Inheritance tax reform is unlikely to be able to keep everyone happy
inheritance tax
. And both of the big Coalition parties made promises to cut the burden further in the years to come and to look at the 'fairness' of the system.
The recently-published
Tax Strategy Group papers
– drawn up by civil servants to outline options for budget day – have taken the debate further, scoping out possible reforms. Whatever happens here, there will be big debate. So what are the options?
1. Do nothing: There is limited room for manoeuvre in the €1.5 billion budget tax package, promised in last week's Summer Economic Statement. So the Coalition parties could decide to do nothing.
While commitments were made in the manifestos of the two big parties, the promises were not repeated in the Programme for Government. That said, both parties used rising house prices as a reason to increase the bands in the last budget. And those property prices have continued to rise.
READ MORE
2. Increase the thresholds: In Ireland, as in most other countries, inheritance tax is paid by the person inheriting the money, rather than coming from the estate, as it does in the UK and US.
The amount of inheritance tax you pay depends on your relationship to the person you are inheriting from – known in tax jargon as the disponer.
For spouses and civil partners, inheritances are free of tax. There are then three tax free thresholds over which you pay the 33 per cent tax rate. The tax involved is formally known as capital acquisitions tax – which also covers gifts – and the thresholds are lifetime limits. So if you inherit from someone, large gifts (anything over €3,000 given in a single year) you received are also counted in.
In last October's budget, the group A threshold which applies to children inheriting from a parent (or vice versa) rose to €400,000 from €335,000 previously.
The group B threshold applies to brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, and grandchildren of the person giving the gift or inheritance. It rose in the last budget from €32,500 to €40,000. The group C threshold, applying to everyone else, rose from €16,250 to €20,000. The total cost was €88 million to the exchequer in a full year.
Special rules apply in some particular cases, such as foster children and inheritances by parents from their children, as well as in other limited cases.
Further increases in the main thresholds would be the cleanest budget measure. The Fianna Fáil manifesto promised to review the thresholds each year while Fine Gael said it would aim for thresholds of €500,000, €75,000 and €50,000 for the three categories – though it did not give a timescale for it. Might a rise in the Group A threshold to €450,000 be on the cards, with B rising to €45,000?
3. Focus on the Group B threshold. In a recent answer in the Dáil, Minister for Finance Paschal Donohoe said the Government would ask that the specific issue of the relatively low level of the B threshold relative to the A one would be examined by the Tax Strategy Group (TSG).
This is seen by some to unfairly disadvantage some family relations – for example those inheriting from aunts and uncles can inherit €40,000 tax free, compared to those inheriting from parents, where the figure if €400,000. People who do not have children feel particularly strongly on the issue.
The TSG points out that 70 per cent of those who received a substantial inheritance received it from their parents – and that the Irish legal system differentiates in other areas between direct familial relationships and more distant ones.
Because of the level of tax relief which applies to children inheriting from their parents, the amount of inheritance tax raised under the Group B threshold – €339 million last year – was actually higher than the than Group A total, at €298 million. (When gifts are added in, the total revenue from Group A remains slightly higher.)
This means reform of the Group B threshold would not come cheaply. While the officials warned that it was impossible to give a precise estimate, they said that giving those in Group B the same €400,000 threshold as children in Group A would cost a maximum of €300 million a year. Of course a smaller increase in the Group B threshold would also be an option.
4. Introduce new reliefs: Another option to help heirs beyond direct children would be to allow the person making the gift or inheritance select one or two people who could benefit from the Group A threshold.
This would also be potentially costly to the exchequer and thought would be needed in framing any new rules – to ensure, for instance, that children were not disadvantaged.
5. Reforms with no cost to the exchequer: Government officials tend to put forward options which are unlikely to happen, as well as likely runners. The TSG report points out that if the Government wanted to merge the A and B threshold without any cost to the exchequer, it could create a single threshold at €151,500.
This might please nieces and nephews receiving inheritances, but would leave children much worse off, as a lot more of what they get would be exposed to the 33 per cent charge.
It would, however, be in line with the report of the
Commission on Tax and Welfare
, which reported in 2022 and called for a significant cut in the Group A threshold.
6. Raising money: Perhaps to annoy their political masters, the civil servants also scoped out ways of raising more money. One was, as in countries such as France, to charge a higher rate on larger inheritances – and a much smaller one on smaller amounts. Removing the tax thresholds entirely and having a sliding scale of rates from 1 per cent on amounts below €40,000, rising gradually to 40 per cent on amounts over €400,000 would raise close to €1 billion extra for the exchequer.
Another was – again as recommended by the Commission on Tax and Welfare- to reduce the relief available to people inheriting farms or businesses which allows for a 90 per cent reduction in liabilities and also tax-free thresholds. This also looks unlikely seeing as the
Programme for Government
promises to take new measures to boost farm succession and 'support farm transfers by reviewing the tax-free threshold for Capital Acquisitions Tax'.
Any reforms in Budget 2026 are likely to give, rather than take.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
33 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Maga versus the EU: are European regulators a target in Trump's war on online ‘censorship'?
A fortnight ago, US secretary of state Marco Rubio revoked visas and thus blocked a judge and members of his family from entering the United States. Accusing the judge of a 'political witch hunt' against former Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro – a far-right populist with close links to Donald Trump 's 'Maga' movement – Rubio maintained that this involved 'a persecution and censorship complex so sweeping that it not only violates basic rights of Brazilians, but also extends beyond Brazil's shores to target Americans'. 'President Trump made clear that his administration will hold accountable foreign nationals who are responsible for censorship of protected expression in the United States', he said. Censorship of free speech has become a very important issue for the Trump administration, particularly on restrictions on what is said online. READ MORE Some on the right in the US are concerned that regulations imposed on Big Tech in Europe are blowing back across the Atlantic and targeting conservatives. In Washington, where Republicans control the White House and Congress, this is a politically explosive charge. Rubio had announced in late May a new policy that would impose visa bans on foreign nationals the administration deemed to be censoring Americans and suggested this could include officials regulating US tech companies. He said it was unacceptable for foreign officials to demand American tech platforms adopt global content moderation policies or engage in censorship activity that reached into the United States. Rubio's visa ban on the Brazilian judge may not have been headline news internationally, but it was noticed in Brussels and among those regulating Big Tech. It is understood that following Rubio's policy announcement in May some figures in Ireland's media regulatory body, Coimisiún na Meán , made enquiries to the Department of Foreign Affairs as to what this could mean. No one was really sure. Coimisiún na Meán is responsible for the application and enforcement of the European Union's Digital Services Act (DSA) in Ireland. But the European Commission also monitors areas such as ensuring very large online platforms conduct regular risk assessments on illegal content or material that could negatively affect elections, security or public health. The visa ban on the Brazilian judge showed Washington's policy shift in May was not just rhetoric; regulators, officials and their families could be banned from entering the United States. Musk and Zuckerberg In early July a Christian advocacy group called ADF International argued online that the EU's DSA represented a threat to free speech 'and must be repealed'. Shortly afterward Elon Musk , owner of social media platform X, replied: 'Yes'. It was an indication of the concern among US tech companies at what they saw as unfair overseas taxation and regulation. In January Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg argued that Europe had 'an ever-increasing number of laws institutionalising censorship'. These comments were rejected by politicians in Europe who, in turn, were alarmed by Musk urging Germans on his social media platform to vote for the far right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party in elections. Ideological and financial concerns There was a time when many on the right in the US viewed the tech industry as a bastion of Silicon Valley liberals. In more recent times, the US tech sector has forged close links with Trump. The Wall Street Journal reported last month that after Trump's election last November, tech chiefs including Zuckerberg and Google's Sundar Pichai met the incoming president at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida and that the need to curb 'harmful policies' overseas consistently came up in their conversations. The concerns of Big Tech and Trump's Maga movement appeared to be aligning to a degree. Dubliner Ian Plunkett, a tech policy analyst in Washington, DC, told The Irish Times that Big Tech companies had adopted a pragmatic approach under the new Trump administration. Those companies that stood by Trump at his inauguration in January were following the power, he said. Many in Trump's Maga base considered regulatory enforcement in Europe as an attack on American innovation, he said; in the eyes of those in Trump's base, US companies had developed this global technology but other countries then had the temerity to impose taxes through the enforcement of regulations that they regarded contrary to their interpretation of the freedom of speech provisions in the US constitution. Trump supporters may have ideological concerns about European regulators curtailing their free speech, but the US tech sector is also looking at the potential financial impact of European regulations. It was widely reported in the US in recent months that Musk's X social media network faced potential fines of up to €1 billion for violations of the EU's DSA, although this has been denied by the European Commission . Over recent months the House of Representatives committee on the judiciary, chaired by republican Jim Jordan, has been carrying out an investigation into 'how and to what extent foreign laws, regulations and judicial orders compel, coerce or influence companies to censor speech in the United States'. Last week in an interim staff report, the committee strongly criticised the DSA as 'the EU's comprehensive digital censorship law'. The report argued that this legislation stemmed originally from claims of Russian interference in elections in the US and in France. In the theology of Maga, this is considered heresy, as it implies that Trump did not win the White House fairly in 2016. The report describes as 'inaccurate' EU claims that the DSA applies only to Europe and that it targets only what is harmful or illegal. 'Non-public documents reveal that European regulators use the DSA to target core political speech that is neither harmful nor illegal and to pressure platforms, primarily American social media companies, to change their global content moderation policies in response to European demands,' the report said. 'Put simply, the DSA infringes on American online speech.' The report points to an EU Commission workshop last May where, it maintains, a hypothetical social media post stating: 'We need to take back our country' was categorised as 'illegal hate speech' that platforms were required to censor under the DSA. The committee described the term as 'a common, anodyne political statement'. 'The DSA incentivises social media companies to comply with the EU's censorship demands because the penalties for failing to do so are large, including fines up to 6 per cent of their global revenue,' the report said. 'If 'extraordinary circumstances lead to a serious threat to public security or public health in the Union', regulators are even empowered to temporarily shut down platforms within the EU.' Ireland 'unusually exposed' Members of the House committee that drew up the report were in Ireland this week and held meetings with tech companies and Coimisiún na Meán. The delegation's visit also came in the week that X lost a legal challenge to aspects of Ireland's online safety code that are viewed by the Irish Government as crucial in protecting children. But it was not the first time that visitors from Washington had travelled to Dublin to discuss online regulation. Staff at Coimisiún na Meán met representatives from the US state department on May 30th 'following a request from the US embassy to better understand its functions and international collaboration'. On May 19th, state department officials told Coimisiún na Meán the visitors from Washington would 'like to understand how Ireland navigates balancing the protection of freedom of expression with the need to address and mitigate hate speech and online harms. 'They would like to understand how the Media Commission approaches implementation of the DSA and domestic hate speech laws, including their impact on American companies.' A note prepared by Coimisiún na Meán after the meeting said it had provided an introduction to fundamental rights, 'including on empowering users who can see if and why their content has been removed or restricted online under the Digital Services Act'. 'Some general discussion on freedom of expression and the differences between US law and European and member state law followed.' Coimisiún na Meán told The Irish Times in June that the US officials 'did not seek any changes to any aspect of An Coimisiún's regulatory work at this meeting, nor did they express any concerns in relation to it'. The US state department said officials from the bureau of democracy, human rights and labour had visited Ireland 'to underscore the administration's support for freedom of expression and the ability of all voices to be heard in the political process and to learn more about the Irish government's approach to protecting human rights'. Dr TJ McIntyre, associate professor at the Sutherland School of Law in UCD and chair of civil liberties group Digital Rights Ireland, said the fact that so many big tech companies have headquarters in this country meant Ireland was 'unusually exposed' in the arguments over regulation and censorship. The extent to which Irish law affected some of the right-wing agenda being promoted by some firms and their owners meant 'you can expect further interference in the Irish democratic process' to try to enable them to continue with that agenda, he said.
Irish Times
33 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Ireland has too many quangos and too many lawyers feeding off its clientelist politics
If government is the group of people who run a state and the formal rules and institutions by which they do so, governance is how they go about that through networks, processes, interests, ideologies and political actors at different levels. The Republic of Ireland has a well-defined and clearly identifiable government structure, formally accountable through elections and the Oireachtas and amply covered by media . In contrast its governance is much more opaque, less visible to its citizens and its media coverage is patchy and uneven. This matters because the Republic currently suffers from a series of problems – in housing, energy, water, climate, health and care infrastructure and in its economic model – that arise from suboptimal governance just as much as from short-sighted or incompetent governments. These problems are often made more visible by comparisons with similar states in Europe and elsewhere. This State is one of the most centralised in Europe , whether defined by the functional and geographical concentration of executive and political power in Dublin or the comparatively puny powers of both parliamentary and local government. Such centralisation puts an onus on political leaders and executive managers to get things right through coherent, integrated policymaking. READ MORE The abiding localism of Irish life is channelled to the capital by networks of TDs, private lobbying and clientelism that dominate the distribution of resources. That perfectly matches the retail, consumerist and reactive side of everyday Irish politics – and provides much of the media agenda. Less often discussed are the resulting poor outcomes across a range of public services because more local and regional structures of governance are unavailable to policymakers. [ Fintan O'Toole: The three pillars of Ireland's political system are crumbling Opens in new window ] Instead policymaking is often outsourced to quangos (quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations). An OECD report identified 800 of them and said they clog up Irish governance and inhibit local government . Notorious examples of poor practice and opaque structures in health and educational bodies provide daily headline news. If we are over-quangoed we are also over-lawyered in planning and insurance per head of comparable European populations. These issues show up plainly in how Irish governments responded to the growing population over the past decade during the economic recovery and expansion after the financial crisis. Immigration of skilled labour through work permits has increased the population by 16 per cent, or more if refugees are also factored in. Imperatives of economic growth drove the expansion; but it was not accompanied by plans to increase housing and infrastructure to provide for a growing and more complex society demanding greater public services. Instead market forces prevailed, but they failed to meet that demand. [ Chronic inability to build anything big in the State is baked into the system Opens in new window ] These widening gaps were identified by some analysts and commentators, and they then became part of the political and election agenda. But they have dominated public debate only since being put there squarely by big economic players and international organisations over the past year. Infrastructure deficits inhibit new investments, they say – and that coincides with wider concerns about how vulnerable the Irish economic model has become to international shocks, particularly from Donald Trump. Hence the level of interest in the National Development Plan and its methodology. Rather than base it on an analysis of changing demographics, economic trends and social needs which generate development priorities, its method is more ad hoc in response to the uncertain international backdrop. Detailed project plans await definition, as the scale of the Trump tariff shock is assessed. In the meantime, different Government departments are allocated capital expenditure envelopes based on their bargaining power. How will the updated National Development Plan shape Ireland in years to come? Listen | 35:59 It's a far cry from the strategic foresight approach to governing increasingly advocated by analysts, companies, the EU and international organisations. That involves gathering information about relevant trends and potentially disruptive risks, developing scenarios about plausible futures and integrating such insights into anticipatory planning. The OECD has advocated such an approach for Ireland and there are several initiatives in government and academia to apply them. Had they been deployed over the past decade we could have been better prepared to tackle these development gaps – not to mention linking them to the equally plausible prospect of a united Ireland. Notwithstanding the highly centralised nature of Irish government, it has lacked the capacity to aggregate governance coherently and to resist particular interests. The consequences of changing demographics and economic growth should have been more effectively foreseen, but were not. For that politicians and executive managers should share the blame. [ Tariff 'uncertainties' could 'weigh heavily' on Irish economic growth Opens in new window ] The problems are exacerbated by the narrow base of Irish taxation, in which 10 US corporations provide 40 per cent of corporate tax revenue, along with the glaring six-fold contrast between the multinational sector's high productivity and that of indigenous industry. Tackling these problems requires structural change in the Republic's governance to decentralise and redemocratise power, by prioritising and co-ordinating development gaps more effectively with better analysis. That would help repair the seriously widening distributional and political gaps between older and younger generations.
Irish Times
33 minutes ago
- Irish Times
NI community projects fear closure after US and UK funding reportedly pulled from peace organisation
A number of community and peacebuilding projects supported by the International Fund for Ireland (IFI) fear they will close due to the reported loss of vital funding from the US . It also emerged this week that the UK government had pulled a promised £1 million , citing budgetary pressures. However, multiple organisations told The Irish Times their 'bigger concern' was the halting of the US contribution to the peacebuilding and reconciliation body. The IFI said it had received financial support from 'a range of international donors including the US government' and was seeking clarity and support from its US partners. READ MORE The peacebuilding organisation was established by the British and Irish governments in 1986 to promote economic and social development and bring together nationalist, unionist and cross-Border communities. Since then, the IFI has spent €974 million supporting more than 6,000 projects, including efforts to remove peace walls and to prevent young people from being recruited or attacked by paramilitaries. The US government has traditionally been the IFI's largest funder. According to the IFI's accounts, its donations last year came from two sources, €2.5 million from the US and €5.5 million from the Irish Government. USAid, which administers foreign aid for the US government, was closed by president Donald Trump earlier this year. [ Senator George Mitchell: Northern Ireland's peace must evolve. And if it is here to stay it must be shared Opens in new window ] In February, Donald Trump's administration cut USAid jobs. Photographer: Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg via Getty Images It is not yet clear precisely how this will impact the IFI, but groups which deliver its projects in Ireland fear their funding will not be renewed at the end of this financial year. 'Since Donald Trump removed the USAid ... they've been more or less telling us we don't have any funding,' said a representative of one community organisation, who asked to remain anonymous so as not to jeopardise their contract. 'We've been told we should look for other funding if we want to keep the project going.' Conal McFeely, of Creggan Enterprises, which has previously received IFI funding, said: 'We've been told the reason the IFI are now considering withdrawing is because they've been choked of this funding from USAid, and they're out telling groups they're not going to continue their funding'. Emphasising the 'highly significant' role the body had played, he said it was 'instrumental in bedding down the peace here and attempting to contain and settle the conflict. They're a key player'. But he said 'a number of programmes, particularly in the Derry area, including here in Creggan, have been informed it's likely their programmes will not be funded beyond the current term, and they've been told to consider winding the projects down. 'There is a complete lack of alternative funders willing to take a risk ... lots of those initiatives will unfortunately fall by the wayside,' he added. Mr McFeely added it was 'extremely disappointing' the UK government was 'withholding its last [£1 million] phase of funding, and that will have a detrimental impact on the ground here in terms of marginalised communities that are still dealing with the fallout from the conflict. 'If the Irish Government is still prepared to put in money, why is the British government not matching that money? It's scandalous,' he said. In a statement, the IFI said that it 'has received financial support from a range of international donors including the US government, the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and the UK. 'We are grateful for the long-standing support from all our partners, including the bipartisan support under various US administrations,' it said. 'We are continuing to engage with our US partners to seek clarity around support from the US government which will play a key role in the delivery of the IFI's programmes into the future.' It said all projects currently funded by the IFI 'remain unaffected and their funding is secure as per their letters of offer'. 'Support from the US and others remains critical in our ability to deliver peace and reconciliation initiatives in Northern Ireland and the southern border counties,' the body said.
