Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 118: To ask the Minister for Finance the process that applies for cars without VRT that are seized by customs; the location at which these vehicles are stored; if they are used while they are in storage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22681/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that vehicles that are seized by Revenue Officers on the grounds of evasion of VRT are dealt with in the following manner.

Where the seized vehicle meets the conditions governing local release that have been set down by the Commissioners, the seizing officer will calculate the VRT and the penalty due and will notify the person concerned accordingly. The vehicle is released once the penalty and the VRT due have been paid. In certain circumstances the owner may be allowed a short period of time to register and pay the VRT due. In other circumstances, the details of the case are reported to the Revenue VRT Prosecution Unit, which considers an appropriate course of action, including whether the vehicle should be retained as a seizure and/or whether proceedings should be instituted.

Where the seized vehicle is likely to be held by Revenue for a short period of time pending its release, it is normally kept in short term official storage facilities that are located in various parts of the country where local enforcement units are based. Most vehicles that are not to be released in the short term, are removed for storage at the State Warehouse in Dublin pending the final outcome of the case. Such vehicles are normally driven from the local station to the State Warehouse and are not used otherwise.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 119: To ask the Minister for Finance the reason cohabiting couples are not treated as married couples for taxation purposes, but are treated as married couples for social welfare purposes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22682/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cohabitating couples are expressly recognised for the purpose of social welfare law but are not recognised for the purposes of income tax law. Although this may appear contradictory, the main aim of both the welfare code and the tax code is to uphold the constitutional right of married couples not to be treated less favourably than unmarried couples. The basis for the current tax treatment of married couples 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 and having the same income.

The treatment of cohabiting couples for the purposes of social welfare is primarily a matter for the Minister for Social Community and Family Affairs. However, it is also based on the principle that married couples should not be treated less favourably than cohabiting couples. This was given a constitutional underpinning following the Supreme Court decision in Hyland v Minister for Social Welfare (1989) which ruled that it was unconstitutional for the total income a married couple received in social welfare benefits to be less than the couple would have received if they were unmarried and cohabiting.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 120: To ask the Minister for Finance if there is tax relief available to persons who have children with special needs (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22688/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no provision in tax law to allow relief for expenses relating specifically to dyslexia treatment or instruction. However, in recent years the Government has increased significantly the supports available through the direct expenditure system for children with disabilities. In 2005, approval was given for the Department of Education and Science to move from individual allocation of resource teaching support for children with special needs, on foot of a psychological assessment, to an approach whereby all mainstream primary schools are allocated resources based on their enrolment without the need for individual psychological assessments for the high incidence categories of need, such as dyslexia and mild general learning disability. In all, it is projected that, of the total budget of the Department of Education and Science of almost €9.5 billion, over €1 billion is allocated across services for special needs.

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.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 121: To ask the Minister for Finance his views on abolishing the 2% betting levy and replacing it with a profit based tax on bookmakers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22738/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

During the Finance Bill, I indicated that discussions would commence as to how best betting duty might be applied in the future, in the context of the 2010 Budget including looking at the UK's gross profit tax model. A number of different proposals in that regard have been received from various sectors of the industry. I also indicated that it is my intention to widen if possible the tax base on which betting duty would be applied. My officials are continuing to explore all options on an ongoing basis.

Question No. 122 answered with Question No. 88.