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

Question 241: To ask the Minister for Finance if it is intended that locums working as substitutes in general practitioner practices are in future to be taxed under PAYE rather than as sole traders; the expected revenue from such a move; the estimated compliance cost; if an impact assessment is being undertaken; if it will apply only to contracts that involve whole-time posts; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3624/10]

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

I am informed by the Revenue Commissioners that there has been no change in their practice in relation to determining the tax status (i.e. employed vs. self-employed) of locums working as substitutes in general practitioner practices. The position is that, notwithstanding that an individual may, in relation to an engagement, be described, correctly or otherwise, as a 'locum', Revenue's approach is to examine all of the facts and circumstances of each case having regard to the Code of Practice for Determining Employment or Self-employment Status of Individuals and having regard to relevant case law on the subject of contract of service (employed) and contract for service (self-employed).

In relation to medical doctors working as substitutes in GP practices, a recent Appeal Commissioners decision that certain locum doctors were found to be employees attracted some media attention and generated an increased number of queries to Revenue offices. As a result of this, Revenue gave renewed publicity to their long held position on the tax treatment of locums engaged in the fields of medicine, health care and pharmacy, which is now set out in Issue 82 of Revenue's publication Tax Briefing, dated 16 December 2009 – available on www.revenue.ie.

The fact that an individual is engaged on a whole-time basis or otherwise will generally not be the determining factor in coming to a decision as to the status of that individual. 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, may be self-employed. The fact that an individual may not have continual work or may not have a whole-time post does not, of itself, make such individual a self-employed contractor.

Revenue is not in a position to predict the amount of increased revenue (tax, PRSI, etc.) that may arise from the identification of cases of misclassification (self-employed instead of employee) of locums in medical practice. However, Revenue will continue, in conjunction with the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the National Employment Rights Authority (where appropriate), to focus on tax risks in this area of misclassification – across a multiplicity of sectors – for the foreseeable future. An "impact assessment", in relation to the compliance costs involved as a result of this ongoing work by Revenue to ensure proper classification, has not been carried out.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 242: To ask the Minister for Finance if, in view of the limited dental cover remaining under the dental treatment benefit scheme in 2010, more routine dental expenses will be allowed for tax relief. [3654/10]

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

As you are aware, expenses incurred in respect of routine dental treatment are excluded for the purpose of health expenses relief; this has always been the case since the inception of the relief in 1967. Routine dental treatment for the purposes of the relief is scaling, extraction and filling of teeth and the provision and repair of artificial teeth and dentures.

With regard to the question of extending health expenses relief to cover routine dental treatment, the position is that tax relief provisions are reviewed regularly, particularly as part of the annual Budget and Finance Bill process.