Written Answers Nos. 351-370
351. Deputy James Geoghegan asked the Minister for Finance if he will review the level of principal private residence relief available in cases involving primary carers and family-related absences; if he intends to examine how the relief applies to particular cases (details supplied), where current rules do not reflect the circumstances of many families; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [62997/25]
View answerAs the Deputy is aware, Capital Gains Tax (CGT) arises in respect of chargeable gains accruing on the disposal of an asset, including residential property, at the rate of 33%. The first €1,270 of chargeable gains of an individual in any year are exempt from CGT.
Section 604 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (TCA 1997) provides relief from CGT on the disposal of one’s principal private residence (PPR). An individual may only have one PPR at any given point in time.
I am advised by Revenue that under Section 604(3) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, full CGT relief will apply to an individual, if they dispose of a property that, for the entire period of ownership, was occupied by the individual as their PPR and used all the property as their home.
Where the residential property was not the individuals PPR during the whole period of ownership, only the proportion of the gain applicable to the period of occupation is exempt. The last 12 months of ownership of such a property by the individual is treated as a period of occupation for the purpose of this relief.
By way of example, if an individual both owned and occupied a residential property as their PPR for 10 years prior to disposal, no CGT will arise in respect of any chargeable gain which may accrue to that individual on foot of their disposal of the property. However, if the individual only occupied the property as their PPR for 7 of the 10 years in which they owned the property, they will pay CGT in respect of 20% of the chargeable gain which may arise, on the portion of the gain which relates to the period in which the individual did not occupy the property as their PPR. The last 12 months of ownership of a PPR is considered to be included in your period of occupation.
I am further advised by Revenue that there are specific absence types where an individual is considered to have lived in their property as their PPR but they do not apply in relation to the circumstances outlined.
As with all taxes, CGT is subject to ongoing review, which involves the consideration and assessment of the rate of CGT and the relevant reliefs and exemptions from CGT. Any changes to CGT are considered as part of the annual Budget and Finance Bill process.
352. Deputy George Lawlor asked the Minister for Finance the number of vacancies which arose at principal officer level for the years 2022, 2023, 2024 and to date in 2025 in his Department and agencies under the aegis of his Department; the number of these vacancies filled between internal and external methods; the number of vacancies each year at principal officer level filled by mobility; the number of internal competitions for principal officer grade run by his Department since 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63024/25]
View answerPrincipal Officer Vacancies at the Department of Finance
I wish to inform the Deputy that a total of 16 vacancies arose in the Department of Finance at Principal Officer level from 2022 to date in 2025.
The table below sets out the number of vacancies filled by internal and external methods. It also sets out the number filled by mobility. Since 2010, 14 internal competitions for promotions to Principal Officer level have been run by the Department.
|
- |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 (to date) |
|
Number of vacancies that arose |
0 |
8 |
6 |
2 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by internal methods |
1 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by external methods |
1 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
|
Number of vacancies filled via mobility |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
To Note: The number of vacancies arising each year does not always match the number of vacancies filled for the same year. The reasons for this include time lapses between arising vacancies and filling of those vacancies and the creation of new positions (in addition to vacancies).
The following information relates to the Bodies under the Aegis of the Department.
Principal Officer Vacancies at the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman
|
- |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 (to date) |
|
Number of vacancies that arose |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by internal methods |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by external methods |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
Number of vacancies filled via mobility |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Principal Officer Vacancies arising at the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council
|
- |
2022 |
2023* |
2024 |
2025 (to date)* |
|
Number of vacancies that arose |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by internal methods |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by external methods |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Number of vacancies filled via mobility |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
*The vacancies created in 2023 and 2025 both arose due to a principal officer going on secondment to another body. As a result, both of these vacancies were temporary, rather than permanent positions. In both cases, the successful candidate was an internal candidate.
Principal Officer Vacancies at the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General
|
- |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 (to date) |
|
Number of vacancies that arose |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by internal methods |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by external methods |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of vacancies filled via mobility |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Office of the Revenue Commissioners
I am advised by Revenue that in the period from January 2022 to date, there were 81 Revenue appointments to posts in the Principal Officer grade. This comprised 13 appointments from Publicjobs or Revenue open competitions; 22 from mobility; and 46 from internal promotion competitions. Furthermore, Revenue has run 22 internal PO competitions from 2010 to-date.
Principal Officer Vacancies at the Office of the Revenue Commissioners
|
- |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 (to date) |
|
Number of vacancies that arose |
28 |
21* |
19 |
18 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by internal methods |
14 |
9 |
9 |
14 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by external methods |
10 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
|
Number of vacancies filled via mobility |
4 |
8 |
8 |
2 |
*3 vacancies not filled in this year
Principal Officer Vacancies at the Office of the Tax Appeals Commission
|
- |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
2025 (to date) |
|
Number of vacancies that arose |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by internal methods* |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of vacancies filled by external methods |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Number of vacancies filled via mobility |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
* The Tax Appeals Commission has organised one internal competition for the Principal Officer grade since its inception in 2016.
This PQ is not relevant to the remaining Bodies under the Aegis.
353. Deputy Emer Currie asked the Minister for Finance the number of enforcement and trade facilitation allowanced staff working in each of the Revenue Commissioners frontier management branches; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63037/25]
View answerRevenue have provided the following tables which illustrate the number of enforcement and trade facilitation allowanced staff working in each of the Revenue Commissioners frontier management branches as of 31 October 2025:
|
Type |
Role |
DUBLIN PORT (FTE) |
DUBLIN AIRPORT (FTE) |
EAST WEST (FTE) |
SOUTH EAST (FTE) |
SOUTH (FTE) |
Total (FTE) |
|
Allowanced |
Enforcement |
89 |
87 |
76 |
6 |
53 |
311 |
|
Allowanced |
Trade Facilitation |
128 |
73 |
- |
12 |
13 |
226 |
|
Allowanced |
Enf/TF |
- |
- |
- |
152 |
- |
152 |
|
Non-Allowanced |
Enforcement |
3 |
4 |
11 |
5 |
33.7 |
56.7 |
|
Non-Allowanced |
Trade Facilitation |
52 |
25 |
- |
- |
8.6 |
85.6 |
|
Non-Allowanced |
Enf/TF |
- |
- |
- |
26 |
- |
26 |
Allowanced
|
Role |
Grade |
DUBLIN PORT |
DUBLIN AIRPORT |
EAST WEST |
SOUTH EAST |
SOUTH |
Total |
|
Enforcement |
HEO |
5 |
4 |
13 |
1 |
9 |
32 |
|
Enforcement |
EO |
17 |
21 |
41 |
3 |
18 |
100 |
|
Enforcement |
CO |
67 |
62 |
22 |
2 |
26 |
179 |
|
Trade Facilitation |
HEO |
9 |
4 |
- |
1 |
1 |
15 |
|
Trade Facilitation |
AO |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Trade Facilitation |
EO |
17 |
12 |
- |
4 |
5 |
38 |
|
Trade Facilitation |
CO |
102 |
57 |
- |
7 |
7 |
173 |
|
Enforcement/ Trade Facilitation |
HEO/AO |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
9 |
|
Enforcement/ Trade Facilitation |
EO |
- |
- |
- |
33 |
- |
33 |
|
Enforcement/ Trade Facilitation |
CO |
- |
- |
- |
110 |
- |
110 |
Non-Allowanced
|
Role |
Grade |
DUBLIN PORT |
DUBLIN AIRPORT |
EAST WEST |
SOUTH EAST |
SOUTH |
Total |
|
Enforcement |
AP |
1 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
9 |
|
Enforcement |
HEO |
1 |
- |
2 |
|
3 |
6 |
|
Enforcement |
EO |
1 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
12.5 |
20.5 |
|
Enforcement |
CO |
- |
1 |
1 |
3 |
16.2 |
21.2 |
|
Trade Facilitation |
AP |
3 |
2 |
- |
- |
2 |
7 |
|
Trade Facilitation |
HEO |
3 |
2 |
- |
- |
1 |
6 |
|
Trade Facilitation |
EO |
22 |
7 |
- |
- |
2.6 |
31.6 |
|
Trade Facilitation |
CO |
24 |
14 |
- |
- |
3 |
41 |
|
Enforcement/ Trade Facilitation |
AP |
- |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
|
Enforcement/ Trade Facilitation |
HEO/AO |
- |
- |
- |
2 |
- |
2 |
|
Enforcement/ Trade Facilitation |
EO |
- |
- |
- |
9 |
- |
9 |
|
Enforcement/ Trade Facilitation |
CO |
- |
- |
- |
14 |
- |
14 |
• Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
• Assistant Principal (AP)
• Higher Executive Officer (HEO)
• Administrative Officer (AO)
• Executive Officer (EO)
• Clerical Officer (CO)
354. Deputy Cathal Crowe asked the Minister for Finance the mortgage finance options open to a specific community (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63115/25]
View answerAny type of credit or financial accommodation for a residential purpose which falls within the scope of the regulatory framework may be provided to a consumer.
Within this overall framework, it is a commercial matter for individual lenders to formulate the type of mortgage products they wish to offer to consumers.
355. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Finance to provide details of efforts by ISIF to ensure work recommences on the Greystones Media Campus; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63158/25]
View answerThe National Treasury Management Agency (NTMA) has informed me that the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund (ISIF) has invested in Greystones Media Campus Ltd (GMC) on a commercial basis as a minority investor.
ISIF has invested alongside Hackman Capital Partners, the controlling majority shareholder, and Capwell, another minority shareholder. ISIF regularly engages with GMC and other shareholders regarding the proposed development.
However, the timing and scope of the project are determined by the company, not ISIF. As a commercial investor, ISIF cannot disclose any non-public or commercially sensitive information related to its investment in GMC.
356. Deputy Michael Collins asked the Minister for Finance to provide a breakdown of the maintenance costs of the MV Matthew, which was seized in September 2023 for drug trafficking, and has been docked in Cork for the past two years; and the reason for the delay in the sale of this cargo ship. [63167/25]
View answerI am advised by Revenue that the following table outlines payments made in respect of maintaining the vessel alongside in the Port of Cork since its detention in September 2023 up to end of October 2025.
|
Payments made by the Revenue Commissioners in respect of maintenance and management of MV Matthew from Sept 2023 to end Oct 2025 |
Total (€) |
|
Berthing |
2,936,661 |
|
includes all costs associated with berthing, unberthing and movement of the vessel |
|
|
Maintenance |
4,814,532 |
|
Includes all costs (other than berthing or crewing) of maintaining the ship alongside in Port such as ship’s stores and provisions, bunkering fuel, waste removal, misc repairs and maintenance, agent & professional fees, insurance, etc |
|
|
Crewing |
4,185,259 |
|
TOTAL |
11,936,453
|
Following the vessel’s seizure and forfeiture, immediate steps were taken by Revenue to prepare for the disposal of the MV Matthew.
In November 2023, initial consultation commenced with a shipping broker with a view to marketing the vessel for sale. In December 2023, Revenue was advised by the Office of the DPP that the disposal of the vessel could not proceed as the vessel was required for evidential purposes in the associated criminal trial. On 2nd December 2024 the Special Criminal Court authorised the release of the MV Matthew and a shipping broker was then formally engaged by Revenue to market the vessel. The bidding process concluded in Q1 2025 when a preferred bidder was identified. Revenue continues to engage with the bidder’s representative.
There are significant regulatory and legal obligations which must be fulfilled in order to finalise the disposal of the MV Matthew and to facilitate the removal of the vessel from Cork Harbour.
Since March 2025, Revenue has been actively engaging with the vessel’s Flag State (Panama) to ensure that these regulatory requirements are satisfied. It should be noted, however, that the manner in which regulatory processes were conducted by the previous owner has resulted in certain difficulties and delays in Revenue being in a position to progress the disposal. Following engagement between Revenue, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Panamanian officials, progress has been made in addressing some of these difficulties, including the registration of Revenue’s ownership of the vessel in the Flag State which was a necessary requirement to facilitate Revenue’s disposing of the vessel. Accordingly, it is anticipated that progress can now be made in the disposal process.
Delays and difficulties in the disposal process have been created by the complexity of registration of ownership and regulatory processes created by the conduct of the previous owner (Matthew Maritime Inc) and the use of the vessel as a conveyance for international drug smuggling. The Revenue Commissioners has engaged robustly with the market through an international shipping broker and has actively engaged with parties interested in acquiring the vessel. However, it has not been possible to agree a contract for sale with interested parties at this time and the Revenue Commissioners will be proceeding to arrange a Class survey to advance the certification and clearance processes necessary to facilitate the departure of the vessel.
However, as it stands, there remains certain regulatory and Port State Control matters to be addressed. Revenue is engaging with the necessary State agencies to progress these matters. As such, it is not possible to give a firm timeline for the disposal and departure of the vessel at this point. However, Revenue is considering all options, including the recycling of the vessel, such that the disposal and removal of the vessel can proceed in the most expedient manner.
357. Deputy Naoise Ó Muirí asked the Minister for Finance the rationale for the recent Revenue Commissioners measure preventing farmers from paying their farm tax liabilities via business debit or credit card over the phone; to outline the reasons this change was introduced; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63221/25]
View answerAs the Deputy may be aware, as set out in Section 101 of the Minister and Secretaries (Amendment) Act 2011, it has long been established that Revenue is independent in relation to the exercise of its operational activities. As such, I have no power to instruct Revenue on matters relating to those functions.
However, I am advised by Revenue that they offer a range of easy-to-use online payment methods for both Revenue Online Services (ROS) and My Account customers which include: Recurring and once-off Debit Instructions from a customer’s nominated bank account;
• Direct Debit Instructions to enable monthly payments;
• Card payment using consumer debit and credit cards.
Up to end-October 2025, Revenue processed 11.8 million tax payments to the value of €118 billion. Revenue absorbs the processing costs of all payments, including card payments, on behalf of the customer and pays for these costs through Voted expenditure from the Exchequer.
Given the volume of payments and associated processing costs, it is incumbent on Revenue to ensure that value for money is achieved for the Exchequer spend. The processing costs associated with card payments, particularly costs associated with commercial debit and credit cards, incur a disproportionate cost on the Exchequer relative to the other online payment options offered by Revenue. Processing costs for card payments are based on a percentage of the card payment value, which varies substantially according to the type of debit or credit card used. This differs from other online payment options offered by Revenue whereby there is a fixed cost per payment transaction regardless of payment value.
In 2025 to date, over 75% of all payment processing costs incurred by Revenue are attributable to card payments submitted through Revenue’s online channels and through our dedicated card payment service. It is in this context and as part of Revenue’s continuous review of expenditure that Revenue decided to discontinue the acceptance of commercial debit cards for tax payments. This follows on from the decision in October 2023 to discontinue the acceptance of commercial credit cards for tax payments. Revenue continues to accept consumer debit and credit cards and the majority of taxpayers making card payments are using consumer debit and credit cards.
Revenue operates a dedicated card payment service to support customers who may be exempt from the requirement to file and pay online and who wish to make their tax payments by consumer debit or credit card. The majority of Revenue’s customers, however, are obliged to engage with Revenue online and to file tax returns and pay tax liabilities online as per Section 917EA of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, as provided for in Finance Act 2003. This is part of Revenue’s strategy to use electronic channels as the normal way of conducting tax business.
Finally, it is important to note that where a taxpayer may be experiencing payment difficulties of a temporary nature, Revenue’s advice is to engage at the earliest opportunity to discuss the payment difficulty and, where necessary, agree a mutually agreeable solution that will enable a good compliance record to remain on track. Revenue has a proven track record in agreeing flexible payment arrangements that take account of the financial circumstances of each taxpayer and their capacity to pay at any particular time.
358. Deputy Mark Ward asked the Minister for Finance if insurance companies are allowed to charge more for a product if the customer opts to pay monthly versus one upfront payment; if there are regulations to restrict the additional amount that can be charged; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63231/25]
View answerAs Minister for Finance, I have policy responsibility for the development of the legal framework governing financial services regulation, including for the insurance sector. However, neither I nor the Central Bank of Ireland can intervene in the provision or pricing of insurance, or direct as to what cover is provided, as is reinforced by the EU framework for insurance (Solvency II Directive).
Transparency in the insurance sector is a key priority for Government and the latest Action Plan for Insurance Reform, published in July 2025, commits to expanding transparency in the insurance sector through faster release of NCID data, the development of a transparency code and a review of the price-walking ban.
The Consumer Protection Code 2012 requires insurance firms to act honestly, fairly, and professionally in the best interests of its customers and the integrity of the market and make full disclosure of all relevant material information, including all charges, in a way that seeks to inform the customer.
In 2023, the Central Bank of Ireland completed a review that examined a number of pricing and claims practices adopted by domestic motor insurance providers. This review included the impact that the method of payment, as chosen by a policyholder, can have on the premium calculation, and whether or not it was sufficiently clear to consumers. The Central Bank’s review identified that while details on charges and conditions associated with payment options were included by insurers in various formats such as the policy documentation, terms of business, policy booklets, and the online quotation journey, the information provided was not always clear, or upfront.
Following the Central Bank’s review, guidance was issued to the insurance industry requesting that, where necessary, insurers should take action(s) to ensure full transparency in relation to the impact of the payment method chosen, this includes clearly presenting cost comparisons for full payment versus instalments, and disclosing when payment method is used as a risk rating factor. Regulation 338 of the revised Consumer Protection Code 2025, which will be effective from March 2026, also specifically requires insurance undertakings and intermediaries to provide an explanation and the monetary value of any difference in cost between paying the premium by way of a lump sum or in instalments.
If a consumer has any concerns or questions in relation to their insurance product, on instalments, or any other matter, or wishes to make a complaint, they can contact their insurer or broker that sold them the product. If a consumer is not satisfied with how their complaint is dealt with by a regulated entity, they can make a complaint to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (FSPO). The FSPO acts as an independent arbiter of disputes that consumers may have with their insurance company or other financial service provider. The FSPO can be contacted either by email at info@fspo.ie or by telephone at 01-567-7000. Investigations by the FSPO are free of charge to the complainant.
359. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Minister for Finance his plans to assign additional resources, including personnel and funding, to the Office to Promote Competition in the Insurance Market to enable it to deliver on the Government’s commitments in the Action Plan for Insurance Reform to increase competition in the insurance market, with particular reference to the liability insurance sector where there have been no new entrants for over a decade; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63310/25]
View answerThe Government remains committed to addressing the issue of public liability insurance costs through the efforts of the Office for the Promotion of Competition in the Insurance Market. The new Programme For Government - Securing Ireland’s Future calls for the expansion/support of the Office and work is underway to add additional resources. It continues to play an important role in connecting various stakeholders – insurers, brokers, representative groups, among others – and facilitating engagement on issues relating to the availability of insurance across the market. The resourcing of the Office is kept under review.
On 24 July, Government launched its new Action Plan for Insurance Reform. The new Plan includes a comprehensive series of targeted actions aimed at improving affordability, availability and transparency across the insurance sector, including public liability.
There are several priority actions, including actions that place a key focus on the Office and enhancing market competitiveness by proactively engaging with the insurance market to encourage new entrants into the Irish insurance market, which will further boost supply and enhance the availability of insurance.
In his capacity as Chair of the Office to Promote Competition in the Insurance Market, the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, engages on an ongoing basis with insurance companies and brokers to ensure that reforms result in increased competition and availability of cover for businesses.. These engagements provide an opportunity to highlight to the wider insurance industry the positive impact of the Government’s offer in particular sectors of the Irish insurance market. In terms of business and commercial insurance, existing providers have also indicated that they are expanding their risk appetite to underserved areas and various sectors are reporting reductions in the rate being charged for liability cover.
It may interest the Deputy to know that the number of ‘pinch-points’ in the insurance market have also decreased significantly, with insurance now available in previously difficult areas such as: equestrian activities; classic car hire; inflatable hire; leisure activities; sports clubs, play centres and high-footfall SMEs such as pubs. From a high of over 40 identified ‘pinch-points’ in 2021, only three now remain. However, in each of these areas, there is some capacity available.
Recently, OUTsurance, Revolut, Fastnet, Coverys and an influx of managing general agents commenced operations here. In terms of business and commercial insurance, existing providers have indicated that they are expanding their risk appetite to underserved areas and various sectors are reporting reductions in the rate being charged for liability cover.
In conclusion, a key focus of the Office will be building upon the last Government reform programme, emphasising the impact of the successful reform agenda and continuing to encourage increased capacity within the Irish market.
360. Deputy Carol Nolan asked the Minister for Finance to clarify if Irish banks were entitled to take credit ratings from farmers and other businesses who experienced financial challenges during the Covid-19 pandemic, particularly as the financial challenges experienced during this specific period were entirely out of their control; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63421/25]
View answerThe Central Credit Register was established by the Central Bank of Ireland under the Credit Reporting Act 2013.
The Central Credit Register does not calculate a credit score, grade or rating. It provides factual information regarding the payment performance of a credit agreement, such as payments made or missed payments.
The Central Credit Register records information that is submitted by lenders on a monthly basis. A lender viewing a credit report will see the most recent credit payment history in relation to each loan.
During the COVID-19 pandemic many lenders extended payment breaks to impacted borrowers. Such payment breaks were not specifically identified on the borrower’s credit report recorded on the Central Credit Register.
Lenders make decisions on loan applications based on their credit and underwriting policies. Such decisions generally have regard to information such as details of a borrower’s assets, income, outgoings and other expenses in addition to the information in the Central Credit Register.
361. Deputy Emer Currie asked the Minister for Finance the number of beneficiaries of TaxSaver tickets in each of the past 10 years up to 2024; and the estimated cost of the scheme in each year. [63455/25]
View answerSection 118(5A) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (TCA) provides for an exemption from benefit-in-kind (BIK) where an employer purchases a travel pass for one of their employees or directors.
Under section 118B TCA, an employer and employee may also enter into a salary sacrifice arrangement under which the employee agrees to sacrifice part of his or her salary, in exchange for a travel pass.
Where a travel pass is purchased under the TaxSaver scheme or through a salary sacrifice arrangement certain conditions must be met, for example:
• the cost incurred must relate to a monthly or annual bus, railway or ferry travel pass;
• the travel pass must be issued by or on behalf of one or more approved transport providers; and
• the approved transport provider must be contracted or licensed to provide the transport services covered by the travel pass.
There is no Revenue notification procedure for the employers involved, nor for the directors or employees, nor for the transport providers. Accordingly, the Department of Finance estimate the take-up and cost of the scheme based on statistics provided by the National Transport Authority on the number and value of TaxSaver tickets sold.
Estimates on the number of beneficiaries, and cost of the scheme, in the past ten years, are set out below:
|
Year |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
2024 |
|
No. of beneficiaries |
35,000 |
35,000 |
35,000 |
35,000 |
35,000 |
60,000 |
48,000 |
24,000 |
27,300 |
27,300 |
25,900 |
|
Cost (€m) |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
3.5 |
27 |
11.3 |
5.5 |
6.4 |
7.6 |
8 |
The Deputy should note that estimates in respect of 2025 are not yet available, however, they will be published as part of my Department’s Tax Expenditure report, and in the annual update to the Tax Expenditure Passports.
362. Deputy Emer Currie asked the Minister for Finance whether his Department has carried out, or plans to carry out, an assessment of the potential implications for the tobacco market arising from the proposed tax equalisation measures under the revised EU Tobacco Taxation Directive, particularly where higher excise rates may increase the price of roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco and fuel increases in the already high-level of smuggling and illicit trade in RYO tobacco; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63459/25]
View answerOn 16 July 2025, the EU Commission published its proposal for a recast of the Tobacco Taxation Directive. The proposal involves an increase in minimum tax rates for traditional tobacco products, expansion of the Directive’s scope to encompass newer products (including the liquids for vapes, nicotine pouches, and potential future products), and extension of the Directive to encompass raw tobacco, so as to help in the fight against illicit manufacturing. Products within the scope of the Tobacco Tax Directive are not alone subject to harmonised rules on taxation, but they are also subject to the EU-wide Excise Movement and Control System (EMCS) which limits and regulates product movements.
Ireland was one of the Member States who urged the Commission to bring forward proposals to update and strengthen the EU’s legislative framework for tobacco and related products, and therefore I have strongly welcomed the Commission’s document. With around 700,000 deaths annually in the EU arising from tobacco, robust action is required across the Union, and updating and realigning how tobacco and related products are taxed and controlled across the Union is a necessary step in this regard. Measures contained in the proposal – particularly increased minimum tax rates and the inclusion of newer products – will help ensure that tobacco and related products become less affordable across the EU and that the harms created by such products are better reflected in their price. Stronger EU-level taxation and regulation will help to protect our young people especially and strengthen Europe’s path towards a tobacco-free generation.
Similar to the situation across the EU, smoking is Ireland’s leading cause of preventable death, and the Government is committed to reducing smoking prevalence, especially among younger people. We pursue this public health objective on a whole-of-Government basis through strategies across a range of policy areas, including taxation. In line with the international best practice advocated by the World Health Organisation and our own Commission on Taxation and Welfare, Ireland’s tax policy regarding tobacco is focussed on disincentivising smoking. As Minister for Finance, I and my predecessors have pursued the approach of making annual tax changes to raise the price of tobacco, with the clear objective of lowering the level and uptake of smoking in Ireland.
Under law, Revenue is responsible for the implementation of taxes and duties, including those that apply to tobacco products. Revenue is well aware that, with Ireland’s taxation of cigarettes the highest in the EU and our taxation of roll-your-own (RYO) tobacco amongst the highest, there is an incentive for certain actors to source and supply cheaper products, albeit illegally. In this context, Revenue targets the illicit tobacco trade through a range of measures. Central to this is identifying and targeting the smuggling of illicit tobacco products into the State, with a view to disrupting the supply chain, seizing the products and, where possible, prosecuting those involved. Revenue’s strategy involves developing and sharing intelligence on a national, EU and international basis, the use of analytics and detection technologies, which includes analysis of online activities, and ensuring the optimum deployment of resources on a risk-focused basis. Revenue keeps its measures and controls under continuous review having regard to ongoing risk assessment of smuggling and criminal activities, and evolving operational needs, and adjusts its approach as required. A current example of such an adjustment is the strengthened controls that Revenue are introducing, with effect from 9 December, regarding the quantity of duty-paid tobacco products from elsewhere in the EU a private individual brings into the State in their baggage for their own use.
Increase in the EU minimum tax rates for tobacco products under the Recast Directive proposal will support public health across the EU. With Ireland already having tobacco tax levels well above these minima, I also welcome the fact that an increase in the EU’s minimum tax rates for tobacco should reduce the differential between the price of tobacco products here compared to other Member States. Together with the control measures implemented by Revenue, such a development should further help to drive down the level of duty-paid tobacco illegally brought into Ireland from other EU Member States for supply.
The EU Commission’s proposals have already been subject to impact assessment at EU level which is available online :taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/taxation/excise-duties/excise-duties-tobacco/revision-tobacco-taxation-directive-proposal_en.
363. Deputy Emer Currie asked the Minister for Finance if the Revenue Commissioners will seek trusted flagger status through Coimisiún na Meán to allow them to address the sale of illicit tobacco products on social media platforms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63460/25]
View answerRegulation of the sale, promotion and advertising of tobacco products, including via online modes, is the policy responsibility of my colleague the Minister for Health. Enforcement of the legislation regarding such regulatory matters is undertaken by the Health Services Executive (HSE), through its Environmental Health Service.
I understand that the EU’s Digital Services legislation, which is dealt with primarily by my colleague the Minister for Enterprise, Tourism and Employment, sets out certain obligations for online platform providers to ensure that their platforms are not used to advertise or sell products illegally. As part of these obligations, Article 22 of EU Regulation 2022/2065, known as the Digital Services Regulation, requires online platform providers to ensure that notices submitted by ‘trusted flaggers’ about illegal content within their designated area of expertise, are given priority and processed and decided upon without undue delay. In Irish law, the Digital Service Act 2024 identifies Coimisiún na Meán as the national competent authority for awarding ‘trusted flagger’ status in accordance with the EU Regulation, and Section 41 of the 2024 Act provides for such matters.
I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that they have received representations from the tobacco industry urging Revenue to seek trusted flagger status from Coimisiún na Meán as a way of addressing the illegal sale of tobacco via social media platforms.
It is a matter for Revenue to decide whether to seek Article 22 designation in relation to any matters within their competence. Any such decision by Revenue will not be influenced by representations from tobacco industry interests.
In this regard, Revenue is conscious of the Guidance for Public Representatives and Officials on Interaction with the Tobacco Industry issued by the Department of Health. The guidance was prepared to support public officials and others in observing Ireland’s legally binding obligation, as a party to the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to ensure that –
“in setting and implementing … public health policies with respect to tobacco control …[they] act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry…”.
The guidance makes clear that the tobacco industry – including business groups representing the tobacco industry or others with a commercial interest in the sale of tobacco or who further the interests of the industry – cannot be treated in the same way as other industries, as its products kill two out of three long-term users and there is a history of industry interference to influence and undermine tobacco control policy.
364. Deputy Emer Currie asked the Minister for Finance if the Revenue Commissioners will amend the current contract with its suppliers of unique identifier codes for tobacco products in order to introduce provisions for emergency ordering of unique identifier codes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63461/25]
View answerSmoking is Ireland’s leading cause of preventable death, and the Government is committed to reducing smoking prevalence in Ireland, especially among younger people. We pursue this public health policy objective on a whole-of-Government basis through strategies across a range of policy areas, including taxation, and through the control of tobacco product movement, including through implementation of tobacco traceability.
Article 15 of the Tobacco Product’s Directive (Directive 2014/40/EU) requires all unit packets of tobacco products placed on the market within the EU to carry a unique identifier. Commission Implementing Regulation 2018/574 on technical standards for a traceability system for tobacco products prescribes details regarding such requirements. As part of the EU-wide system for Tobacco Traceability and Security Features (TSF) system, each Member State is obliged to adopt suitable arrangements, including appointing an issuer for the unique identifiers, known as the ID Issuer.
Ireland’s approach to TSF is governed by legislation that comes under the ambit of my colleague the Minister for Health, and Revenue is designated under that legislation as Ireland’s competent authority for implementing the system. As part of its role, Revenue appoints a third-party service provider to issue the unique identifiers used as part of the TSF system. Following a competitive tendering process earlier this year, a new party commenced in the ID issuer role with effect from 28 May 2025, upon expiry of the previous contractual arrangements.
The EU legislation specifies precise rules regarding the requesting and issuing of unique identifiers, including that the ID Issuer shall, within two working days from receipt of the request, generate the ID codes and provide them electronically to the requesting manufacturer or importer. Revenue’s contract with the new ID Issuer requires adherence to this 2-day delivery timeframe, which is the same requirement as existed under Revenue’s contract with the previous ID Issuer.
I understand that Revenue received representations last week from the tobacco industry requesting Revenue to change its contract in order to allow arrangements for quicker issuing of unique identifiers when this is required by industry.
Revenue does not, itself, currently have a need to change the contract provisions on this matter nor does it see that the public interest regarding the control of tobacco products would be better served by the introduction of a contractual change to allow that – where required by the tobacco industry – unique identifiers would be issued by the third-party ID Issuer more quickly than the two-working-day timeframe that is stipulated in the EU legislation and which is the basis of the existing contractual arrangements.
Revenue is conscious of the Guidance for Public Representatives and Officials on Interaction with the Tobacco Industry issued by the Department of Health. The guidance was prepared to support public officials and others in observing Ireland’s legally binding obligation, as a party to the World Health Organisation’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to ensure that –
“in setting and implementing … public health policies with respect to tobacco control …[they] act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry…”.
The guidance acknowledges that Revenue is required, in the course of its work, to interact with the tobacco industry. The guidance also makes clear that the tobacco industry – including business groups representing the tobacco industry or others with a commercial interest in the sale of tobacco or who further the interests of the industry – cannot be treated in the same way as other industries, as its products kill two out of three long-term users and there is a history of industry interference to influence and undermine tobacco control policy.
365. Deputy Conor Sheehan asked the Minister for Finance if his Department has conducted an evaluation report or efficacy report of the living city initiative; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63477/25]
View answerI refer the Deputy to my reply to to question No. 437 of 4 November last, which sets out the reports on the Living City Initiative commissioned or conducted by my Department.
"In relation to evaluations of the Living City Initiative (LCI) by my Department, the following sets out the links to each published report:
An ex-ante evaluation of the LCI pilot was undertaken by independent consultants, Indecon, in 2013 before the LCI was officially implemented. This report may be found at:
Indecon 2013:• assets.gov.ie/static/documents/indecon-cba-of-the-living-city-initiative.pdf
A review undertaken by my Department in 2016 (in consultation with the relevant Local Authorities and the Department of Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs):
Review 2016: report-on-tax-expenditures-department-of-finance-7bf73d79-2767-4955-9d08-b4ba69dd08f1.pdf
The LCI was also reviewed by my Department as part of the Tax Strategy Group (TSG) processes in 2022 and 2023:
TSG 2022:• assets.gov.ie/static/documents/tsg-22-04-property-related-tax-issues-4b78c888-4c5a-4642-9f8b-5a28c181ee1a.pdf
TSG 2023: assets.gov.ie/static/documents/tsg-23-06-residential-propertyrelated-taxation-measures.pdf"
366. Deputy Ken O'Flynn asked the Minister for Finance if his Department has conducted stress-testing or scenario analysis to assess Ireland's exposure to a potential economic downturn in 2026 and 2027; whether fiscal contingency plans are in place to mitigate same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63588/25]
View answerMy Department regularly carries out a range of analysis, including scenario analysis, of the Irish economy’s exposure to risks.
The Budget 2026 Economic and Fiscal Outlook notes that risks to the economic outlook are tilted to the downside and that these risks are primarily external in nature. This document includes a risk assessment matrix which identifies key economic and fiscal risks, their likelihood and impact. Some of the key risks identified in this assessment include a further escalation of protectionism and a loss of competitiveness.
Earlier this year, my Department and the ESRI published an analytical paper which assessed the potential impact on the Irish economy of a wide range of tariff scenarios. More generally, as a small open economy Ireland is particularly exposed to external developments. Previous analysis published by my Department shows that in an illustrative scenario where there is a 1 per cent shock to world demand, together with lower foreign direct investment, GNI* would be 1¼ per cent lower over the medium-term relative to a no-shock baseline.
Mitigating the risks to the public finances of any potential future shocks is a central pillar of Government’s fiscal strategy. Indeed, by the end of this year, we will have invested some €16 billion of windfall tax receipts into the Future Ireland Fund and Infrastructure, Climate and Nature Fund.
More generally, the best way to ensure our public finances remain resilient to any future downturn is by running headline budgetary surpluses and ensuring that our income tax and VAT base remains stable.
367. Deputy Malcolm Byrne asked the Minister for Finance the total legal costs in defending judicial reviews of planning decisions involving his Department and/or agencies within the aegis of his Department for each of the years 2020 to 2024 and to date in 2025; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63620/25]
View answerI wish to inform the Deputy that neither my Department nor any of the bodies under the aegis of my Department incurred legal costs in defending judicial reviews of planning decisions during the stated time period.
368. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 470 of 4 November 2025, to provide the same information, excluding AHBs and local authorities, in tabular form; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63704/25]
View answerRevenue has provided a breakdown of LPT property owners, excluding AHBs and local authorities, from 2016 to date.
Revenue has further advised that, in relation to the answer to Parliamentary Question No. 470 on 4 November, there was an error in the table for 2018. The correct figures for 2018 are provided at the end of this answer. Revenue apologise for the error.
|
2025 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
|
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,285 |
|
1,285,205 |
|
2 |
240 |
|
122,716 |
|
3 |
79 |
|
26,932 |
|
4 |
38 |
|
9,771 |
|
5-9 |
64 |
|
10,644 |
|
10-19 |
28 |
|
2,233 |
|
20-49 |
21 |
|
757 |
|
50-99 |
13 |
|
186 |
|
100 or greater |
56 |
|
181 |
|
|
1,824 |
|
1,458,625 |
|
2024 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,281 |
1,280,533 |
|
2 |
244 |
125,072 |
|
3 |
81 |
27,708 |
|
4 |
40 |
10,152 |
|
5-9 |
66 |
10,973 |
|
10-19 |
29 |
2,319 |
|
20-49 |
21 |
737 |
|
50-99 |
13 |
190 |
|
100 or greater |
50 |
169 |
|
|
1,824 |
1,457,853
|
|
2023 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,248 |
1,247,949 |
|
2 |
248 |
126,353 |
|
3 |
83 |
28,050 |
|
4 |
41 |
10,421 |
|
5-9 |
68 |
11,174 |
|
10-19 |
29 |
2,326 |
|
20-49 |
21 |
720 |
|
50-99 |
12 |
178 |
|
100 or greater |
53 |
159 |
|
|
1,802 |
1,427,330 |
|
2022 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,219 |
1,219,201 |
|
2 |
249 |
129,270 |
|
3 |
84 |
28,976 |
|
4 |
42 |
10,850 |
|
5-9 |
69 |
11,595 |
|
10-19 |
30 |
2,439 |
|
20-49 |
21 |
735 |
|
50-99 |
12 |
173 |
|
100 or greater |
43 |
138 |
|
|
1,769 |
1,403,377 |
|
2021 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,198 |
1,197,748 |
|
2 |
246 |
129,369 |
|
3 |
83 |
29,170 |
|
4 |
42 |
10,974 |
|
5-9 |
68 |
11,676 |
|
10-19 |
28 |
2,389 |
|
20-49 |
18 |
690 |
|
50-99 |
9 |
143 |
|
100 or greater |
23 |
112 |
|
|
1,714 |
1,382,271 |
|
2020 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,195 |
1,194,593 |
|
2 |
247 |
129,757 |
|
3 |
84 |
29,341 |
|
4 |
43 |
11,082 |
|
5-9 |
70 |
11,935 |
|
10-19 |
29 |
2,450 |
|
20-49 |
18 |
690 |
|
50-99 |
9 |
145 |
|
100 or greater |
23 |
120 |
|
|
1,717 |
1,380,113 |
|
2019 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,191 |
1,190,759 |
|
2 |
249 |
130,003 |
|
3 |
85 |
29,584 |
|
4 |
43 |
11,238 |
|
5-9 |
72 |
12,204 |
|
10-19 |
30 |
2,537 |
|
20-49 |
20 |
728 |
|
50-99 |
9 |
148 |
|
100 or greater |
21 |
112 |
|
|
1,720 |
1,377,313 |
|
2018 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,187 |
1,187,132 |
|
2 |
249 |
129,621 |
|
3 |
86 |
29,756 |
|
4 |
44 |
11,381 |
|
5-9 |
74 |
12,498 |
|
10-19 |
32 |
2,645 |
|
20-49 |
21 |
771 |
|
50-99 |
9 |
143 |
|
100 or greater |
21 |
109 |
|
|
1,722 |
1,374,056 |
|
2017 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,184 |
1,183,929 |
|
2 |
248 |
129,011 |
|
3 |
87 |
29,870 |
|
4 |
44 |
11,415 |
|
5-9 |
77 |
12,895 |
|
10-19 |
33 |
2,769 |
|
20-49 |
22 |
819 |
|
50-99 |
10 |
156 |
|
100 or greater |
20 |
108 |
|
|
1,725 |
1,370,972 |
|
2016 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,180 |
1,179,696 |
|
2 |
248 |
128,310 |
|
3 |
88 |
30,065 |
|
4 |
45 |
11,527 |
|
5-9 |
79 |
13,163 |
|
10-19 |
35 |
2,911 |
|
20-49 |
23 |
857 |
|
50-99 |
11 |
165 |
|
100 or greater |
22 |
110 |
|
|
1,730 |
1,366,804 |
Correction to question No. 470 answered on 4 November 2025, regarding the table for 2018:
|
2018 |
Ownership Count: 000’s |
Number of Property Owners |
|
1 |
1,187 |
1,187,145 |
|
2 |
249 |
129,630 |
|
3 |
86 |
29,764 |
|
4 |
44 |
11,394 |
|
5-9 |
74 |
12,542 |
|
10-19 |
33 |
2,706 |
|
20-49 |
23 |
849 |
|
50-99 |
10 |
154 |
|
100 or greater |
176 |
162 |
|
|
1,882 |
1,374,346 |
The following revised reply was received on 9 March 2026.
The breakdown of multi-property owners from 2016 to date is provided in the tables below.
I am advised by Revenue that the figures were extracted from the live LPT Register in January 2026. There is a separate category in the below tables for local authorities and seven of the largest Approved Housing Bodies (AHBs). These entities are categorised separately for operational reasons.
Public bodies, apart from local authorities, are not categorised separately on the LPT Register. It is not possible to provide data which comprehensively excludes all AHBs. Notwithstanding the fact that owner type detail is not comprehensively captured on Revenue records, as it is not required for administering the tax, I am advised by Revenue that the largest owner categories below (defined according to number of properties owned) include both public and private owners.
|
2025 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 7 of the largest AHBs |
38 |
196,427 |
|
1 |
1,341,715 |
1,341,715 |
|
2 |
125,399 |
250,798 |
|
3 |
27,446 |
82,338 |
|
4 |
9,931 |
39,724 |
|
5-10 |
11,405 |
72,077 |
|
11-20 |
1,867 |
26,011 |
|
21-50 |
751 |
22,566 |
|
51-100 |
200 |
13,946 |
|
100 or greater |
185 |
64,850 |
|
Total |
1,518,937 |
2,110,452 |
|
2024 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 7 of the largest AHBs |
38 |
187,493 |
|
1 |
1,320,774 |
1,320,774 |
|
2 |
127,121 |
254,242 |
|
3 |
28,157 |
84,471 |
|
4 |
10,306 |
41,224 |
|
5-10 |
11,754 |
74,247 |
|
11-20 |
1,915 |
26,726 |
|
21-50 |
741 |
22,438 |
|
51-100 |
204 |
14,240 |
|
100 or greater |
169 |
57,239 |
|
Total |
1,501,179 |
2,083,094 |
|
2023 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 7 of the largest AHBs |
38 |
179,952 |
|
1 |
1,300,585 |
1,300,585 |
|
2 |
129,435 |
258,870 |
|
3 |
28,697 |
86,091 |
|
4 |
10,653 |
42,612 |
|
5-10 |
12,021 |
75,977 |
|
11-20 |
1,951 |
27,158 |
|
21-50 |
732 |
21,953 |
|
51-100 |
190 |
13,029 |
|
100 or greater |
153 |
48,990 |
|
Total |
1,484,455 |
2,055,217 |
|
2022 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 7 of the largest AHBs |
38 |
174,527 |
|
1 |
1,281,940 |
1,281,940 |
|
2 |
130,719 |
261,438 |
|
3 |
29,231 |
87,693 |
|
4 |
10,933 |
43,732 |
|
5-10 |
12,335 |
77,847 |
|
11-20 |
1,994 |
27,748 |
|
21-50 |
739 |
22,196 |
|
51-100 |
180 |
12,512 |
|
100 or greater |
138 |
41,290 |
|
Total |
1,468,247 |
2,030,923 |
|
2021 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 7 of the largest AHBs* |
38 |
167,425 |
|
1 |
1,267,046 |
1,267,046 |
|
2 |
131,066 |
262,132 |
|
3 |
29,472 |
88,416 |
|
4 |
11,099 |
44,396 |
|
5-10 |
12,441 |
78,325 |
|
11-20 |
1,974 |
27,334 |
|
21-50 |
721 |
21,599 |
|
51-100 |
165 |
11,459 |
|
100 or greater |
122 |
34,995 |
|
Total |
1,454,144 |
2,003,127 |
* An additional AHB was added to the statistical marker in 2021, expanding the number of AHBs from six to seven.
|
2020 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 6 of the largest AHBs |
37 |
160,296 |
|
1 |
1,254,242 |
1,254,242 |
|
2 |
131,300 |
262,600 |
|
3 |
29,641 |
88,923 |
|
4 |
11,176 |
44,704 |
|
5-10 |
12,705 |
80,133 |
|
11-20 |
2,019 |
28,088 |
|
21-50 |
718 |
21,365 |
|
51-100 |
157 |
10,946 |
|
100 or greater |
112 |
32,861 |
|
Total |
1,442,107 |
1,984,158 |
|
2019 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 6 of the largest AHBs |
37 |
154,053 |
|
1 |
1,240,039 |
1,240,039 |
|
2 |
131,390 |
262,780 |
|
3 |
29,877 |
89,631 |
|
4 |
11,306 |
45,224 |
|
5-10 |
12,987 |
81,897 |
|
11-20 |
2,097 |
29,178 |
|
21-50 |
741 |
22,089 |
|
51-100 |
158 |
10,874 |
|
100 or greater |
102 |
29,853 |
|
Total |
1,428,734 |
1,965,618 |
|
2018 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 6 of the largest AHBs |
37 |
150,338 |
|
1 |
1,226,645 |
1,226,645 |
|
2 |
130,899 |
261,798 |
|
3 |
30,013 |
90,039 |
|
4 |
11,457 |
45,828 |
|
5-10 |
13,282 |
83,750 |
|
11-20 |
2,171 |
30,213 |
|
21-50 |
787 |
23,628 |
|
51-100 |
148 |
10,388 |
|
100 or greater |
103 |
28,096 |
|
Total |
1,415,542 |
1,950,723 |
|
2017 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 6 of the largest AHBs |
37 |
146,915 |
|
1 |
1,215,810 |
1,215,810 |
|
2 |
130,162 |
260,324 |
|
3 |
30,104 |
90,312 |
|
4 |
11,454 |
45,816 |
|
5-10 |
13,697 |
86,574 |
|
11-20 |
2,273 |
31,601 |
|
21-50 |
811 |
24,291 |
|
51-100 |
158 |
11,067 |
|
100 or greater |
96 |
25,934 |
|
Total |
1,404,602 |
1,938,644 |
|
2016 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 6 of the largest AHBs |
37 |
144,227 |
|
1 |
1,206,038 |
1,206,038 |
|
2 |
129,365 |
258,730 |
|
3 |
30,263 |
90,789 |
|
4 |
11,563 |
46,252 |
|
5-10 |
13,951 |
88,390 |
|
11-20 |
2,383 |
33,131 |
|
21-50 |
846 |
25,147 |
|
51-100 |
175 |
12,350 |
|
100 or greater |
95 |
23,070 |
|
Total |
1,394,716 |
1,928,124 |
|
2025 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 7 of the largest AHBs |
38 |
196,427 |
|
1 |
1,341,715 |
1,341,715 |
|
2 |
125,399 |
250,798 |
|
3 |
27,446 |
82,338 |
|
4 |
9,931 |
39,724 |
|
5-10 |
11,405 |
72,077 |
|
11-20 |
1,867 |
26,011 |
|
21-50 |
751 |
22,566 |
|
51-100 |
200 |
13,946 |
|
100 or greater |
185 |
64,850 |
|
Total |
1,518,937 |
2,110,452 |
|
2024 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 7 of the largest AHBs |
38 |
187,493 |
|
1 |
1,320,774 |
1,320,774 |
|
2 |
127,121 |
254,242 |
|
3 |
28,157 |
84,471 |
|
4 |
10,306 |
41,224 |
|
5-10 |
11,754 |
74,247 |
|
11-20 |
1,915 |
26,726 |
|
21-50 |
741 |
22,438 |
|
51-100 |
204 |
14,240 |
|
100 or greater |
169 |
57,239 |
|
Total |
1,501,179 |
2,083,094 |
|
2023 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 7 of the largest AHBs |
38 |
179,952 |
|
1 |
1,300,585 |
1,300,585 |
|
2 |
129,435 |
258,870 |
|
3 |
28,697 |
86,091 |
|
4 |
10,653 |
42,612 |
|
5-10 |
12,021 |
75,977 |
|
11-20 |
1,951 |
27,158 |
|
21-50 |
732 |
21,953 |
|
51-100 |
190 |
13,029 |
|
100 or greater |
153 |
48,990 |
|
Total |
1,484,455 |
2,055,217 |
|
2022 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 7 of the largest AHBs |
38 |
174,527 |
|
1 |
1,281,940 |
1,281,940 |
|
2 |
130,719 |
261,438 |
|
3 |
29,231 |
87,693 |
|
4 |
10,933 |
43,732 |
|
5-10 |
12,335 |
77,847 |
|
11-20 |
1,994 |
27,748 |
|
21-50 |
739 |
22,196 |
|
51-100 |
180 |
12,512 |
|
100 or greater |
138 |
41,290 |
|
Total |
1,468,247 |
2,030,923 |
|
2021 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 7 of the largest AHBs* |
38 |
167,425 |
|
1 |
1,267,046 |
1,267,046 |
|
2 |
131,066 |
262,132 |
|
3 |
29,472 |
88,416 |
|
4 |
11,099 |
44,396 |
|
5-10 |
12,441 |
78,325 |
|
11-20 |
1,974 |
27,334 |
|
21-50 |
721 |
21,599 |
|
51-100 |
165 |
11,459 |
|
100 or greater |
122 |
34,995 |
|
Total |
1,454,144 |
2,003,127 |
|
2020 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 6 of the largest AHBs |
37 |
160,296 |
|
1 |
1,254,242 |
1,254,242 |
|
2 |
131,300 |
262,600 |
|
3 |
29,641 |
88,923 |
|
4 |
11,176 |
44,704 |
|
5-10 |
12,705 |
80,133 |
|
11-20 |
2,019 |
28,088 |
|
21-50 |
718 |
21,365 |
|
51-100 |
157 |
10,946 |
|
100 or greater |
112 |
32,861 |
|
Total |
1,442,107 |
1,984,158 |
|
2019 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 6 of the largest AHBs |
37 |
154,053 |
|
1 |
1,240,039 |
1,240,039 |
|
2 |
131,390 |
262,780 |
|
3 |
29,877 |
89,631 |
|
4 |
11,306 |
45,224 |
|
5-10 |
12,987 |
81,897 |
|
11-20 |
2,097 |
29,178 |
|
21-50 |
741 |
22,089 |
|
51-100 |
158 |
10,874 |
|
100 or greater |
102 |
29,853 |
|
Total |
1,428,734 |
1,965,618 |
|
2018 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 6 of the largest AHBs |
37 |
150,338 |
|
1 |
1,226,645 |
1,226,645 |
|
2 |
130,899 |
261,798 |
|
3 |
30,013 |
90,039 |
|
4 |
11,457 |
45,828 |
|
5-10 |
13,282 |
83,750 |
|
11-20 |
2,171 |
30,213 |
|
21-50 |
787 |
23,628 |
|
51-100 |
148 |
10,388 |
|
100 or greater |
103 |
28,096 |
|
Total |
1,415,542 |
1,950,723 |
|
2017 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 6 of the largest AHBs |
37 |
146,915 |
|
1 |
1,215,810 |
1,215,810 |
|
2 |
130,162 |
260,324 |
|
3 |
30,104 |
90,312 |
|
4 |
11,454 |
45,816 |
|
5-10 |
13,697 |
86,574 |
|
11-20 |
2,273 |
31,601 |
|
21-50 |
811 |
24,291 |
|
51-100 |
158 |
11,067 |
|
100 or greater |
96 |
25,934 |
|
Total |
1,404,602 |
1,938,644 |
|
2016 |
Number of property owners |
Number of properties |
|
Local authorities and 6 of the largest AHBs |
37 |
144,227 |
|
1 |
1,206,038 |
1,206,038 |
|
2 |
129,365 |
258,730 |
|
3 |
30,263 |
90,789 |
|
4 |
11,563 |
46,252 |
|
5-10 |
13,951 |
88,390 |
|
11-20 |
2,383 |
33,131 |
|
21-50 |
846 |
25,147 |
|
51-100 |
175 |
12,350 |
|
100 or greater |
95 |
23,070 |
|
Total |
1,394,716 |
1,928,124 |
369. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 471 of 4 November 2025, the total value of all residential property based on the local property tax data, using the average figure report for all properties below €2.1million; the total value of residential property owned by multi-property owners using the same approach; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63707/25]
View answerI am advised by Revenue that the estimated value of residential property on the LPT register is tentatively estimated at €752 billion, of which the portion owned by multi-property owners is estimated at €258 billion. This high-level estimate is based on the median price by valuation band as of 2024 and the distribution of properties by 2022-2025 valuation band. The estimate incorporates the returned 2021 band 20 valuations grown forward to 2024. Local Authority owned and Approved Housing Body properties are automatically placed in band 1 and such the band 1 median price is applied to these properties.
370. Deputy Ciarán Ahern asked the Minister for Finance if he is satisfied that Ireland’s aviation sector enjoys multiple tax exemptions despite rising carbon emissions; if he is aware that research suggests that the introduction of an air travel levy modelled on the UK’s air passenger duty could generate €6.3 billion in revenue over five years; if he will consider introducing such a levy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [63731/25]
View answerIreland’s excise duty treatment of aviation fuel is governed by European Union law as set out in Directive 2003/96/EC, commonly known as the Energy Tax Directive (ETD). ETD provisions on liquid fuels are transposed into national law in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Finance Act 1999 (as amended). This legislation provides for the application of excise duty in the form of Mineral Oil Tax (MOT) on liquid fuels, including those used for aviation. Current and historic MOT rates are published on Revenue’s website at www.revenue.ie/en/tax-professionals/tdm/excise/excise-duty-rates/energy-excise-duty-rates.pdf.
Heavy oil, or aviation kerosene/jet fuel, is the predominant fuel for commercial aviation. The current MOT rate on jet fuel is €615.76 per 1,000 litres. The ETD mandates a full exemption from excise for jet fuel used for commercial aviation, except where a Member State has a bilateral agreement with another Member State to tax fuel for intra-community flights. Ireland has no such agreements, so the exemption applies to all jet fuel used for commercial aviation, including for domestic, intra-community and international flights. I am advised by Revenue that based on volumes declared as exempt on MOT returns, the total MOT amount relieved on jet fuel used for commercial air navigation in 2024 is estimated at €944.1m, and at €928.6m to end October this year.
Light oil, or aviation gasoline, is much less commonly used in commercial aviation. The current MOT rate on aviation gasoline is €706.14 per 1,000 litres. Under the ETD, Member States may partially or fully relieve aviation gasoline used for commercial aviation from taxation. Ireland has opted to partially relieve MOT on aviation gasoline used in commercial aviation. The relief operates by way of repayment at a rate of €232.27 per 1,000 litres, which means the effective MOT rate is currently €473.87 per 1,000 litres. I am advised by Revenue that based on repayment claims, the total MOT relieved on aviation gasoline used in commercial aviation was €0.1m in 2024, and similar levels are expected this year.
The MOT reliefs for aviation fuels do not apply to fuels used for private pleasure, or non-commercial, air navigation. Further information on MOT on aviation fuels is published on Revenue’s website at www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and-charities/excise-and-licences/mineral-oil-tax/aviation-fuels/index.aspx.
As the Deputy may be aware, in July 2021 the EU Commission published a proposal to revise the ETD which included changes to the current exemption on taxation of intra EU commercial aviation fuel. Negotiations on the revision proposal are ongoing.
In relation to Value Added Tax (VAT), the VAT rating of goods and services is subject to the requirements of the EU VAT Directive with which Irish VAT law is obliged to comply. In general, the EU VAT Directive provides that all goods and services are liable to VAT at the standard rate unless they fall within certain categories to which Member States may apply a lower rate or an exemption. Furthermore, the EU VAT Directive allows a Member State to maintain historic arrangements subject to certain strict conditions. The supply of aviation fuels is not included in the categories of goods and services on which the EU VAT Directive allows a lower rate of VAT. Instead, the EU VAT Directive allows an exemption from VAT on the supply of goods for the fuelling of aircraft used by airlines operating chiefly on international routes (e.g. an international airline). Ireland also maintains an existing historic arrangement for aviation kerosene/jet fuel.
On this basis, Ireland applies the zero rate of VAT to aviation fuels, where they are supplied for fuelling an aircraft used by airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes (e.g. an international airline). However, different rates apply if these fuels are supplied for other purposes or customers (e.g. private planes). In these cases, the standard rate of VAT (currently 23%) applies to supplies of aviation fuels, other than aviation kerosene/jet fuel where the reduced rate of VAT (currently 13.5%) applies as provided for under the historic arrangement.
With regard to potential revenue from an air travel levy, I am informed by Revenue that they do not hold any data in relation to airline ticket sales or flight data. There is no requirement for Revenue to collect this type of information for tax or compliance purposes and therefore they have no basis on which to estimate the revenue that would be raised by the introduction of a levy on the sale of airline tickets into and out of Ireland.
While there has been no formal analysis conducted on the potential yield arising from an air passenger duty similar to that implemented in the UK, the Deputy may wish to note that an EU study published in 2021 assessed the potential impacts of introducing , inter alia, a ticket tax on intra-EEA flights and ticket tax on extra-EEA flights) in which Ireland and other islands were used as case studies. This paper is available at the following address: taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/Aviation-Taxation-Report.pdf.
Further to this, in October 2022, the ESRI also published a research paper which explores the sectoral, economic, environmental and distributional impacts of several aviation taxation options, including a passenger tax. This paper is available on the ESRI website as set out: www.esri.ie/publications/the-impacts-of-aviation-taxation-in-ireland-0.
My Department is committed to its role in using taxation as one of the policy levers which can contribute to Ireland meeting our emission reduction targets. Tax policy with regard to behavioural change, and emissions, is kept under review as part of the Tax Strategy Group (TSG) and Budgetary cycle.
