HMRC’s latest schedule of live and recorded webinars for tax agents is available for booking. Spaces are limited, so take a look now and save your place. Are you interested in how HMRC uses the Litigation Settlement Strategy to try and resolve tax disputes through civil law? HMRC is holding a webinar next week on Friday 23 February which will look at the key principles of this strategy. Bookings for this particular webinar can be made now. A webinar is also being held tomorrow, Tuesday 13 February, on the National Minimum Wage; bookings can be made here. 

Do you use HMRC online services? Don’t be caught out by the planned downtime to some services. HMRC are warning about the non-availability of specific services on the HMRC website, a range of services are impacted. Check the relevant page for information on planned downtime.  

Check out the latest items on the Agent Forum. Remember, in order to view each item, you must be signed up and logged in.  All agents, who are a member of a professional body, are invited to join HMRC’s Agent Forum. This dedicated Agent Forum is hosted in a private area within the HMRC’s Online Taxpayer Forum. You can interact with other agents and HMRC experts to discuss topical issues and processes. 

The Council of the European Union has published the draft Joint Employment Report 2024. This joint report by the European Commission and the Council reviews the employment situation across Member States. It provides an overview of key developments in employment across the Union and identifies key areas for policy action.

BEPS Action 5 is the international standard for addressing harmful tax practices. At the October meeting of the OECD’s Forum on Harmful Tax Practices, the group was informed that the regimes in Hong Kong and the UAE are not harmful and that two regimes in Albania and Armenia have been abolished. As of February 2024, 123 harmful regimes have been abolished with a further 12 in the process of elimination/amendment.

A staggered board can support continuity, strategic stability and help to defend against takeovers. Dan Byrne outlines the pros and cons of this distinctive governance structure A staggered board is a type of board structure designed to provide stability and continuity at corporate governance level. It divides its directors into “classes” – each serving a different time length across staggered terms. Usually, more senior directors will serve longer terms. In modern governance, the structure of a company’s board of directors can help to steer an organisation’s strategic direction.  Different companies will structure their boards differently to achieve the results they want. Adopting a staggered board structure is one option. Staggered boards are designed to ensure that only some directors are up for re-election at any given time. This has the advantage of ensuring there is always continuity across different election cycles as only some faces will be new. It also reduces the likelihood of hostile takeovers, which usually need a rapid and large-scale leadership change to succeed.  The processes of a staggered board The operation of a staggered board involves dividing directors into classes; it could be as low as two or as much as five. Each class will be up for election/re-election at different times. Take the example of  a board with three classes: each class serves a three-year term, but only one class is up for election each year. In other words, at least two-thirds of the board will stay the same after any election.  In cases where the more senior directors serve longer terms, class one may be up for election every year, class two every three years, and class three (the most senior) every five years.  These rules will depend on the company. The advantages of a staggered board A staggered board can help to ensure continuity after each election and delay or outright eliminate the risk of hostile takeovers.  It can also reduces the logistics challenge of training and onboarding several new directors simultaneously. There will always be a healthy cohort of veterans to oversee any work needed in this area, feeding a culture of long-term planning. Disadvantages Much of the criticism directed at the staggered board approach comes from shareholders who effectively only have a say on the future of a third (or less) of directors at any given time.  This means shareholder criticism is less likely to be listened to and the board may be more concerned with itself or its relationship with management. Creating a staggered board If an organisation is thinking about instituting a staggered board, it must analyse the company’s governance thoroughly before doing so.  How much does your board depend on fresh, new experience? If it’s a lot, a staggered board might not be for you.  How concerned are you about a hostile takeover or activism? If the answer is ‘a lot,’ then a staggered board may be for you. You should also consider how much your company spends on onboarding: how easy it is to find relevant talent at the board level, and how confident you are in your current board? By asking the right questions, you may find that introducing a staggered board structure is beneficial for your organisation. Dan Byrne is a writer with the Corporate Governance Institute

Adverse weather can bring disruption to businesses and their staff. Gemma O’Connor explains how an adverse weather policy can help employers to minimise its impact Adverse weather can bring power outages, high winds, and flooding and can cause major destruction of towns and villages across the country. Furthermore, employers dealing with storm and weather warnings may also face staff absenteeism. So, what can they do if employees are unable to be at work for the day because of the effects of poor weather conditions? Experts recommend putting an adverse weather policy in place. Pay obligations Payment obligation is a common topic employers ask about when bad weather strikes. A strict interpretation of the law allows employers to determine whether payment is owed to employees for workdays they miss due to extreme weather. If a company’s premises are open but employees are absent, there is no legal obligation to pay them for what is technically an unauthorised absence. Choosing to withhold pay should be considered with care, however. Doing so may affect staff morale and your reputation as an employer. Employees may also rely on prior experiences to argue that payment is due. If an has organisation paid absent employees during a previous weather warning, they will expect the same going forward. During an extreme weather event, it is possible that companies may need to close their premises. When employees are sent home or told not to come to work due to adverse weather, it is recommended that they be paid as normal. Employee options If employees can’t attend work due to the extreme weather, there are a few options available: Ask them to work from home and continue to pay them as normal. Allow them to make up any missed time later. With the agreement of the employees, the organisation could deduct any absences from their paid annual leave entitlement. Many people are already currently working from home. Employers with remote working arrangements should include a clause on working from home in their adverse weather policy. This clause could specify, for example, that staff are permitted to work from home during periods of bad weather and will be paid as normal even if the employer’s premises are closed. Change of roster An employer is entitled to change a roster at short notice in exceptional events, including extreme weather. Keep in mind that outside of these exceptional circumstances, however, employees are entitled to a notice of at least 24 hours for any roster change. Employee safety As an employer, the safety of employees should always be paramount. An employer’s statutory duty is to provide a safe place of work. This also includes ensuring that employees are not required to undertake a hazardous journey to get to work. Employers should know that, if public transport isn’t operating, they face a heightened risk of claims and reports to the Health & Safety Authority (HSA) by employees who suffer accidents on their way to work. Time for a policy Adverse weather can be a reminder and an opportunity to develop your own internal policy regarding how weather warnings will be handled. If this policy is reasonable and clearly communicated to employees, organisations can minimise their exposure to the winters of employee discontent. Gemma O'Connor is Head of Service at Peninsula Ireland

As 2024 unfolds amidst continued global challenges, Loretta O’Sullivan outlines why the island of Ireland will still likely see some economic growth We are just a few weeks into 2024 and it has already acquired many labels. It's the year of rate cuts, war and global elections. Despite this, the all-island economy is expected to be a year of growth. EY Ireland's Winter Economic Eye report forecasts reasonably solid growth in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and a modest expansion in Northern Ireland (NI). Outlined below are the four forces we see shaping both economies in 2024. 1. A subdued external environment The world economy is recovering from a multitude of shocks – the COVID-19 pandemic, the war in Ukraine and decades-high inflation. The likelihood of a soft landing has increased, but geopolitical tensions, including the conflict in the Middle East and the Red Sea attacks, are among many headwinds. Prospects for key trading partners in 2024 are mixed, with growth set to slow in the US, but due to pick up in the Eurozone and the UK. 2. A turn in monetary policy After introducing a series of interest rate hikes in 2022 and 2023, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England are both on hold. Higher borrowing costs are expected to weigh on business spending decisions in 2024. Proactive digitalisation and decarbonisation agendas should provide support, however, and we can look forward to rate cuts later this year. The Irish government is also undertaking a large-scale capital spending programme to enhance public infrastructure and underpin digital and green transitions. In NI, the restoration of power-sharing and a Stormont Executive should encourage future investment. 3. Inflation is on the retreat Inflation has eased significantly and the passing on of lower wholesale energy prices to household bills and business costs, coupled with the transmission of monetary policy to economic activity, points to further easing ahead. In ROI, an inflation rate of 3.0 percent is forecast for 2024, falling to 2.0 percent in 2025. This downward trend will alleviate pressure on household purchasing power and improve consumer confidence, which bodes well for consumer expenditure. 4. Warm labour markets While the ROI and NI labour markets put in a strong performance in 2023, signs of softening are beginning to emerge and some cooling is likely this year. Nonetheless, unemployment rates are projected to remain low by historical standards and many businesses will continue to experience staff recruitment and retention challenges. Given the tight labour market and some compensation for past inflation, wage increases are also anticipated. This year is shaping up to be one of rate cuts, elevated geopolitical tensions and monumental elections. Yet, amidst these events, households and businesses can likely expect to see some growth across the two economies on the island of Ireland. Loretta O’Sullivan is Chief Economist and Partner at EY Ireland

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has announced important revisions to the UK Corporate Governance Code (the Code).  The revisions aim to enhance transparency and accountability of UK plc and deliver on the FRC’s intentions following the FRC’s largest ever stakeholder consultation on the Code in 2023. The FRC has kept changes to the Code to the minimum that are necessary. The FRC is conscious that the expectations for effective governance must be targeted and proportionate. In addition the FRC has published guidance to the Code. The purpose of this guidance is to support those who use the Code by providing advice, further detail and examples but it is not intended to be prescriptive. To make the guidance user-friendly, the FRC has included links in the Code to relevant sections of the guidance, and links in the guidance to other materials which may be of interest. The FRC will be keeping the guidance under regular review to ensure it is relevant and up to date.  The revised code can be accessed here.

Julia Rowan answers your management, leadership and team development questions Q. My organisation is going through a lot of change; there is a new leadership structure at the top, but some changes are still undecided. I am hoping that some roles in my area (which were regionalised about eight years ago) will be recentralised under my management. While this has not yet been decided, the regions have got ahead of this with quite a public challenge to the leadership to retain roles at regional level. They have much more clout than my small team and me. A. I am going to assume that your query is about the quality of the work your function provides rather than simply headcount. In any case, a couple of things are immediately clear: Whatever happens, your relationship with the regional directors, as well as with other colleagues currently fulfilling regional roles, is very important. This ‘inter-regnum’ period could be very useful to all of you (in the regions and centrally) by giving you time to get together to work on issues relating to this restructure with a view to making improvements – no matter the eventual outcome. Perhaps someone on the senior leadership team could initiate and sponsor this. You need to play a long game; organisations make changes all the time and how you are seen to deal with this issue will impact your profile. Avoid ‘either/or’ thinking (i.e. ‘they either report to the regions or to me’). There could be many ways to create win-win outcomes. Until a decision is made, there is room for negotiation (see the book suggestion below). I suggest you carefully work out a couple of positions, including: Your ideal outcome (and how to transition to it); Acceptable outcomes if you don’t get your ideal outcome (e.g. dotted line responsibility, developing the more interesting aspects of your role, new structures to support your team, developmental support, etc); and Unwelcome outcomes (and how to avoid them). It could be useful to work on this with your team. I have no doubt that they would have a lot to add to the conversation. Q. My team is under huge pressure – as am I. I try hard to help them, but they keep coming back with the same issues and they are very negative. A. It is the leader’s role to help, but how do we help? Sometimes, it’s by fixing, helping and advising.  And sometimes it’s by listening and empowering the team member to fix it themselves.  As leaders, we are often scared by negativity and we jump in quickly with advice and fixes. I suggest you listen deeply to your direct reports. When they bring up something negative, stay with it and help them to explore it.   The pull to fix is great, so this is much more difficult than it sounds. Arranging to meet to discuss the issue will give you the time to pull together some great questions that will help your team member think through the issue and come up with solutions. Of course, you can suggest solutions too – but people are much more likely to listen to your suggestions when you have helped them to think things through first. Julia Rowan is Principal Consultant at Performance Matters Ltd, a leadership and team development consultancy. To send a question to Julia, email julia@performancematters.ie If you read one thing... Getting to yes – negotiating an agreement without giving in by Roger Fisher and William Ury. We often go into negotiations with an  ‘either/or’ attitude. Either they win or I do. Getting to Yes offers a framework for ‘principled negotiation’ helping us to come up with creative options where both parties (or more) can achieve what they want. 

The new 15 percent global corporate tax rate will have a big impact in countries across the world, but arguably nowhere more so than in Ireland’s small FDI-reliant economy. Three Chartered Accountants dissect the implications of the tax change and how it could reshape our economic landscape. Paul Dillon, Tax Partner, Duignan Carthy O’Neill Ireland has signed Pillar Two of the OECD agreement on taxation into Irish law, introducing a minimum corporation tax rate of 15 percent for large domestic groups or multinationals with revenue of €750 million or more in at least two of the four preceding fiscal years. The current 12.5 percent corporation tax rate will remain in place for most companies in Ireland, with certain groups having to pay a top-up tax of 2.5 percent – the qualified domestic top-up tax (QDTT) – directly to the Irish exchequer.   The QDTT is initially due for periods commencing 1 January 2024, but the first payments will not be made until 2026.  The rules are complex and will require significant investment from the companies it applies to so that they can understand the scope and application of these new provisions.  In the short-term, Pillar Two provisions could lead to the Irish exchequer collecting additional tax as it is estimated that close to 1,600 entities in Ireland will be liable to pay QDTT. If a group entity is liable to pay QDTT in a jurisdiction such as Ireland, the top-up taxes due outside Ireland are expected to reduce to zero. These safe harbour rules should protect the Irish tax base and result in more taxes being collected in Ireland in the short term. It is also worth noting that any QDTT paid in Ireland should be allowed as a credit against what is termed an Income Inclusion Rule (IIR) or Undertaxed Profit Rule (UPR) tax liability a group is due to pay in other jurisdictions. This will provide additional protection to the multinational tax base in Ireland. In brief, the IIR requires the ultimate parent entity of the group to determine if its constituent entities have paid the minimum 15 percent tax in each jurisdiction and pay the additional taxes in its jurisdiction to meet the minimum tax rate.  The UPR taxes groups that are not resident in a jurisdiction that has adopted the Pillar Two rules and applies to groups not paying the minimum 15 percent tax. The UPR rule will require an increase in tax at the subsidiary level.  In the short term, most economic commentators believe that the new Pillar Two provisions will lead to Ireland collecting additional tax. In the longer term, the taxes collected will depend on the economic presence of groups in Ireland and how they organise their structures going forward.  The impact of the proposed Pillar One changes, which will reallocate some taxing rights based on market jurisdictions, may ultimately have an adverse effect on the tax base in Ireland and could, in the longer term, reduce the taxes collected from multinationals in Ireland. Alma de Bruijn, Tax Director, PwC Ireland The introduction of a global minimum effective tax rate of 15 percent has come after a lengthy period of negotiations as part of implementation of Pillar Two. Ireland was actively involved in these negotiations, securing the removal of “at least” with respect to the rate and thereby ensuring that the rate could not be increased in the future. The newly introduced provisions, which will lead to an effective 15 percent tax rate, could lead to incremental Irish corporate tax for many companies, i.e. above Ireland’s long-standing corporate tax rate of 12.5 percent.  Ireland’s corporate tax policy has generally focused on ensuring substance-based investment, coupled with a rounded tax regime of incentives.  A significant number of multinationals are well established in Ireland, and while Pillar Two may increase the effective tax rate of multinational groups, the new rules should not act as an incentive to move investment out of Ireland in favour of other OECD jurisdictions.  This is supported by the OECD’s recent taxation working paper, The Global Minimum Tax and the Taxation of MNE Profit, in which a key finding was that the global minimum tax substantially reduces the incentives to shift profits.  It is also worth noting that the domestic effective tax rate applicable in many other jurisdictions will significantly exceed the 15 percent effective rate that will apply under Pillar Two. While the introduction of the new global minimum tax rate marks the biggest change in the corporate tax landscape in a generation, it is a change that has been embraced by Ireland.  Ireland has been clear in its commitment to the implementation of the Pillar Two rules from the outset and has consulted with stakeholders throughout the implementation process. This commitment and consultation have offered certainty to businesses.  I think that, despite the change in rate for large multinationals, Ireland will continue to remain competitive with a highly educated, skilled workforce, direct access to the EU market and international supply chains, and a stable business environment that promotes investment. James Smyth, Partner, Deloitte  Following the adoption of the EU directive on the adoption of a global minimum tax by EU Member States, Ireland has taken steps to enact the required legislation to comply with the provisions of the directive.  The Irish legislation on the global minimum tax came into effect from the start of this year. The reality for any impacted group is that the rules are very complicated and require careful analysis to assess the impact fully. It’s fair to say that the level of complexity in the new rules is not like anything we have seen before in the tax world and requires an increased level of interaction between global tax and finance teams. The likely impact on Ireland is difficult to assess and there are certainly different views on it. The 15 percent minimum tax rate could impact Ireland’s competitiveness, but the wider offering for businesses looking to invest in Ireland extends far beyond tax alone, including an English-speaking population, an educated workforce, membership of the EU and favourable business conditions.  The mechanics of how the rules work are such that the imposition of the global minimum tax rate of 15 percent in Ireland should not automatically result in an additional tax liability of 2.5 percent (being the differential between Ireland’s headline rate of corporation tax of 12.5 percent and the new global minimum tax rate of 15 percent).  The devil is in the detail and the new rules could result in a neutral or positive impact on Ireland.

When and how the war between Israel and Hamas ends, Israelis and Palestinians will have to find a way to live side by side, writes Judy Dempsey The long-running conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been one of missed opportunities. The 1995 Oslo Peace Accords were supposed to usher in a kind of co-existence. That didn’t happen. Israel did not stop withdrawing the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. It designated areas for Jewish settlers.  The Palestinian Authority (PA), bankrolled by the European Union, didn’t use the opportunity to introduce democratic reforms. The former head of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) Yasser Arafat could not make the transition from freedom fighter to democrat.   His successor Abu Mazen has presided over a corrupt PA, refusing to hold elections due back in 2006. He has lost credibility among Palestinians. Mazen did Israel’s bidding: keeping the lid on opposition to the occupation and preventing the establishment of a vibrant civil society that could challenge his authority.   In Gaza, the Islamic Hamas movement took over the strip in 2007 after ousting the discredited PA. Hamas is the precursor to the Muslim Brotherhood encouraged by Israel in the 1980s as a means to divide and weaken the PLO. Since 2007, Hamas has run Gaza with an iron fist. It has its own agenda: to not recognise the state of Israel, even to destroy it.  Fast forward to 7 October and Israel’s devastating response to the gruesome Hamas massacre of Israeli civilians. This will make it more difficult than ever to change a mindset on both sides concerning the need to end the cycle of violence and resume peace talks.   Gaza is in ruins. Suffering people have nowhere to go. At least 20,000 have been killed. There is no systematic flow of humanitarian aid. Hamas shows no signs of negotiating over Israeli hostages.  As for Israel, its right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who never believed in a two-state solution and who is (conveniently) beholden to his far-right-wing coalition partners – believes he can destroy Hamas.   This ignores the day after for the hapless, suffering citizens of Gaza and for Israelis who have been shocked by the failures of their military and intelligence services.    The day after is difficult to think about. The United States and the European Union still support a two-state solution but how might it be achieved? A few ideas:  Benjamin Netanyahu needs to be replaced with a moderate leader.    Abu Mazen and the PA need to be replaced by younger people who want democratic change.  A two-state solution is impossible unless Jewish settlements in the West Bank are dismantled. They prevent a viable Palestinian state.  Middle Eastern countries must play a central role. They see the wider impact of the Israeli-Hamas conflagration. The Arab countries, and even possibly Iran – a pivotal player in supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen – cannot afford a war in the Middle East.   Egypt and Jordan (which have peace agreements with Israel) and Saudi Arabia (which had considered establishing relations with Israel before 7 October), need to take the diplomatic and political lead in ending the war between Israel and Hamas.    Former US President Donald Trump missed an opportunity when he didn’t link the Abraham Accords – signed in 2020 by the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan to normalise relations with Israel – to negotiating a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.  A two-state solution is unthinkable today. Anger and radicalisation on both sides will demand time and a special mediation to make any sustainable peace possible, but what is the alternative?  Judy Dempsey is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at Carnegie Europe and Editor-in-Chief of Strategic Europe.  *Disclaimer: The views expressed in this column published in the February/March 2024 issue of Accountancy Ireland are the author’s own. The views of contributors to Accountancy Ireland may differ from official Institute policies and do not reflect the views of Chartered Accountants Ireland, its Council, its committees, or the editor.