If Ireland has closed all the loopholes then why do the phantom exports (US subsidiary buying IPs) account for 38% of total exports of this year?
> Now that Ireland has agreed to a global minimum corporate tax (CT) rate.
Provided that they dont find another loophole.
Edit: Someone asked for baseline, the phantom exports were 6 billion in 2012, they are 134 billion this year.
https://www.businesspost.ie/news/irish-phantom-exports-surge...
I didn't say they have closed all the loopholes (nor have other EU countries). What I said was that Ireland is no longer reliant on them, in that the country does not fund current expenditure from the CT take. They are openly viewed as windfalls.
> Provided that they dont find another loophole.
It may happen, but one thing's for sure, Ireland won't be alone.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/2023/09/05/corpo...
> Corporation tax growth has been a key support to the exchequer in recent years, though the Department of Finance has consistently said that much of the increase cannot be relied upon as it does not directly relate to economic activity undertaken in Ireland and was thus windfall in nature.
> It warned that the latest figures, which showed a decline greater than officials had anticipated to a monthly corporation tax payment of €1.7 billion, underlined that this source of revenue was potentially subject to " exceptional volatility”.
As stated many times now, the exceptional CT take is seen as a windfall and the State does not rely upon it for current expenditure.
Honestly, I think you've made up your mind that Ireland==bad and no amount of data or critical reasoning will change your mind. May I suggest travel? You will quickly learn that Ireland is not a poor, bad, or corrupt country.
Edit: Okay, having read the parent commenter's replies, they seem to be commenting in bad faith. To anyone reading along, I recommend you read the OP and shared articles.
No it does not. It’s saying that the corporate taxes are volatile and “should” not be relied upon, hence the cautionary tone of the article.
Edit: From the same article
> Peter Vale, a tax partner at Grant Thornton, warned that the figures were “surprisingly poor” and indicated that “the risk of weaker corporation tax receipts in the key month of November increases. Poor November figures could erode much of the planned budget surplus.”
All I can say is that you are wilfully ignorant or commenting in bad faith, so I'm going to stop engaging with you.