Revenue E-Brief on ETFs

[jpd]

Are you prepared to pay for "bespoke taxation advice"?

I am sure that they will be delighted to help, for a fee

 

[nest egg]

Just wondering what other investors in these us domiciled etfs are doing now. My position is that I do not have enough information on where they fall. There is no advantage for me to sell them now as I don't have any loss relief to avail of anyway. If there is a big sell off in stocks next year I might use that as an opportunity to exit them and buy investment trusts or normal stocks instead.
There is such an information vacuum with regard to these etfs that I think it would be silly to take drastic action in the next month . Surely some accounting firm could provide bespoke taxation advice with regard to these investments over the next few years anyways

I sold my ETFs, they were bought as a hassle free investment and when Revenue withdrew their guidance, they no longer were that.

 

[joe sod]

I sold my ETFs, they were bought as a hassle free investment and when Revenue withdrew their guidance, they no longer were that.

Do you have much cgt to pay or do you have some loss relief to use to reduce down the capital gains?

 

[nest egg]

Do you have much cgt to pay or do you have some loss relief to use to reduce down the capital gains?

I sold other shares afterwards at a loss to offset some of the gains, I had been thinking of cutting my losses on those shares for a while, the CGT reduction helped soften the blow.

 

[Finance]

Has anyone got any clear updated guidance from Revenue on the tax situation with regards to non EU ETFs in Ireland? I've read this thread and I would like to know if anyone has any new information? The establishment frequent (or are controlling) a lot of the online sites now so it's no wonder that this move has come into play.

 

[Marc]

At the risk of opening up old wounds, I thought it might be helpful to post the following on here.

A client of mine was selected by Revenue for a level 2 compliance intervention/ audit earlier this year.

The period for review was the tax years 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022. The scope of the review was for income tax and capital gains tax.

So one of these years was in scope for the “new regime” for non EU ETFs which came into effect in January 2022.

Direct quote from the Revenue ebrief setting out this “new regime”*

““Prior guidance confirmed that investments in ETFs domiciled in the USA, the EEA or in an OECD member state (other than the USA) with which Ireland has a double taxation treaty, follows precisely the treatment that would apply to share investments generally. That confirmation does not apply to such investments with effect from 1 January 2022.”

Their portfolio which is c€5M consisted almost exclusively of US ETFs which had been filed by their tax adviser under general tax principles.

Revenue had no questions and no fines or penalties were imposed in fact the client actually received a refund.

*regime - noun, a system or ordered way of doing things

 

[jpd]

Without details of the etfs in question and of the status of the investor, it is difficult to say say anything useful about this.

It's possible that the people doing the audit were not fully trained on the intricasies of Etfs

 

[fistophobia]

Interesting.
I would not want to be on the receiving end of this "intervention"

 

[Marc]

Without details of the etfs in question and of the status of the investor, it is difficult to say say anything useful about this.

It's possible that the people doing the audit were not fully trained on the intricasies of Etfs

Yes a client with a 5m investment portfolio would most likely be assigned the most junior revenue official available

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Yes a client with a 5m investment portfolio would most likely be assigned the most junior revenue official available

I note that the €5m element of the story was edited into your original post subsequently.

“I’ll take ‘things that never happened’ for $500 please, Alex.”

 

[Marc]

I note that the €5m element of the story was edited into your original post subsequently.

“I’ll take ‘things that never happened’ for $500 please, Alex.”

Just for a change shut up and keep your opinions to yourself

 

[jpd]

An investor with a portfolio of € 5m, which was an addition to the post after I replied, is most probably a qualified investor and exempt from the PRIIP regulations

 

[Marc]

An investor with a portfolio of € 5m, which was an addition to the post after I replied, is most probably a qualified investor and exempt from the PRIIP regulations

No a retail investor and not a professional investor, but even so,, what has that to do with the tax treatment?

It has no relevance and you were simply picking a fight

 

[Marc]

Right I’ve updated this thread with useful factual information for the benefit of the forum and once again I’m immediately attacked.

This site is a deeply unpleasant and has been ruined by a small number of vitriolic posters.

If you would like to follow my posts you can find me on Linked in.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

you were simply picking a fight

Your posts are very aggressive, Marc, which comes across very badly. JPD’s point is a reasonable one. It would be foolish for another taxpayer to draw any comfort from your client’s scenario, regardless of whether it actually happened or you simply made it up to drum-up business. It’s highly likely that the Revenue auditor, if he or she exists beyond your own imagination, didn’t understand the taxation of investment funds, which is a very complex area. If it did actually happen, I’d place almost no weight on it at all.

 

[torblednam]

It’s highly likely that the Revenue auditor... didn’t understand the taxation of investment funds, which is a very complex area...

I'm only coming late to this thread, have only read the current page of posts so I don't know who's been fighting with whom, so I have no dog in this fight...

But I would echo the selected bits of Gordon's post - there's been HUGE turnover in Revenue's compliance staff in the last 5 - 10 years, and this is simply not an area that many people would have been au fait with before then.

 

[Marc]

Your posts are very aggressive, Marc, which comes across very badly. JPD’s point is a reasonable one. It would be foolish for another taxpayer to draw any comfort from your client’s scenario, regardless of whether it actually happened or you simply made it up to drum-up business. It’s highly likely that the Revenue auditor, if he or she exists beyond your own imagination, didn’t understand the taxation of investment funds, which is a very complex area. If it did actually happen, I’d place almost no weight on it at all.

And your posts are singularly responsible for me leaving this forum so pat yourself on the back

I’ll just leave this here as an example of your work and people can draw their own conclusions as to who is being “aggressive”

 

[joe sod]

@Marc thanks for the update, it confirms what you have been saying all along, nothing really changed when they removed the clarification in January 2022 regarding US ETFs. If they don't have a clear simple definition themselves how can argue with a client during an audit? Its finally put some meat on the bones

 

[Gordon Gekko]

And your posts are singularly responsible for me leaving this forum so pat yourself on the back

If I were you, I wouldn’t leave the forum. I’d simply soften my posting style and tone down the constant selling. There are really good posters here who don’t shamelessly flog their own products or services the whole time. They just help other posters out and share information. And over time they pick up business. You seem to be always on about how what you’re doing is so great and how what everyone else is doing is so misguided. Just be helpful for being helpful’s sake, tone down the aggressive and constant marketing, and chill out a little. Life’s too short, and it’ll actually help you.