James Reilly (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

People may be alluding to something that has nothing to do with the HSE. Can I correct any misapprehension? People who are hired by the Department to be advisers to the special delivery unit are not my advisers.

The amendment, as worded, seems to suggest that all officers and employers engaged by the HSE must be tax resident in the State before they are engaged by the HSE. If that is the case then the proposal would fall foul of EU anti-discriminatory legislation.

If the concern here is that the income arising to individuals engaged by the HSE who are not resident in the State would fall out of charge to tax in the State, the following is the likely tax treatment of such income. Notwithstanding any other provision of the tax Acts, the income would be chargeable to tax by virtue of section 19 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 as an "annuity, pension or stipend payable out of public revenue of the State." This charge is unfettered by considerations of residence of the individual or where the duties are performed.

Where the individual is tax resident in a country with which this State has a tax treaty, the income will generally remain taxable in the state where the duties are performed. I can only assume that in the vast majority of cases the HSE employees will perform their duties in this State.

Where the individual is tax resident in a country with which this State does not have a tax treaty, the income will be taxable in this State. Some individuals employed by the HSE may have non-HSE income. The taxation of such income is provided for in the Taxes Consolidation Act. Therefore, I do not accept the amendment.