Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

632. To ask the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 583 of 29 April 2025, which specific case law he is referring to. [41086/25]

Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

633. To ask the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 583 of 29 April 2025, which specific case law he is referring to. [41087/25]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

666. To ask the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 583 of 29 April 2025, to specify the caselaw pre-dating the Karshan ruling upon which the taxation of sub-postmasters as self-employed was based, and to confirm that this basis cannot now be applied in light of the Karshan ruling. [41820/25]

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

667. To ask the Minister for Finance further to Parliamentary Question No. 583 of 29 April 2025, to specify the caselaw pre-dating the Karshan ruling upon which the taxation of sub-postmasters as self-employed was based; and to confirm that this basis cannot now be applied in light of the Karshan ruling. [41821/25]

Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose to take Questions Nos. 632, 633, 666 and 667 together.

I propose to take questions 41086, 41087, 41820 and 41821 together.

I am advised that, in relation to the Karshan ruling consideration was given to relevant case law, such as Tierney v An Post (1999) IESC 66. At the time, this ruling concluded that the contract under dispute was a ‘contract for services’ (self-employed) rather than a ‘contract of services’ (employment).

Revenue’s TDM 04-01-19 “Sub-Postmasters & Social Welfare Branch Managers – Taxation and PRSI” was prepared in the context of such case law.

The Karshan ruling provided a detailed analysis of all relevant previous case law and provides clarity about how this is now to be interpreted, specifically by the application of the five-step framework. As such, Revenue’s guidance has recently been updated to confirm that the tax treatment of these individuals must now be determined in line with the five-step framework as set out in the Karshan case. This TDM is available at .