Seán Ryan (Dublin North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 170: To ask the Minister for Finance if he will respond favourably to the request from the Dyslexia Association of Ireland for an amendment to legislation governing form Med 1health expenses claim for relief Section 469 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, to allow cost of specific tuition for dyslexia to qualify for tax relief under the heading of health expenses where dyslexia has been diagnosed by a psychologist. [33067/06]

Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 205: To ask the Minister for Finance the plans he has to make the necessary legislative changes to Section 469 of the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997 in order that tax refunds for workshop tuition for children (details supplied) are a formal entitlement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33352/06]

Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 206: To ask the Minister for Finance if he will arrange to extend the provisions of tax relief which now cover psychological assessment and speech therapy, to also include the provision of home tuition for children with special needs where this is certified as necessary by a psychological assessment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33353/06]

Tony Gregory (Dublin Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 208: To ask the Minister for Finance his views on the case made in correspondence (details supplied); if he will take the necessary steps to allow the cost of tuition for dyslexia to qualify for tax relief in certain specific circumstances; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33454/06]

Joe Higgins (Dublin West, Socialist Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 209: To ask the Minister for Finance if he will amend Section 469 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 in order to allow the cost of specific tuition for children with dyslexia to qualify for tax relief under the heading of health expenses.. [33589/06]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 170, 205, 206, 208 and 209 together.

The position is that expenses in respect of tuition for children with dyslexia do not qualify for health expenses tax relief and have never qualified for the relief since it was first introduced in 1967.

I understand from the Revenue Commissioners, who deal with such claims, that individuals may have been under the impression that tuition for children with dyslexia was allowable under the heading of health expenses relief. I also understand that the Revenue Commissioners have written to the Dyslexia Association to clarify the matter.

In recent years, the Government has increased significantly the supports available through the direct expenditure system for children with disabilities, including those with dyslexia.

As with many areas where State support may be required, the question arises as to whether such support may be more effectively provided through the direct expenditure route rather than through the tax system. One advantage of the former mechanism is that the support may be better targeted at those in need, irrespective of family income, whereas support through the tax system can only benefit those whose incomes are high enough to benefit from tax relief.

I have no plans to extend Section 469 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 to cover expenses incurred by parents who have children with dyslexia. However, this matter, like any other, can be raised by the Deputies at Finance Bill time.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 172: To ask the Minister for Finance his views on the tax implications of the sugar compensation package for farmers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33068/06]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are three significant financial elements of the sugar compensation package, as far as farmers, as sugar beet growers, are concerned. The first is an amount of €123 million, payable over the next seven years via the single payment scheme, as compensation for the drop in the support price of beet. The second element of the compensation package is the restructuring aid. In July 2006 the Government decided that a sum of €40m restructuring aid be reserved for beet growers. This decision has been challenged by the Irish sugar processor by way of Judicial Review proceedings in the High Court. The third element is the diversification aid worth almost €44m, which will be drawn down in the framework of a National Restructuring Programme to be prepared and submitted to the EU Commission by the end of this year.

I am advised by the Revenue Commissioners that based on the information available to them at this stage they are of the view that payments under the first two elements of the package in relation to the support price compensation and the restructuring aid to growers would be taxable as income. However, I am further advised that the Revenue Commissioners will need to await details of the National Restructuring Programme, currently being prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Food, before they can come to a view with regard to the tax implications of payments under the third element of the package. That programme will provide further details on the diversification aid element of the package.