Proposed changes to Ireland's Section 110 regime

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Proposed changes to Ireland's Section 110 regime

Dail-Chamber 320 x 215 copyright

Obtaining a tax deduction on profits arising from Irish loan portfolios will get much harder for foreign investors under proposals unveiled by the government. A potential 25% tax could be charged on future profits related to financial assets.

Ireland’s Finance Minister Michael Noonan submitted proposals to parliament on September 6, amending Ireland’s Section 110 tax regime to charge tax on future profits arising for overseas investors in Irish loan portfolios.

Section 110

By way of background, the Section 110 tax regime includes favourable provisions for qualifying special purpose companies (SPCs) that hold and/or manage, or have an interest (including a partnership interest) in ‘qualifying assets’. In the case of plant and machinery acquired by the SPC, the regime applies to a business that is leasing that plant and machinery, e.g. aircraft and ships.

The provisions of Section 110 charge an Irish corporation tax rate of 25% to the SPC. However, critically, the return paid on certain profit dependent loans (PDLs) is tax deductible, which has resulted in modest levels of Irish corporation tax being payable by such companies. The use of such SPCs has made Ireland a key location for cross-border structured finance transactions.

The proposed changes

The proposed changes target the use of Section 110 companies holding and/or managing ‘specified mortgages’ including any activities that are ancillary to that business. 

For these purposes, a ‘specified mortgage’ means any financial asset e.g. a loan that derives its value or greater part of its value (directly or indirectly) from land in the Republic of Ireland. 

The proposed changes seek to treat the profits from the related business as a separate business and limit the availability of a profit dependent return so that it can only be tax deductible where the beneficiary of the PDLs are:

  1. Persons within the charge to Irish corporation tax;

  2. Irish pension funds and certain other Irish and European Union occupational schemes; or

  3. Persons resident for tax in an EU or European Economic Area (EEA) state (residence being determined under the laws of that state) and broadly:

(a) such person is generally subject to a tax on the profit dependent return;

(b) it is reasonable to conclude that the purpose or one of the main purposes of the profit participating note was                  not the avoidance of tax; and

(c) genuine economic activities are carried on by such person in the EU or EEA member state.

Importantly, normal commercial arms-length interest returns are not affected by the proposed changes and such arms-length interest should continue to be tax deductible by the Section 110 company.

The proposed changes take effect for profits arising from the specified mortgage business after September 6 2016.

Tax liability for foreign beneficiaries

Where the profit dependent return is not tax deductible, a tax charge of 25% would arise and without paying some form of Irish corporation tax or having genuine activities in an EU or EEA state, it appears that it will now be difficult for non-financial institutions to obtain a tax deduction for profit dependent returns on profits related to financial assets which derive their value or greater part of their value from Irish real estate.

Existing structures which use a Luxembourg, Malta, Irish qualifying investor alternative investment fund (QIAIF) or non-EU/EEA person as beneficiaries of the PDLs need to be examined as the proposed changes may trigger mitigation and/or mandatory repayment clauses in the underlying PDL agreement or related financing agreements.

Dail-Chamber 320 x 215 copyright

Source: Houses of the Oireachtas

At this stage, the amendment is only proposed by the finance minister and remains subject to approval by the Dáil Éireann (the Irish parliament). However, it is expected that this amendment (or a variation of it) will soon be passed into law when the next Finance Bill is passed after the Irish Budget.

This article was prepared by Mason Hayes & Curran, International Tax Review’s correspondents in Ireland. For further information, please contact Robert Henson:


Robert Henson 100

Robert Henson, tax partner.
T: +353 1 614 2314
E: rhenson@mhc.ie
caption

Jean Scally 100 x 143

Jean Scally, tax senior associate.
T: +353 1 614 5284
E: jscally@mhc.ie
caption

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Tax teams are responding to usual client demand in the region, albeit with increased working from home flexibility, local sources indicate
A 120-plus-day delay to refunds would cost taxpayers almost $3bn in additional interest, the Cato Institute warned; plus indirect tax updates from February
The Office for Budget Responsibility’s pessimistic pillar two forecast accompanied the UK chancellor’s muted Spring Statement, dubbed ‘as dull as possible’ by one adviser
Digital tax reform is dissolving the old ‘temporal buffer’, forcing systems, institutions, and professionals to adapt as real-time reporting reshapes governance, capability, and compliance
Our first instalment features analysis of Deloitte’s landmark EMEA merger, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court tariff showdown and Venezuela’s tax evolution
While some believe it could have a positive effect on the wider advisory landscape, others argue that HMRC’s ‘red tape’ exercise won’t deter bad actors
The political optics of the US’s carve-out deal are poor, but as the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan writes, it preserves pillar two’s guiding ethos
The big four firm reportedly sent ‘threatening’ correspondence to Unity Advisory over its hiring of ex-PwC partners; plus tax recruitment news from the week
Tom Goldstein, who was represented by US law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson, denied wilfully cheating on his taxes and blamed errors on his staff
Multinationals face rising TP scrutiny as global rules diverge. As Daniel Moalusi argues, strong, consistent documentation is now essential to minimise audit risk and protect tax positions
Gift this article