Irish corporate tax set for further short-term boost, fiscal watchdog says
DUBLIN, June 10 (Reuters) - Booming Irish corporate tax receipts could grow further in 2025 and 2026, even as the threat of potentially damaging tariffs hangs over the volatile source of revenue, the country's independent fiscal watchdog said on Tuesday.
A six-fold jump in corporate tax revenue since 2014 to 28 billion euros last year, or 29% of all tax collected - even before an extra 11 billion euros of Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab back taxes is included - has handed Ireland Europe's healthiest public finances.
While Ireland's finance ministry expects the taxes that are mostly paid by U.S. multinationals to fall by 2% this year and return to 2024 levels in 2026, the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC) sees four factors why they could, instead, increase.
Firstly, it said the finance ministry's estimate that global tax reforms agreed five years ago would reduce corporate tax revenue by 2 billion euros a year from 2026 was not credible and that they will likely add around 3 billion euros from 2026.
The first part of the OECD-led reforms that Ireland expected to divert corporate tax receipts to other countries has not been implemented, whereas Dublin has been forced to increase its low corporate tax rate to 15% from 12.5% for larger companies.
IFAC said that many of Ireland's main corporate taxpayers - based in the technology and pharmaceutical sectors - were not currently impacted by U.S. tariffs and expected their global profits to increase this year.
A 154% year-on-year jump in Irish pharmaceutical exports in the first quarter, as some U.S. drugmakers with Irish plants reported stocking up ahead of threatened tariffs, may separately lead to higher corporate tax payments this year, IFAC said.
Finally, the exhaustion of capital allowances some firms used when they moved valuable intellectual property assets to Ireland could potentially add "billions" of euros more in corporate tax in the coming years, IFAC chair Seamus Coffey added.
Coffey said IFAC did not see any downside risks to the tax take in the short term, based on broad macroeconomic trends and the current tariff regime.
"We don't see it but it doesn't mean it's not there. That's down to the profitability and decisions these companies make," Coffey told a news conference.
($1 = 0.8760 euros)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
27 minutes ago
- Sky News
Spending review: Treasury minister Emma Reynolds tells Sky News she is 'not ruling out' tax rises in the autumn
A Treasury minister has refused to rule out tax rises at the budget in the autumn, amid concerns that any global economic instability could mean the government will not have enough money to fund its spending plans. Speaking to Sky's Politics Hub With Ali Fortescue, Emma Reynolds defended how the economy was being handled, but would not say if more revenue might be needed from taxation. Asked repeatedly if she was ruling out tax rises, the minister said: "I'm not ruling it in and I'm not ruling it out. "We have got £9bn of fiscal headroom [money left in the budget], which is significantly more than the Tories had when they were in power, at the end of their time in power. "We've got a growing economy, and we, as the chancellor did say in the [Commons] chamber, the budget in the autumn last year was a once-in-a-generation budget where we had to do some very tough things, and we're not going to have another budget like that in the future." "Now we know - tax rises are coming." 3:43 Fiscal rules are non-negotiable Speaking to Sky's political editor Beth Rigby, the chancellor Rachel Reeves avoided the direct question about potential tax rises, saying: "Before any money goes out the door, we will have a budget in the autumn, and we will show in the round, when the Office for Budget Responsibility update their forecast, how everything is consistent with the fiscal rules that I set out as chancellor last autumn." She added that they "made the tax changes that were necessary last year to fund the spending that I've set out today". 4:28 Ms Reeves has imposed a set of "iron-clad" fiscal rules, which restrict government borrowing in order to ensure economic stability and reduce the UK's national debt, Labour says. These rules mean the amount of money she has available to spend on the day-to-day running of public services is limited to only what the government takes in tax revenue. 'A miniscule margin' But as Paul Johnson from the non-partisan Institute for Fiscal Studies told our presenter Jayne Secker, the chancellor has left herself very little room for manoeuvre. He said: "She set the fiscal rules and she's also meeting them by the most miniscule margin imaginable.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The treaty Gibraltar wants, for the future we all need
For over five years, Gibraltar has been at the centre of one of the most complex, technical, and geopolitically sensitive negotiations undertaken by the United Kingdom and the European Union since Brexit. The process has consumed me. It has occupied close to half of my time in elected office, taken over almost every waking hour of the last five years, and, in truth, deprived the people of Gibraltar of their Chief Minister in the way they are used to having him, that is, from fixing housing and parking complaints to defending their sovereignty in the international arena. For much longer than I would have wanted, I have been behind closed doors, in physical or virtual boardrooms, working through the details of a document that will shape the next generation of our people. It has been a relentless, exhausting endeavour. Throughout this time, the UK and Gibraltar teams have worked together seamlessly, 'hand in glove', without a flash of daylight between us. We have worked in close partnership with both Conservative and Labour prime ministers and foreign secretaries; from Dominic Raab, Liz Truss and James Cleverly to David Cameron and now David Lammy. What we have negotiated is not the product of fragmented agendas, but the position of a unified British family determined to find a solution worthy of our people. Without a treaty, Gibraltar could be staring down the barrel of a hard border, marked by endless queues, disrupted supply chains, and a deeply uncertain future for many of our businesses. Our hospitals and elderly care homes would face chronic understaffing, and the surrounding region would suffer the almost certain loss of employment for many of the 15,000 cross-border workers who depend on Gibraltar's economy to support their families. The services we deliver to our people would all come under strain. Our public finances would be pushed to the brink. The self-governing Gibraltar we have built would be diminished, replaced by something poorer, more isolated, more inward-looking, and ultimately less able to thrive as a proud, British European Territory. Instead, we now stand at the threshold of something remarkable, and not just for Gibraltar, but also for the United Kingdom, for Spain, and for Europe and our people. Something bold. Something forward looking and hopeful. Something that finally breaks free of the negative inertia that has defined too much of our recent past. Unlocking potential across borders This is politics at its most elevated. The service-led principle of working for our people's benefit and not the performative personal antagonism that too often infects public life. Real, hard graft that overcomes challenges to deliver progress. This is the kind of result our people demand when they voice distrust and decry the political 'establishment'. Our Spanish and EU counterparts, for their part, have brought to the table a seriousness of purpose that also reflects the gravity of the moment. They, too, have recognised that this treaty is not merely about fluidity of movement, but about unlocking human and economic potential across borders. Make no mistake: the treaty that is now within reach is not one that the Gibraltarians have been forced to accept. Our people voted for us to have a mandate to turn our New Year's Eve agreement of 2020 into a UK/EU agreement/treaty. So we say 'yes' to this agreement, but not because we don't know how to say 'no' when we have to. We did so, emphatically, in 2002, when we triggered a referendum to reject Jack Straw's proposal of joint sovereignty with Spain, and I am just as adamant today that this treaty will not in any way compromise British sovereignty over Gibraltar. That will be set out, black upon white, in the treaty when it is published. It is a legal undertaking given by both sides in clear and unequivocal terms. So to be clear: in this treaty we have not ceded any control of Gibraltar to any authority. Just like today, only Gibraltar will decide who enters Gibraltar – exactly as we agreed in 2020 when Dominic Raab was foreign secretary and Boris Johnson was prime minister. This treaty unleashes the potential to usher in a new era. One in which we move beyond the tired narratives of the past on constant sovereignty disputes, towards a future defined by hope, cooperation and shared prosperity. It will pave the way for better jobs, more investment and lasting stability for Gibraltar and the wider region. It can deliver more harmonious human relations and a better quality of life for all our people. When you read it, I ask that you to look up from the pages of this treaty and see that better reality as it peers back at us from the future. This will be the treaty Gibraltar wants. It will be a treaty the UK and the EU can be proud of. And it will be a treaty that will propel us all to the better future politicians are elected to deliver. When the time comes, back Gibraltar and its proudly British people by backing the Gibraltar treaty.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Fact check: how accurate are Rachel Reeves's spending figures?
'The chancellor's speech was full of numbers, few of them useful,' said Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Reeves's speech was political to the core — and that extended to her use of statistics. The chancellor appears to have used whichever numbers best suited her position, predominantly to inflate the scale of the government's spending plans. She used bigger, cumulative figures to highlight the scale of investments, rather than annual numbers, and cash increases stripped of their context. She also used Tory spending plans from before the election, which never came to pass, as the baseline for the biggest numbers in her speech. When it did not suit her she ignored the Tory spending plans. While none of the figures are technically inaccurate, economists argue that they are a statistical sleight of hand and that Reeves would be better off being consistent in her use of numbers. Spending going up The claim: The first number in Reeves's speech — bar her obligatory reference to the £22 billion 'black hole' she claims to have been left by the Tories — was the boast that 'in this spending review, total departmental budgets will grow by 2.3 per cent per year in real terms'. The reality: This figure includes spending announced at the budget last year, where there were some of the biggest increases. Over the next three years, total spending — combining day-to-day and investment — will increase by 1.5 per cent. Day-to-day spending will rise by 1.2 per cent a year for the rest of the parliament, about half the rate it rose this year. • More for public services The claim: Reeves promised to add '£190 billion more to the day-to-day running of our public services' as well as an extra £113 billion to public investment. The reality: This is a comparison with previous Conservative plans — dismissed as 'essentially fictitious' by Johnson — drawn up before the election to set a trap for Labour and allow Rishi Sunak to promise tax cuts. The Tory plans envisioned day-to-day spending rising by only about 1 per cent a year, and big cuts in capital spending. Reeves reversed these by changing her fiscal rules to allow more borrowing and is increasing infrastructure spending. But on an annual basis, capital spending will be £151.9 billion in 2029-30, £20.6 billion more in cash terms than it is now. Day-to-day spending will rise by £50.7 billion by 2028-29. More for schools The claim: Reeves said she was providing a 'cash uplift' of more than £4.5 billion for schools by the end of the spending review period. The reality: Context is everything. The Treasury concedes in the small print that the core budget for schools will rise by 0.4 per cent over the next three years. It says that when the cost of expanding free school meals is stripped out of the figures 'you get a real-terms freeze in the budget'. • Rachel Reeves is testing voters' patience … she needs results Backing innovation The claim: Reeves declared that the government was 'backing [Britain's] innovators, researchers and entrepreneurs' with research and development funding rising to a 'record high of £22 billion per year by the end of the spending review'. In a press release the government said that spending on research and development was £86 billion. The reality: Despite the rhetoric, this spending pledge represents a significant scaling back of the government's investment ambitions in research and development. The previous government pledged to hit the £22 billion target by this year and then delayed it until 2027. This target has now been put back even further to 2029. Indeed, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology's budget will barely rise at all next year — far from the rhetoric of Reeves's statement. The £86 billion referred to in government press releases is a cumulative figure. More for social housing The claim: Reeves boasted of 'the biggest cash injection into social and affordable housing in 50 years', saying this would total £39 billion over ten years. The reality: The figure would represent almost a doubling of the £2.3 billion affordable homes programme. However, this spending ramps up slowly, reaching just £4 billion a year by the end of the parliament, leaving it to future chancellors to find ways of maintaining the spending. The overall capital budget for the housing ministry is actually flat over the spending review, with ministers relying on savings elsewhere — especially a reduction in the capital costs to councils of homes for asylum seekers. If these savings fail to materialise, painful decisions will be needed. NHS spending The claim: With health the big winner, Reeves boasted of 'an extra £29 billion per year for the day-to-day running of the health service' along with a 50 per cent boost in the NHS technology budget. The reality: The £29 billion figure is for NHS England specifically, and its budget will rise by 3 per cent a year in real terms, within a 2.8 per cent per year overall Department of Health rise. Capital budgets were increased last year but will be held flat for the rest of this parliament. Increasing technology spending further will therefore come at the cost of crumbling buildings or modern scanners and other kit. NHS leaders are already saying they will find it harder to shift to more modern, efficient treatments without extra equipment and buildings. Efficiency savings The claim: Reeves said the government had carried out a zero-based review of all government spending that would make public services 'more efficient and more productive' and, according to the Treasury, save £13 billion a year by 2029. The reality: These savings are, to put it charitably, extremely hypothetical and in some cases seem wildly optimistic. The NHS, the government thinks, will save nearly £9 billion from higher productivity — despite the fact that the health service has got less rather than more productive since Covid. And the culture department thinks it will save £9 million from 'digital reform' — despite the fact that the MoD, which is a much larger organisation, only thinks it can save £11 million. Overall the savings appear, at best, to be highly aspirational. But if they are not met, it will have a real-world impact on the amount of money the government has for public services.
