of humour in serious situations, including work.  Humour may even be seen as subversive, out of place, gauche, unprofessional. Clearly, to be effective, the use of humour should not be offensive or hurtful in any way and it should accommodate diversity.  While a sense of humour can be quite a personal taste, at work its flavour should always be appropriate, conscious of difference, tapping into things that are universally funny, starting with shared experience. For leaders of teams and organisations, though there are definite benefits to the use of humour, there are also heightened risks.  All managers will want to avoid being seen as another David Brent, the frustrated all-round entertainer of The Office.  Aaker and Bagdonas point to the importance of leaders being aware of their own style of humour, which can range from the edgy to the self-deprecating.  One leader can tease without offending, another can reveal vulnerability without losing respect. It’s a fine balance, but humour at work is worth the risk, and the risk can be mitigated. Self-awareness is the key: balancing the natural spontaneity of laughter with a sense of its appropriateness and effect on others, observing rules such as ‘never punch down’ or ‘carry a bag of good stories’.  Be aware of your style, be sensitive, inclusive and recognise difference. Humour is one thing that AI and the robots will never replace.  For the individual, laughter is a tonic, a stress buster.  For teams of people, shared laugher is a powerfully inclusive experience.  It engenders trust, collaboration and creativity.  And the world knows we could all do with a laugh. Michael Diviney is Executive Head of Thought Leadership, Chartered Accountants Ireland

  Originally posted on Business Post 6 June 2021. Vat is to all intents and purposes invisible, although for many of us it eats into our disposable income to a much greater extent even than income tax.  On a day when they announced business supports to the value of hundreds of millions of euro, it must have been profoundly irritating for government ministers to see the relatively minor increases in local property tax grab the lion’s share of the headlines. The employer wage subsidy scheme alone has cost the state almost €4 billion to date, and is now being extended to the end of this year. In comparison, LPT has never raised more than around €500 million a year and, even with the projected changes, is unlikely to raise significantly more than that in the future. Yet it is the LPT change that gets the attention. Another tax hike announced last week isn’t getting nearly the same coverage. The Revenue Commissioners have announced that, with effect from July 1 next, they will apply the full rigours of the EU Vat regime to online purchases from non-EU countries. Unlike the revamp of LPT, the change has been met with a national shrug of the shoulders. Like customs duties, excise and carbon taxes, Vat is to all intents and purposes invisible, although for many of us it eats into our disposable income to a much greater extent even than income tax. It adds to the cost of our purchases as consumers, and there is no way to avoid or circumvent it. A Vat rate of 23 per cent applies to many of the goods which make life more enjoyable – cars, most clothes, cosmetics, electronic gadgets of all sorts and white goods. Any consumer buying these types of goods online from outside the EU is not charged Vat if the individual item costs less than €22. From July 1, that practice will cease including for some items which attract lower Vat rates. This may not seem like a big change in the overall scheme of things because the €22 threshold is fairly low. Nevertheless, removing the exemption reinforces the notion that you're always better off dealing with an EU business. Any possible tax saving by shopping online further afield is removed, but the bonus of better regulation and consumer protection when dealing with an EU based supplier remains. Aside from reducing paperwork, it makes little sense to have any form of preference for non-EU suppliers over domestic or EU suppliers, particularly as we exit from the pandemic. Irish business needs every competitive advantage it can secure. Will there be any pushback to this change? Given the increasingly febrile nature of the relationship between Britain and the rest of the EU, this move could well be seen as another gesture by the EU against a post-Brexit Britain by applying Vat charges to Irish consumers buying from British websites. Unfortunately, a fundamental dishonesty, similar to that seen in the 2016 Brexit campaign, is creeping back into the post-Brexit discourse. Edwin Poots, the new DUP leader, has already claimed that the EU is seeking to punish Britain in its application of the Northern Ireland protocol. That view is overly simplistic because it reflects only the commercial disruption created but not the commercial advantages conferred by the protocol. The EU’s ambassador to Britain last week retorted that Brexit, not the protocol, created the problem but that too is overly simplistic. Having managed to control the Brexit negotiation process for so long, the EU allowed itself to be bounced into enforcing impractical arrangements on Christmas Eve last year. The single market would not have been particularly compromised by allowing a further period of trial on new controls and procedures on imports and exports between Britain and the North beyond the Brexit guillotine date of January 1 last. The irony is that this Vat change doesn’t change the treatment of consumer purchases from the North because the North was part of, and remains part of, the EU Vat system for goods. Nor is Britain being singled out by the change, because it applies to purchases from any non-EU country. This is what you would expect, as the EU policy was devised when Britain was still at the table in Brussels. Both the Vat changes and the LPT changes announced last week underline that when it comes to taxes we generally respond primarily by reference to what we last experienced. Consumer reaction to a Vat change is usually a shrug of the shoulders, because the prices of consumer items go up and down all the time and consumers will be indifferent to the Brexit implications. Similarly, our reaction to the LPT change is being informed by the lower amount, or the zero amount, we paid last year. It doesn’t seem to matter that the LPT system as it currently operates works from an out-of-date property register, nor that some measures to raise taxes are inevitable because of the costs of extending the pandemic supports to citizens and businesses. We shouldn’t be surprised if the government is frustrated by the response to the Economic Recovery Plan. Taxation is always a stone in the political shoe. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland

Níall Fitzgerald, Head of Ethics and Governance, writes:  Over 59% of member firms with audit registration on the island of Ireland carry out audits of non-profit organisations, including charities. It is reasonable to expect that an even greater number provide non-audit services to this sector. Many members in practice, and their staff, are also involved in the sector as trustees, volunteers, or donors.  This level of involvement is not surprising given the size of the sector.   According to the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), as of February 2020 there were approximately 6,122 non-profits with total income of £792m in Northern Ireland. In the Republic of Ireland, according to data available at the end of 2019 collated by Benefacts, there were approximately 32,841 non-profits. The total income determinable for 32% of these was €14.2bn (the remaining 68% being mostly smaller local non-profits for which relevant information was not publicly available). Impact of Covid-19 pandemic on the sector The financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on non-profits is not yet clear. Many non-profits entered 2020 with low reserves and some have been forced by the pandemic to pause operations, while others have experienced a surge in demand for their services. Accountants are playing an important role in supporting the recovery of this sector, such as assisting with obtaining grants and government supports. In a report published by Benefacts in May 2021, ‘Charities in Ireland 2021’, an uplift of over 10% in government funding was provided to charities in the Republic of Ireland. Some charities also benefited from increases in philanthropic donations. Five key considerations for accountants providing services to the non-profit sector Given the level of commitment of members in practice to the non-profit sector, the following considerations are a useful aide memoir for some of the common matters that can arise: 1. Determine if client is a charity or other non-profit All charities are non-profits but not all non-profits are charities. For example: an owners’ (or residents’) management company may establish as trading for the mutual benefit of its members, but it is not a charity, nor is it a non-profit established for a public benefit; and while a sporting organisation may be established as a non-profit, it may also be registered as a charity. If in doubt, confirm by reference to the registers of charities maintained by the Charities Regulator in the Republic of Ireland or the Charity Commission of Northern Ireland if the non-profit is a registered charity. When accepting a non-profit client, it is important to understand these nuances to determine the type of services you may be requested to undertake and also to understand its various governance structures that may impact on anti-money laundering vetting and other client acceptance procedures. 2. Avoid a principal-agent dilemma Many non-profit organisations are juggling various governance, secretarial, accounting, audit, and finance requirements, in the midst of delivering services. While some of the larger non-profits will have full time staff to manage these requirements, smaller organisations will have fewer resources (sometimes consisting of part time or volunteer staff). The board of trustees/directors bears the ultimate responsibility for the management and control of the organisation, but there is a level of reliance placed on the services of the accountant to fill any gaps in expertise. A principal-agent dilemma can arise in instances where the principal (the non-profit) can have different expectations to those understood by the agent (the accounting firm). This dilemma is more common in casual and informal business relationships, potentially exposing the fiduciary (the accountant) to greater risk. Where the accountant accepts appointment as auditor, they are a principal in their own right. Auditors need in the first instance to maintain their independence, and all additional services should be viewed in this context. Part of the solution is to ensure that a tailored engagement letter is put in place at the start of each business relationship, clearly stating services to be provided and each party’s responsibilities. The letter should be reviewed annually and updated when required. 3. Advising on governance requirements for charities Charities in the Republic of Ireland are required to apply the Charities Governance Code (the ‘Code’). In 2021, charities are required to report for the first time on compliance with the Code. The following key points address some common queries from charities: Charities are required to note in their annual return to the Charities Regulator whether they are compliant with the Code. If compliant with the Code, the charity should disclose this fact in its annual report, for example in the Trustees Report. The Code applies on a ‘comply or explain’ basis: if a Charity has not complied with any part of the Code, it is required to provide an explanation. Charities must annually complete a Charities Governance Code Compliance Record Form, available from the Charities Regulator website. The form is not required to be submitted to the Charities Regulator unless specifically requested as part of a monitoring exercise. The Charity Commission for Northern Ireland has produced guidance, factsheets, and other resources to support charities in maintaining good governance and meeting their statutory responsibilities. The Code of Good Governance, produced by the Developing Governance Group, while not a statutory code, has been widely endorsed as a practical resource for supporting charities in complying with governance best practice and their statutory obligations. Further information on governance requirements is available from the Charities Regulator (Republic of Ireland) and The Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. 4. Managing conflicts of interest If an accountant is asked to intervene in a dispute arising amongst trustees, staff, or volunteers of a non-profit, or between the non-profit and a third party (other than the accountant), it is important to determine whether there are any conflicts of interest to be managed. Given the often local nature of non-profits, and the level of community commitment and passionate support they receive, accountants should be particularly aware of disputes involving: other clients of the practice; any other partner or staff member in the practice; a close family member or friend of any of the above. In some cases, an accountant may be providing services to a non-profit that they support for personal reasons, e.g. a family member benefits from the service of the non-profit. In such cases, the accountant is encouraged to consider whether they can provide objective advice to resolve the dispute, or whether any preconception or bias may affect professional judgment to the extent they can no longer be objective. Section 310 of the Chartered Accountants Ireland Code of Ethics identifies certain measures that can be taken to safeguard threats caused by a conflict of interest. Some examples of measures include disclosing the conflict, obtaining consent, or resigning from the provision of services. Additionally, auditors have specific responsibilities under Ethical Standards applying to auditors. 5. Promoting transparency and filing full sets of financial statements Many non-profits rely on public funding and/or private donations. Many also rely on broad support networks, including volunteers and other voluntary services. In an era where scepticism is plenty and trust is guarded, accessibility of information and transparency can make a big difference in efforts to attract significant funds and other forms of support. To address this, non-profits who are incorporated should consider publishing and filing full statutory financial statements (e.g. FRS 102 or FRS 102 Charities SORP). Indeed, they may be obliged to do so. Unincorporated non-profits should consider a similar level of transparency regarding their annual accounts. The preparation of financial statements is ultimately the responsibility of the trustees/directors of the non-profit. They have statutory and fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the organisation and to have regard to its stakeholders. However, they may seek the advice of the accountant who, as a fiduciary advisor, has a responsibility to advise and act in the client’s best interests. Current corporate governance codes and best practice reinforce the importance of accountability and transparency in the non-profit sector and encourage standards that are higher than minimum compliance with the law. It is important to ensure that these requirements are considered in making decisions or providing advice affecting the preparation of financial statements. The Chartered Accountants Ireland Governance Resource Centre contains useful resources for trustees or directors of non-profits, such as the ‘Concise Guide of Ethics and Governance for the Charity and Not-for-profit Sector’ and the recently published ‘Owners’ Management Companies – A Concise Guide for Directors’.  

  Originally posted on Business Post 30 May 2021. There are important tax implications for employers as they prepare for the winding-down of the pandemic supports.   ‘The caveats associated with the withdrawal of government pandemic supports should not diminish the air of excitement about the prospect of the return to normal business.’ Almost every sector of the economy has benefited from a tax system which, more than a year ago, was thrown into reverse to distribute financial support during the pandemic closures. While there is much talk about the “new normal”, elements of the old normal are going to return. The Revenue Commissioners will soon cease adhering to the belief that it is better to give than to receive. There are of course many issues that businesses which are reopening have to deal with – stocking, premises, staffing, health and safety, debtors, creditors and banking arrangements. As well as these, there are consequences as the government pandemic supports come to an end. Pandemic supports have created three categories to think about. Employees who had to be laid off entirely were more than likely receiving Pandemic Unemployment Payments (PUP) of up to €350 a week. It is up to the employee to notify the Department of Social Protection that they have returned to the workforce. Employers need to be aware that the employee’s tax credits could have been restricted earlier in the year to account for income tax due on the PUP, and the employee might not get into their hand as much as they expected after PAYE. Employees who were on the Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme (TWSS), which was the first wage subsidy from April of last year, may also have less after-tax income than they expect. This is because of the way the TWSS operated – not all the tax due was gathered through payroll. Workers have an opportunity to spread whatever back taxes from 2020 are due out over the next four years. There is also an option for an employer, should they wish, to settle their employees’ tax liability without further tax consequences either for themselves or the employee. This option runs out in September 2021. In the third category, employees who are on the Employment Wage Subsidy Scheme (EWSS) will not have a back tax issue. EWSS replaced the TWSS and has operated since last September. The scheme allows employers and new firms where turnover has fallen by 30 per cent to get a flat-rate subsidy per week based on the number of qualifying employees on the payroll, including seasonal staff and new employees. Eligibility for the EWSS may continue for the next few weeks even though a business is reopening, provided the reduced turnover criterion for the business remains valid. There are signals that, for some sectors at least, the EWSS could be extended beyond the June 30, 2021 deadline. If the experience in Britain, which is reopening a few weeks ahead of us, is anything to go by, many of the businesses commencing or extending trading again will experience a surge in demand, and a parallel need to enhance conditions or provide more flexible arrangements to attract or retain staff. The tax system remains notoriously inflexible when it comes to staff arrangements. It is almost impossible to broker arrangements whereby current or former employees can be treated as self-employed contractors for part or all of the time they work. It is possible to provide equipment to staff if they can work from home, but the reimbursement of working from home expenses without operating PAYE is limited to €3.20 per day. The consequences of getting employment status or expenses reimbursement wrong almost always land on the doorstep of the employer. One of the better pandemic relief measures for businesses was the strategy of allowing them not to pay over Vat, PAYE and direct taxes as they fell due, but defer them into a “debt warehouse”. Businesses which were affected by the first lockdown last year and which entered the debt warehousing scheme will find that interest will start to be charged on the unpaid tax at a rate of 3 per cent from September 1 next. There is room in the law as currently drafted to extend that September 2021 deadline to December 2022, which would be a great help. For now, if that tax is owing, businesses should budget for interest charges from September next. There is a particular wrinkle on tax debt warehousing for proprietary directors. Even though the PAYE on the income of proprietary directors may have been warehoused by the company, the director will not receive credit for warehoused PAYE on their own tax returns and will have to make a separate application for tax debt warehousing in their personal capacity. The Covid Restrictions Support Scheme (CRSS) was offered to businesses which had to prohibit or restrict customers from entering the business premises. CRSS is worthwhile, with a maximum weekly payment of up to €5,000. There is an arrangement called the restart week, which means that a business can claim double “restart week” payments for a period of two weeks on reopening. While CRSS does not need to be refunded directly, CRSS claims can add to tax liabilities in future years. There was also a waiver of commercial rates for businesses which were forced to close over the lockdown. That waiver expires at the end of June. The caveats associated with the withdrawal of government pandemic supports should not diminish the air of excitement about the prospect of the return to normal business. Last Friday’s announcements concerning the hospitality, travel and events sectors signal what is permissible, even though they are not a guarantee of what is possible. In the rush to get back to normal, it is worth remembering that the state is as anxious for businesses to reopen as the businesses themselves are. The pandemic supports can’t be paid for ever. Dr Brian Keegan is Director of Public Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland