Vol. 447 No. 1
94 Mr. H. Byrne asked the Minister for Finance if his Department has available an explanatory leaflet or document to assist persons wishing to avail of section 19 of the Finance Act, 1982; the way in which his Department ordinarily dispenses information to the owners of listed houses wishing to avail of the scheme; the plans, if any, there are to change or improve the flow of information in such cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3135/94]
I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that they have available an explanatory leaflet to assist individuals wishing to avail of relief under section 19 of the Finance Act, 1982. This leaflet is currently being revised to take account of recent changes and the updated version will be available shortly.
An information service is also available to any individual who writes, calls or phones the direct taxes administration branch of the Revenue Commissioners at Dublin Castle. Information is also available from local tax offices. In addition, the Commissioners have compiled a database of approved buildings under section 19 and this database is used for ongoing communication with the owner/occupiers of the approved buildings. Details of the recent changes will be notified to these owner/occupiers shortly.
The Commissioners are satisfied that details regarding section 19 relief are well publicised at present and that there is no need to improve the flow of information.
95 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Finance the reason co-habiting couples do not enjoy the same tax allowance as that of married couples; if he will reply to a letter (details supplied) dated 22 September 1994, regarding this matter; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3164/94]
The treatment of cohabiting couples under social welfare provisions arises out of the 1989 Supreme Court decision in the Hyland case. This 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.
In relation to the tax position, there are no special income tax allowances for unmarried couples living together. In this context, it should be pointed out that tax law follows the general law relating to marriage. The basis on which the married person's tax free allowance (and double rate bands) is given derives from the Supreme Court decision in Murphy vs the Attorney General (1980) which held that it was contrary to the Constitution for a married couple to pay more tax than two single people living together.
I am conscious of the difficulties which can arise for cohabiting couples in certain circumstances because of the way they are treated by the two systems, in particular those who are not in a position to enter into legal marriages within the State. In this regard, I should add that an expert group on the integration of the tax and social welfare systems has been established by my colleague, Deputy Burton, Minister of State at the Department of Social Welfare. This group will, inter alia, be looking at the position in which cohabiting couples find themselves.
Furthermore, the Government is committed to holding a referendum on divorce. In these circumstances, it is difficult to foresee changes in tax law in this area, pending the outcome of the referendum. In relation to the letter mentioned in the question I am pleased to advise the Deputy that a reply issued on 10 November 1994.
96 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Minister for Finance the proposals, if any, he has to introduce a tax relief scheme for the preservation of traditional thatched cottages. [3221/94]
As the policy of the Government is to widen the tax base in order to continue the reforms made in the tax code in recent years the introduction of any new relief, except in exceptional circumstances where it would lead to the creation of sustainable employment, would be inconsistent with that policy.
I should point out that while there are no special reliefs in the income tax code specifically for the preservation of thatched cottages, section 19 of the Finance Act, 1982 does provide for tax relief for expenditure incurred on the repair, maintenance or restoration of a significant building, which might include a thatched cottage, approved under that section.
In addition, a grant scheme is administered by the Department of the Environment in respect of necessary works of renewing or repairing the thatched roofs of houses. Further, the National Heritage Council may be prepared to make a supplementary contribution towards the costs of thatching or rethatching a house or groups of houses regarded by the council as having exceptional significance.
97 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Finance whether he has examined the additional costs in many areas of their life faced by persons with a disability; and if he will introduce some form of allowance in the tax code to take account of this. [3238/94]
It would seem that the primary additional expenses arising for disabled persons, particularly those in employment to whom a tax allowance would be of most relevance, would be related to mobility and medical needs. In this regard, the tax system already provides significant assistance. Disabled drivers and passengers with severe mobility problems may, subject to certain conditions, avail of a scheme whereby VAT and VRT are not chargeable on the purchase of a vehicle which is specially constructed or adapted to take account of their disability. The scheme also provides for an exemption from road tax and a relief from excise duty on fuel.
As regards medical expenses, income tax relief is available in respect of medical insurance premiums and an allowance is available in respect of non-reim-bursable medical expenses in excess of £100 single-£200 married incurred in a tax year. In addition, there are income tax reliefs in the tax code for incapacitated children and for the employment of a housekeeper to take care of an incapacitated taxpayer or spouse.
These, of course, are only some of the wide range of State supports and services in place for the assistance of disabled persons generally. However, I do not consider the tax system to be an appropriate vehicle for making additional provisions. I believe that the legitimate needs of disabled persons can best be dealt with through the direct expenditure system where such needs can be more accurately assessed by trained professionals and addressed wherever appropriate.
I might add that tax policy in recent years has been to broaden or, at a minimum, maintain the tax base and to apply any available funds for the reduction of tax rates and the extension of the standard rate band.
