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

Question 149: To ask the Minister for Finance the cost of extending mortgage interest relief for first-time buyers to eight and nine years respectively; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42090/09]

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

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that sufficient data on mortgage interest relief is not available to enable a precise estimate to be provided. However, based on projected 2009 claims and making certain assumptions about the levels of mortgage interest payments appropriate to first-time buyers in year seven of their mortgages, the full year costs are estimated to be of the order of €12.5m for extending the relief by one year and €25m for extending it by two years.

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

Question 150: To ask the Minister for Finance the money that would be saved by the abolition of mortgage interest relief for principal primary residences purchased in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42091/09]

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

The position is that the yield from the abolition of mortgage interest relief for residences purchased in 2010 would be dependant on a number of inter-related factors such as the level of house purchasing, house prices, availability of credit and prevailing interest rates in 2010. In the current circumstances, it is not possible to predict these factors accurately enough to provide a reliable potential yield figure.

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

Question 151: To ask the Minister for Finance the recent changes in the tax treatment of locum or sessional work pharmacists, doctors and veterinarians particularly regarding their self-employed as opposed to PAYE treatment; the reason for these changes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42102/09]

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

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that there are no recent changes of the kind mentioned by the Deputy but that cases come to their attention from time to time where individuals have been incorrectly classified, either by the individuals or by the person engaging those individuals, as self-employed in relation to particular engagements. If, on an examination of the facts and circumstances of any particular engagement, the Revenue Commissioners find that individuals are, in their opinion, employees rather than self-employed contractors, they will notify the person engaging those individuals to register for, and operate, the PAYE system on payments made to those individuals. Where there is a disagreement with the Revenue Commissioners on employment status, the matter can be appealed to the Appeal Commissioners and the courts.

The question of whether an individual pharmacist, doctor or veterinarian is engaged under either a contract of service (i.e. an employee) or a contract for service (i.e. self-employed) is a question of fact and of general law. Regardless of how the parties to an engagement may describe the relationship, all the relevant factors, including written, oral and implied details, that bear on that relationship are examined, given their proper weight and a decision made on their overall effect. Depending on the facts and circumstances of a case, an individual may be a full time employee, a part-time employee, a temporary employee, a casual employee or, indeed, genuinely self-employed. The fact that individuals may not have continual work does not, of itself, make such individuals self-employed contractors.

To provide some clarity as to whether an individual is employed or self-employed, the Employment Status Group (set up under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness) published a Code of Practice for determining Employment or Self-employment status of Individuals, known as 'the Code'. Furthermore, under Towards 2016 - The Ten Year Framework Social Partnership Agreement, a commitment was given to the Social Partners that the regulatory bodies i.e. the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social & Family Affairs and the National Employment Rights Authority (NERA), would be active in the area of correctly establishing the status - employed or self-employed - of individuals. Arising from this, the Code was updated with the assistance of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation, the Construction Industry Federation, the Small Firms Association, ICTU and the regulatory bodes mentioned above. As stated in the Code, "its purpose is to eliminate misconceptions and to provide clarity. It is not meant to bring individuals who are genuinely self-employed into employment status".

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 152: To ask the Minister for Finance, in circumstances when a child has been diagnosed with dyslexia by a psychologist from the Department of Education and Science with a reading ability of 4% and IQ of 85%, whereby in these circumstances the parents have been advised to look at private tuition and typing courses for dyslexic children, which costs approximately €260 per month and where they have to purchase a laptop with special software and where they also pay €750 for a special course to help the child, if they would be entitled to tax relief for this expenditure; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [42109/09]

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

The position is that there is no provision in tax law to allow relief for expenses relating specifically to the education or instruction of children with dyslexia. Nor would income tax relief be available for the purchase of a laptop and software, as these items are not medical, surgical, dental, or nursing appliances. Full details of the types of expenditure which qualify for relief under the heading of health expenses relief are available on the Revenue website at: http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it6.html

I should point out that 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.