Vol. 440 No. 8
47 Mrs. T. Ahearn asked the Minister for Finance the reason a person (details supplied) in County Tipperary is considered to be cohabiting for social welfare purposes but to be a single man for income purposes; his views on the anomaly; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The treatment of cohabiting couples under Social Welfare provisions arises out of the 1989 Supreme Court decision in the Hyland case. This decision found that the Social Welfare provisions in question in that case were unconstitutional in that they treated a married couple living together less favourably than an unmarried cohabiting couple. The Social Welfare provisions now in operation explicitly give cohabiting couples the same treatment as married couples in determining the level of entitlement to benefits. The effect of the provisions, therefore, is to preclude cohabiting couples from receiving better treatment than married couples.
The treatment of cohabiting couples for income tax purposes now in operation arose out of the Supreme Court decision in Murphy v. Attorney General (1980) in which it was held that a situation in which a married couple might pay more tax than two single persons living together would be repugnant to the Constitution. Thus a married couple is entitled to double tax free allowances and bands whereas a cohabiting couple are each entitled only to the single person's allowances and bands. The Deputy will appreciate that the tax law should, in principle, follow and reflect the general law relating to marriage.
