asked the Minister for Finance if it is his intention to amend section 192 of the 1967 Income Tax Act so that a wife's income will not be deemed to be that of her husband for income tax purposes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
6.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Married Persons' Taxation.
5.
asked the Minister for Finance if the tax status of married women is under review at present; and if the taxation of married persons will in future be based on separate assessment, rather than on the aggregate income, as at present.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
The general position regarding the taxation of married persons is under examination but it is not possible to say at this stage what particular changes will be made.
As regards section 192, it must be remembered of course that another income tax provision, which is contained in section 197, allows either spouse to elect to be assessed to income tax separately, the total tax liability of the couple remaining unchanged.
Apart from the cosmetics of the decision to permit separate assessment, is the Minister aware of the deep sense of grievance on the part of married women working outside the home who see themselves being regarded as second-class citizens in terms of taxation? As we proceed towards another budget can the Minister say whether he proposes to alter radically his position as stated previously on this matter?
I am aware of having made special arrangements to have notices issued to all married women known to the Revenue Commissioners—women who had incomes—drawing the attention of these women to the fact that by completing the simple form that was enclosed they would be assessed separately with all the consequences that would flow from that, including being dealt with directly in relation to their own tax and any queries arising and also receiving directly any refund that might arise. However, less than 10 per cent of the people concerned sought separate assessment.
Would the Minister accept the possibility that the small number who applied for this change was due to there not being any fundamental alteration, that there is this lumping together of the incomes of both husband and wife and that the only answer apparently to the question of the grievance of those women is the recognition that husband and wife are separate earners for PAYE purposes? The present taxation system appears to reflect an outmoded view that a woman's place is in the home only.
The Deputy is making a long statement.
The case is made that to include the income of a married woman with that of her husband for the purpose of taxation and to attach the liability to him is to degrade in some way the role of women. Anybody, particularly any married woman, who is of that opinion, is entitled to make a claim for separate assessment but as I have indicated less than 10 per cent of those concerned opted for this method. I suggest that the question of whether they should pay less tax than a married couple would pay where there is only one income is a separate matter. The figures I have given in relation to the returns indicate, I think, the view of the great majority of working married women in regard to the first issue raised.
Is the Minister reviewing the entire situation?
I have indicated that the general position in regard to taxation, particularly in the area raised by the Deputy, is being reviewed and will continue to be reviewed.
Has the Minister any idea of the number of applications for separate assessment that were submitted after 1 July 1978? The Minister must know that all such applications were rejected. Is it not the position that many married women who were anxious to avail of this method of assessment lost the opportunity of doing so by reason of the closing date which I understand was adhered to rigidly?
Offhand I do not have information on the number of applications received after the closing date but if the Deputy tables a question to that effect I shall ascertain the information for him. However, I doubt seriously that the number was substantial.
Apart from those whose applications were rejected because of the closing date, many neglected to apply because they thought their case would be futile after they had heard their friends and neighbours say that there was no point in applying after the closing date.
They got the notice considerably earlier than the closing date.