I, too, would like to raise the issue of the Oxfam report that came out on Monday. Deputy O'Sullivan quite rightly refers to the need for tax justice. Another way to look at this might be enlightened self-interest in that if we do our bit for global taxation, it will make for a stronger reputation for Ireland and a stronger investment in Ireland. As the Taoiseach knows, Oxfam has ranked Ireland as the sixth-worst tax haven in the world. It would be easy to dismiss Oxfam's report as unfair, misleading or alarmist. However, it is not alone. In 2013, Ireland was singled out as a tax haven by the US Senate committee on homeland security. In 2015, the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty reported that, when lists of tax havens are drawn up, Ireland is always prominent among them. Just a few months ago, Brazil added Ireland to its list of tax havens. I agree with the Taoiseach that Ireland is absolutely not a tax haven. However, there is a growing international perception that we just might be. That is damaging our international reputation, but it could do far worse. Our international trade treaties are predicated on us not being a tax haven.

Oxfam has levelled three charges at Ireland. The first charge is that our corporation tax rate is too low. With the greatest of respect to Oxfam, I would suggest that that is none of its business. That is entirely within the competence of this country. The second charge that Oxfam levels is that Ireland facilitates large-scale profit sharing. Several years ago, that would have been a very reasonable charge. However, I agree that considerable progress has been made in recent years. The third charge that Oxfam levels at us is that we offer tax incentives to certain sectors that allows them to avoid paying tax. On this point, unfortunately, Oxfam is absolutely on the money.

In recent years, we have seen the creation of new suite of investment funds for property investors. Some of the investors are domestic, but they are mainly foreign. These include real estate investment trusts, qualified investment funds, Irish collective asset management vehicles, and now, most recently, Irish real estate funds. Until a few years ago, property companies paid tax on their profits, just like other companies in Ireland. Almost every OECD country applies that principle. Ireland does not anymore. Using these new vehicles, big foreign landlords can pay no tax in Ireland on massive profits. Critically, they do not have to file publicly accessible accounts. We do not know what level of taxes are being avoided, we do not know what profits are being offshored and we do not know what rulings these funds have received from the Revenue Commissioners. What is worrying is that the OECD lists four criteria for tax havens, and in Ireland, foreign landlords now meet three of those four criteria. I have two questions. First, does the Taoiseach agree that property companies in Ireland should pay taxes on the profits they make in Ireland? Second, does the Taoiseach agree that investment funds availing of tax avoidance mechanisms in this country should have to file publicly accessible accounts?

I thank Deputy Donnelly for his comments and question. I acknowledge his assistance with the Finance Act and other matters, particularly with section 110, which the Deputy raised and to which some changes were made and brought about in this House. I recall the comments that were made at the US Senate committee indicating that Ireland was alleged to be a tax haven. That was later disproved and commented upon. I am aware of the action taken by Brazil. Ireland is not the first country that that has been applied to. We reject that as well. In respect of the Deputy's comments on the international trade treaties, corporation tax is a matter for each individual country. National competence is enshrined in the European treaties. The Deputy is right that this is Ireland's business. In respect of the profit-sharing issue the Deputy raised, he also referred to the third charge which was about tax incentives to avoid paying tax. There was an appeal lodged by the Attorney General on behalf of the Government in respect of a finding or ruling made by the European Commission in this regard.

Irish collective asset management vehicles, or ICAVs, as they are called, are one of a range of legal structures which regulated collective investment schemes can take. Others include investment limited partnerships, common contractual funds, unit trusts and investment companies. Of these, only the investment companies are obliged to publish their accounts in accordance with the Companies Act. ICAVs are still obliged to keep proper books of accounts that must be audited and be made available to persons who have a right to inspect the accounts, including the competent authorities for investment funds, which are the Central Bank of Ireland and the Revenue Commissioners. Failure by the directors of an ICAV to ensure this happens is subject to very serious consequences, including the possibility of prosecution and administrative sanction. I have also noticed that ICAVs are subject to additional layers of regulation that most other companies are not. These are not only additional domestic rules but European rules that also apply to such structures under the requirements imposed by the undertaking for collective investment of transferable securities, UCITS, directive and the alternative investment fund managers, AIFM, directive.

In the Finance Act, the Minister for Finance also made changes to the taxation of Irish funds that hold Irish real estate. Irish real estate funds must deduct a 20% withholding tax or certain property distributions to non-resident investors. The legislation there addresses the concerns raised regarding the use of fund vehicles to invest in Irish property. The Finance Act also introduced legislation to address concerns that had been raised by Deputy Donnelly in respect of the section 110 regime whereby some investors minimise their Irish tax liabilities on Irish property transactions. This will close off the unintended use of the section 110 regime for Irish property transactions.

The Irish funds industry is obviously a key part of the internationally traded financial services sector, often referred to as the IFSC. Some 12,500 people are employed directly and indirectly, both in Dublin and in a number of locations throughout the country. There is some €2 trillion of assets under the management of funds in Dublin. The sector services a further €2 trillion in assets domiciled elsewhere. This area of IFSC remains by some margin its biggest sector of employment. Clearly, the funds may be structured in different ways, as the Deputy has pointed out. The Minister has moved in the Finance Act to address two issues-----

The Taoiseach is totally taking advantage of the time allotted.

-----relating to the misuse of certain vehicles that were being used for Irish property transactions.

I call Deputy Donnelly. The Taoiseach must comply with the time limits as well.

Let me give the Taoiseach an example. Cerberus has just filed its 2015 accounts for Project Eagle. By my reckoning, it made about £168 million in taxable profits and paid less than £1,600 in tax. That is a 0.001% tax rate. I acknowledge the very significant moves by the Government in the Finance Act on companies under section 110. What is interesting about the Project Eagle accounts is that Cerberus has moved about half of the assets out of section 110, because section 110 companies have to file publicly accessible accounts. The only reason vulture funds were shut down was because Deputies in this House, journalists and Senators were able to see them and raise this issue. They could not hide the amount of tax that was being avoided. However, about half of what came under section 110, hundreds of millions of pounds of assets, has been moved out of it. We have no idea where it has gone. If it has gone into a qualified investment fund, an ICAV or one of these, we will no longer be able to see what is being done with it. That is the core of my question. The Taoiseach stated to Deputy O'Sullivan that we have nothing to hide in Ireland. I agree. Were I or another Member to table a Bill stating that these funds, ICAVs and qualifying investor funds, QIFs, in particular, had to file publicly accessible accounts, would the Taoiseach look upon it on favourably?

As I said, I acknowledge the fact the Deputy raised section 110 on a number of occasions, which was a subject of quite intensive discussion and change during the passage of the Finance Act. The second of the changes the Minister brought in related to the Irish fund vehicles. The Finance Act provides for the introduction of a tax regime for Irish real estate funds, or IREFs. That legislation will ensure the Irish tax base is appropriately protected, where Irish funds are used to hold Irish real estate. The key feature, as the Deputy knows, is that an IREF is a fund in which 25% or more of the value of the fund is made up of Irish real estate assets. Any rental income or development profits earned by that IREF will be included in the calculation of its profits.

Capital gains will be included in the calculation of profits unless the asset is held for five years or more, except where the investor can influence or control the IRF. Where an IRF makes a distribution, non-resident investors will be subject to a withholding tax of 20%.

I am not saying that everything has been done here in terms of dealing with the issues that Deputy Donnelly raises. I do not have the details regarding Cerberus, as mentioned by him. Clearly, this is a matter in which the Minister for Finance has taken an interest and he has moved to change the law to make it more open, accountable and transparent where that is necessary. I am sure if further changes have to be made, he would be willing to do that too.