asked the Minister for Justice if he is aware that persons in rural areas wishing to avail themselves of the provisions of section 14 of the Family Home Protection Act, 1976, by transferring their family home to the joint names of husband and wife are being penalised by the Revenue Commissioners by the imposition of stamp duty on that portion of the transaction that relates to land; and if he will, if necessary, amend the legislation so that such transactions will be free of stamp duty.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Family Home Protection Act.
7.
May I first of all mention that the issue raised in the question is not confined to cases where the family home is associated with a farm. It also arises in, for example, cases where the family home is part of a business premises. The matter is complicated by the fact that, as I understand, some transfers of ownership of business premises, from one spouse to both spouses jointly, may in practice be made for business reasons unrelated to the objectives of the 1976 Act and in circumstances where there would be little argument for tax relief. I understand that this can be the case even though the premises may include the family home. However, I accept that there is a point to be examined and I am bringing the matter to the notice of the Minister for Finance.
Does the Minister accept that as the Act operates at present it discriminates against the farming community?
I do not, because there are a large number of cases throughout the country where the family home and a business premises are incorporated and are, in fact, under the one roof. I agree with the Deputy that there is a point to be examined but it is a matter for the Minister for Finance and I am asking him to do so.