Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 May 1944

Vol. 93 No. 13

Financial Resolutions. - Financial Resolution No. 4 Income Tax.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move:

(1) That a children's allowance under the Children's Allowances Act, 1944 (No. 2 of 1944), shall be exempt from income-tax (including sur-tax) and shall not be reckoned in computing income for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts.

(2) That where, but for this paragraph, a claimant would be entitled under Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by any subsequent enactment, to a deduction of £60 in respect of any child living and under the age of 16 years at the commencement of a year of assessment, the said deduction in respect of any such child in excess of two such children shall be reduced, for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1944, to £47, and for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1945, or any subsequent year, to £40.

(3) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

This Resolution arises out of the Children's Allowances Act. Its object is to make provision for the reduction of allowances given in the income-tax code in respect of children under 16 years of age, having regard to payments that will be made under the Children's Allowances Act.

Mr. Benson

I want to protest against this Resolution. I hope that before the Finance Bill is introduced the Minister will give the matter a more sympathetic hearing than I was able to secure from his colleague at the time that the Children's Allowances Bill was being considered by this House. The effect of this Resolution is to transform the Children's Allowances Act into a Children's Disallowances Act. The allowance under the Children's Allowances Act is £6 10s. per annum to anybody who has qualifying children and is an income-tax payer at the full rate. The result under this will be a loss in a normal year of £7 10s. Can the Minister explain why anybody who has, possibly, been foolish enough to have a large family should now lose £1 per head, while the position of the person earning the same salary as that individual, but not having a large number of children should remain as before? It is a definite disallowance to any full income-tax payer who has a large number of children. I hope the Minister will give the matter serious consideration before he introduces the Finance Bill, and see whether he cannot make the position more equitable.

Another point that the Minister might consider is as to whether a simple declaration on an income-tax form that the children's allowance was not being sought, would remove this disqualification. The Minister would be £1 per child worse off than he will be under this, but as against that he would, obviously, be saved a certain amount of administrative expense. I imagine that the total cost to the country would be about the same, but anybody who is a full income-tax payer would, I think, rather retain the £60 a year allowance than have to go around collecting a half a crown per week. Perhaps the Minister would consider these points before the introduction of the Finance Bill.

Question put and agreed to.