Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The rationale behind income tax relief for health expenses is broadly intended to provide assistance for significant or exceptional health expenses. Expenses for treatment of a routine nature or minor nature are, therefore, typically excluded. An example of this is that routine dental treatment does not attract the relief, though orthodontic treatment does.

Consistent with this rationale, tax relief in respect of qualifying health expenses is provided for in the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. Routine dental treatment is explicitly excluded under the legislation and is defined as "the extraction, scaling and filling of teeth and the provision and repairing of artificial teeth or dentures". However, an individual can claim tax relief in respect of non-routine dental care provided by a registered practitioner. A comprehensive and non-exhaustive list of relevant procedures is available on the Revenue Commissioners' website. This list includes major interventions such as periodontal treatment for gum disease and orthodontic treatment to provide braces.

The exclusion of expenses incurred in respect of routine dental treatment has been in place since the relief's inception in 1967 and I am satisfied that the legislation, as drafted and implemented, provides sufficient flexibility for expenses that should qualify. There are no plans to change these arrangements at this time. In this regard, I note that tax relief for medical expenses is a commonly availed of relief. The most recent data, from 2018, highlight that 522,800 taxpayer units utilised the relief at an Exchequer cost of €156 million.

If routine dental expenses, such as those associated with dentures, were tax-relieved, it would inevitably lead to calls for other treatments similarly to qualify for relief, which could greatly increase the overall cost of the tax relief. Given the many budgetary challenges we face, I question whether this cost increase would be worth justifying. However, the Deputy will be aware that in recent years, there has been an increase in the level of dental benefits available through the social insurance system administered by the Department of Social Protection. In this regard, it is noted that tax relief is of assistance only to individuals who have sufficient tax liability and therefore direct expenditure may be a more effective way of targeting assistance to those who may need a specific support.

For the reasons outlined, I do not believe a report of the nature described would be beneficial so I do not propose to accept this amendment.