I move amendment No. 6:
Before section 15 but in Part III to insert a new section as follows:—
In connection with any assessment for liability for income tax where a person proves that he has incurred expenditure by way of fares on public transport in travelling between his normal residence and the place where the income is earned he shall, subject to a maximum of £52 in any one year, be allowed such expenditure as an expense wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred by him in earning such income.
The purpose of this amendment is to amend the tax rules and provide that the taxpayer will be permitted to charge up against his assessable profits on earnings the expenses of travelling to his place of work.
It is a cardinal principle of the tax code that no one in any circumstances whatever is entitled to claim expenses for travelling to his place of work for income tax purposes. In the case of the wage earners and salary earners, the rule in question which is Rule 9 of Schedule E goes back as far as the Income Tax Act, 1853. That rule is quite unsuited to present-day requirements and quite unsuited to a situation in large cities such as Dublin where people can live eight, ten or 12 miles from their work and have to incur very considerable expenses in travelling to their places of work.
I do not know why it is a cardinal principle of the tax code that this expense should not be claimable in any circumstances. It may be that in 1853 when the rule was first drafted, everyone lived near his place of work. The tax code does not anywhere specifically define taxable income but it is generally regarded, as a matter of commonsense, as a surplus of the receipts from any classified source of income. Particularly for the wage earners and salary earners living in the dormitory suburbs of Dublin, transport expenses can be a very significant item in the family budget. While the amendment is designed to embrace all taxpayers—which includes business people and professional people—I feel that the case for the amendment is a good case in respect of the wage and salary earners who are taxed under very rigid rules.
As I mentioned yesterday, it has been condemned very severely by the judicial authorities as unfair and inequitable. The Dublin worker has little or no choice in his place of abode. Dublin Corporation are sending people out for housing to places as far as eight or ten miles from the city. The most recent development envisaged by Dublin Corporation is the development of the Coolock and Raheny area which, to some of our city workers, really means bringing them away out into the country. Transport expenses can amount to as much as £1 or 25/- a week for many of them. Dublin Corporation is faced with the problem that people are very reluctant to go to these very far-out places because of the hardship the cost of transport imposes on them. The rule has not been changed in Britain any more than here but, in my opinion, circumstances here are very different because our dormitory suburbs, places like Ballyfermot and Coolock and so on are not, in fact, self-contained units where people work in their own locality.
The amendment is a very reasonable one and it is restricted. It proposes that this expense be confined to fares spent on public transport subject to a maximum of £1 per week. In so far as some people working in Dublin may live out in Greystones, Skerries or Drogheda there is an element of personal choice involved and if their travel expenses amount to 45s. or 50s. that, to some extent, is because of their own preference but in the case of workers sent to outlying housing estates, they have no personal choice in the matter. If they had a choice they would much prefer to stay in the city area. The constantly increasing cost of public transport further strengthens the case for this amendment which I suggest is a very reasonable one.