Is the 41% Exit Tax Soon to be Scrapped? Michael McGrath to Review

Corola said:
But the period of the audit was 2019-2022. Before 2022 it was the case that US ETFs were taxed under CGT. It's not clear from the post what disposals there were in 2022 that would fall under the new ambiguous guidance.
Click to expand...


Why would there need to be disposals?

As we know, US ETFs must distribute dividends.

It therefore follows that there must have been dividends paid in 2022 post the change in the Revenue guidance.

These dividends must have been recorded in 2022 under general tax principles (income tax) and Revenue accepted the filing as submitted.

Therefore these US ETFs were accepted as taxed under general tax principles and not gross roll up.

QED
 
You said yourself that each ETF must be treated on a case-by-case basis. So in this case, and this case only, we can say this specific portfolio falls under CGT. We can't say the same for all US ETFs.
 
Corola said:
You said yourself that each ETF must be treated on a case-by-case basis. So in this case, and this case only, we can say this specific portfolio falls under CGT. We can't say the same for all US ETFs.
Click to expand...


Correct as I expressly stated “these ETFs” I wasn’t making a generalisation.

Equally, not all U.K. investment trusts are CGT you can’t make generalisations unfortunately
 
I agree you weren't generalising, I was replying to this specific comment that we cannot generalise:

 
Corola said:
I agree you weren't generalising, I was replying to this specific comment that we cannot generalise:
Click to expand...
I wasn't generalising either but reading between the lines the revenue auditors weren't going through his portfolio with a fine tooth comb to differentiate between different us domiciled etfs, sure they obviously don't have their own specific differentiating criteria either. It's alot easier just to accept the simpler original classification.
 
Sarenco said:
Do tell.

I’ve never heard of any situation where Revenue attempted to argue that any UK investment trust was not subject to general tax principles.
Click to expand...

And I have it in good authority that the US ETFs I use I my client portfolios would be taxed and, ex post they were, under general tax principles but you saw fit to state that in “your opinion” they were not.

You can’t have it both ways.
 
Marc said:
And I have it in good authority that the US ETFs I use I my client portfolios would be taxed and, ex post they were, under general tax principles but you saw fit to state that in “your opinion” they were not.
Click to expand...
Sorry Marc but I didn’t express any opinion on your client’s mystery portfolio (how could I?) and didn’t comment on your anecdote about the Revenue audit.

Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster?

In any event, could you please point us to the specific UK investment trust that you believe is not taxable under general principles?

Thank you.
 

High stakes: Investor tax changes could cost ‘hundreds of millions of euro’

Department of Finance officials flag need for ‘phased’ implementation of major alterations to tax regime for investors
www.businesspost.ie

 
There's an onus on everyone that LAET, The 1% Levy or Deemed Disposal affects to bring the proposed changes to fruition by bringing them up on the doorstep with canvassers. You'll know way more than they do about the issues around these taxes so insist that they email you their position before the election. Then, follow up again if they get elected. Enough with the can kicking.

I'm particularly looking forward to the candidates in my area from FF, Lab and GP calling and asking why they couldn't even be ar*ed acknowledging my email on LAET before the last election in 2020.
 
"The road map to simplification is not straightforward, and could take multiple finance bills to implement, if agreed by the next government,” the minister of state with responsibility for financial services, credit unions and insurance said."

how much is the double welfare payments and double child benefits costing and that was done with the stroke of a pen, now FG and Richmond are talking about making the double child benefits permanent, that all costs a hell of alot more than the temporary cut in tax take from exit tax. I have more hope in an FF government, at least Jack Chambers was alot more positive on this and Michael mcgrath set the ball rolling on reviewing this whole taxation. Pascal Donohoe was also clueless on this whole area
 
They were able to introduce gross roll up in one finance bill ......
 
Donohue announced the review. McGrath followed that up. Chambers is taking the credit.

Chambers could easily have done away with the levy in last budget. We could have been looking at reduced AMCs in next few months.

The taxation will probably be reduced gradually but it's not a big deal for Life Assurers to change their systems to accomodate this. Government have the money so should just be getting on with it. I'd be interested to know what Richmod thought would not be straightforward on LAET.
 
Last edited:
GSheehy said:
The taxation will probably be reduced gradually but it's not a big deal for Life Assurers to change their systems to accomodate this.
Click to expand...
Literally just a matter of changing a number on a table from 0.41 to whatever the new rate is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register