Where are the ETFs domiciled?I've made some gains on ETFs in 2016, and some small gains (below exemption) in equities.
Yeah which I have. But everybody I speak to in revenue has a different view on it! Its painful to deal with.The funds distributed by Rabo were not ETFs.
In any event, your gains are taxable at 41% and should be reported on Form 11 (line 322(c)).
ETF is an abbreviation for "exchange traded fund" (i.e. the shares in the fund are traded on a regulated market). The mutual funds distributed by Rabo were not exchange traded.Why do you think Rabofunds are not ETFs?!
ETF is an abbreviation for "exchange traded fund" (i.e. the shares in the fund are traded on a regulated market). The mutual funds distributed by Rabo were not exchange traded.
I'm afraid I can't explain why any Revenue officials insist on giving taxpayers bad advice - the correct position is very clear.
Never ever go to Revenue for advice.
For every competent member of staff, there are four others who either haven’t a clue or believe nobody should have any money.
Yes, i fully appreciate that.And it's a self assessment system, Revenue aren't in the tax advice business, it's up to joe punter to establish what they've invested in and what the tax treatment is.
Yes, i fully appreciate that.
However, i am surprised that junior Revenue employees aren't instructed to decline to offer any advice beyond pointing taxpayers to their published guidelines on any particular matter.
@torblednam
The correct tax treatment of a gain on an Irish-domiciled ETF or any other UCITS fund would be identical - neither of the treatments advised by the relevant Revenue employees (per the OP's report) would have been correct.
If they don't know the answer to a question posed by a taxpayer why offer any opinion at all? As you correctly point out, they are not in the advice business - so why are they offering (incorrect) advice?
@torblednam
And I think you may be missing my point - the answers given would have been incorrect regardless!
An Irish or EU domiciled mutual fund or ETF would be subject to the same tax treatment - none of which correspond with the answers offered by the relevant Revenue officials! They very clearly weren't reading from a manual - they were making it up off the top of their heads.
Agree with the first sentence.
Second one is, with respect, rubbish. The reality is that, unsurprisingly, the lowest paid frontline staff are the least expert. As it should be in any similar large organisation. They're in the unenviable position of being under pressure from their own management to escalate as few items of correspondence as possible and deal as quickly as possible with as many work items as possible, as well as having to deal with joe public who expects (and in general gets) a good service. A very thankless job.
I dare say Gordon, that you get paid better than a CO working customer service in Revenue, and are under less time pressure when you need to figure out something a bit unfamiliar or complicated, rather than being expected to do it on the hoof while your client is on the other end of the line.
Daheff ,Instead of ETFs, My Rabo offshore fund was described as UCITS, or Luxembourg based SICAVS, for CGT on form 11. Hope this helps.
QED
Anyone who dishes out answers to complex queries on the hoof in such a manner is, quite frankly, an idiot.
I also wouldn’t dismiss the idea of bias; Revenue’s agenda is to collect as much tax as possible on behalf of the State. It is not an independent font of knowledge, and contains many zealots with peculiar views on wealth and how it should be taxed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?