taking the revenue to court

hickory99

Hi all,
Quick question, how would somebody go about challenging the fact that you have to be married to claim your partners tax credits?
If the partner has more made completely dependent on the working member of the house as they are cohabiting but apparently when it's comes to tax it's double standards and not good enough to allow the worker get some relief for supporting him.
I do see it as an injustice and if someone would want to take action on it as they feel discriminated against because they are not married, and the only reason they are not married is because the state will only allow him to get a divorce in august when he is seperated four years.
How do they go about a legal challenge on this?

beeftotheheels

hickory99 wrote: »

Hi all,
Quick question, how would somebody go about challenging the fact that you have to be married to claim your partners tax credits?
If the partner has more made completely dependent on the working member of the house as they are cohabiting but apparently when it's comes to tax it's double standards and not good enough to allow the worker get some relief for supporting him.
I do see it as an injustice and if someone would want to take action on it as they feel discriminated against because they are not married, and the only reason they are not married is because the state will only allow him to get a divorce in august when he is seperated four years.
How do they go about a legal challenge on this?

Well first off you'd need to come up with a basis for challenging it, thinking that it is not fair is not enough. You'd need to come up with a specific law which would prohibit such discrimination.

Since there is nothing to stop you getting married or entering into a civil partnership it would be difficult to see one.

Recently elderly siblings in the UK tried to test UK inheritance rules which allow preferential inheritance tax treatment for spouses. Their case was more sympathetic - they couldn't get married but had always lived together yet they lost the case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/wiltshire/7372555.stm

hickory99

can't marry in this country unless your 4 years seperated so that is stopping us.

My argument is that the state has made him 100% dependent on me by cutting off his jsa because I'm working and we are cohabiting however the revenue won't recognise that we are cohabiting

Procrastastudy

You would probably fall flat on public policy grounds.

Fact is the majority of Irish people support a family based on marriage and the laws surround divorce. I base the term majority on the fact that marriage rates are still very high (yes I can dig the stats out if need be :P) and the fact there is not more movement to get a referendum out there.

Thats not to say there isn't a very vocal minority or indeed maybe its just apathy - either way you wont alter public policy with boards. (The Admins ban you :eek:)

For the record - I'm in favour of the law as it stands in Ireland. Best solution IMHO since divorce came in. Fathers rights are a total mess but there seems to be some movement on this and the rights of the child.

28064212

hickory99 wrote: »

My argument is that the state has made him 100% dependent on me by cutting off his jsa because I'm working and we are cohabiting however the revenue won't recognise that we are cohabiting

What's illegal about this though?

Double standards? Yes. Discriminatory? Yes, probably. Unfair? Definitely. Illegal though, I don't see how. What law is being broken? Or failing that, what article in the constitution is being contravened?

hickory99

In my own opinion, fathers still have no rights here. Maybe in theory but if are still living in a country were a bio dad can't stop his ex taking his children out of the country a week after they tried to kill themselves with prescribed drugs.
The fact of the matter is on fathers rights, no matter what is written on a family law order the mother can do what they want, when they want and never face concequences for their actions. The father on the other hand if the step out of line can be punished to the full extent of the law.
Childrens rights are also ignored, do they not have the "entitled to a full and equal relationship with both parents" as is stated in law.

Anyway kind of off topic. I think it is discrimination in the highest order. I think it does infringe on my rights in that I know have 2 dependents to support.
I'm sure it must infringe on his rights somewhere along the lines as he has paid prsi and income tax in his on right since he was 16.
The issue is he is suppose to be paying maintenance every week out of his social to his ex, which is now falling into arrears and the court date for a variation may be after the court close for the summer because of the backlog so by the time is get into court he could owe 100's in arrears that he wil be liable for and with no income to pay it possibly a custodial sentence. I can't afford to pay if for him, as it stands we are in the minus every month and have no home heating oil (and a 9 month baby and his children that come to stay with us each week) and an esb with 500 arrears. We can't make ends meet without his social and we can't even get access to any of his tax credits because this outdated state won't allow him divorce before 4 years from an ex that use to physical abuse him.

Sorry for the rant guys but I just feel at the end of my tether and feel like someone needs to make a stand against these double standards being inflicted on us. The state made him dependent on me, he has paid them alot of income tax and prsi over the years and that has been disregarded. He does not want to be unemployed. Surely there has to be an avenue to challenge this?

28064212

hickory99 wrote: »

I think it is discrimination in the highest order. I think it does infringe on my rights in that I know have 2 dependents to support.

Discrimination by itself is not illegal. If it was, you couldn't stop under 18s from drinking alcohol. There are specific cases set out in law where discrimination is not legal

hickory99 wrote: »

I'm sure it must infringe on his rights somewhere along the lines as he has paid prsi and income tax in his on right since he was 16.

Which rights?

hickory99 wrote: »

Sorry for the rant guys but I just feel at the end of my tether and feel like someone needs to make a stand against these double standards being inflicted on us. The state made him dependent on me, he has paid them alot of income tax and prsi over the years and that has been disregarded. He does not want to be unemployed. Surely there has to be an avenue to challenge this?

Until you find a law that has been broken, or something that contravenes the constitution, you have no case whatsoever.

Your avenue to "challenge" this is to bring about the political will to change it. Contact your TD, contact other people in similar situations, run for office yourself, start a campaign against it

hickory99

I would love to run but I doubt I'll ever be able to afford to

MagicSean

The government (incorrectly) defend their position by relying on a previous case where it was deemed that a married couple could not be put at a tax disadvantage to an unmarried couple. There is also an assumption that the constitutional "family" refers to a married couple only. You would have to challenge this assumption while at the same time proving that any change would not affect the "sanctity" of the institution of marriage.

In my view there are a few potential strategies to do this. You could argue that the tax benefits for married people makes it so that people can get married for purely financial reasons and this in turn damages the institution of marriage by making it purely a financial arrangement.

You could argue that previous court rulings on the definition of family are no longer valid considering the evolution and make-up of families in ireland today, taking into account the number of single parent families, civil partnerships and unmarried couples, and the current revenue rules put unnecessary strain on these new family types.

You could argue that the extra tax burden placed on you as an unmarried mother forces you to work outside the home and this is contrary to the constitution which recognises a womans contribution to the home and guarantees she should not have to give up homemaking for financial reasons.

You could challenge the civil aprtnership bill as it discriminates against you on the basis of your sexuality.

They're just a few things that come to mind. It's likely any challenge would have to go to an EU level though and would be expensive.

hickory99

Thank you so much sean for that reply, really constructive and something I can take away and work on

MagicSean

hickory99 wrote: »

Thank you so much sean for that reply, really constructive and something I can take away and work on

i have written to TD's before about my own situation. I got this reply from more than one. Seems to be a standard response they have.

The Minister for Finance, Mr. Brian Lenihan, T.D., has asked me to refer to your correspondence regarding the treatment of cohabiting couples under the tax code.



The position is that there are no special income tax reliefs for unmarried couples living together. In this context, tax law follows the general law relating to marriage. The basis for the current taxation of married couples derives from the Supreme Court decision in Murphy v 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. In the case of cohabiting couples each partner is taxed as a single person and each is entitled to the tax credits and standard rate band appropriate to single persons. There are no special tax arrangements for cohabiting couples with dependent children.



I should point out that the Working Group Examining the Treatment of Married, Cohabiting and One-Parent Families under the Tax and Social Welfare Codes, which reported in August 1999, was sympathetic, in principle, to changes in the tax legislation to address the issues raised relating to cohabiting couples and reported that the options that it set out should be considered further. However, it acknowledged in relation to the tax treatment of cohabiting couples that a key issue is whether tax law should proceed ahead of changes in the general law.



In addition, over the last three years or so, a number of reports have been finalised which will help to inform deliberations in this area. These include the Tenth Progress Report of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution entitled ‘The Family’, the Report of the Working Group on Domestic Partnership, and the Report of the Law Reform Commission on the rights and duties of cohabitants.



To the extent that there are differences in the tax treatment of the different categories of couples, such differences arise from the objective of dealing with different types of circumstances while at the same time respecting the constitutional requirements to protect the institution of marriage. Any change in the tax treatment of cohabiting couples would need to be addressed in the broader context of future social and legal policy development in relation to such couples.



I am sorry the news is not better on this occasion.

The funny thing is that they have no problem treating unmarried couples as one when it comes to determining social welfare payments.

hickory99

"The funny thing is that they have no problem treating unmarried couples as one when it comes to determining social welfare payments. "

This is exactly the grounds on which I want to argue it, common sense should of privaled when this laws are written

Procrastastudy

I realise trying to debate you MagicSean is probably not a good idea but here goes anyway;

The married couples provision is there to support families having children - an incentive if you will. The Social Welfare system is there to support people who do not have the means to support themselves. This isn't a situation where one person is paying more tax like Daly v Revenue Commissioners its the distribution of wealth (though tax relief) that the courts have is the purview of the government not withstanding the constitutional article.

If the challenge was successful then surely single people without children would be able to challenge the fact that they are discriminated against unfairly?

I realise most of that is half baked and will be easily ripped to shreds but I thought I'd have a go and maybe learn something.

BTW What grounds spring to mind for challenging the separation period here? Has anyone tried? I know that the ECHR seem to be very wary of going near what member states deem families even if they have rules against Ireland on a number of occasions.

28064212

hickory99 wrote: »

"The funny thing is that they have no problem treating unmarried couples as one when it comes to determining social welfare payments. "

This is exactly the grounds on which I want to argue it, common sense should of privaled when this laws are written

Common sense is not part of the legal system (fortunately, given the widely differing views of what it entails). There is nothing in the law that says taxation must be assessed on the same grounds as welfare benefits

Statistician

28064212 wrote: »

Discrimination by itself is not illegal. If it was, you couldn't stop under 18s from drinking alcohol. There are specific cases set out in law where discrimination is not legal

V. Interesting. I hadn't thought of that - thanks.

The government (incorrectly) defend their position by relying on a previous case where it was deemed that a married couple could not be put at a tax disadvantage to an unmarried couple. There is also an assumption that the constitutional "family" refers to a married couple only. You would have to challenge this assumption while at the same time proving that any change would not affect the "sanctity" of the institution of marriage.

The spouse of a proprietary director who is also working in the same company will lose their PAYE tax credit. This, too, is discrimination based on marital status (or even worse, who you are married to)

This for certain is putting a married couple at a tax disadvantage compared to an unmarried couple.

Tom Young

Zappone v Gilligan per Dunne J.

krd

hickory99 wrote: »

My argument is that the state has made him 100% dependent on me by cutting off his jsa because I'm working and we are cohabiting however the revenue won't recognise that we are cohabiting

No, no, no,....no..no...no....

I'm afraid you do not understand.

The revenue does recognise you're cohabiting. They do indeed. They recognise you are living in sin, and must be punished.

It's a funny situation, isn't it.

Milk & Honey

hickory99 wrote: »

Hi all,
Quick question, how would somebody go about challenging the fact that you have to be married to claim your partners tax credits?

Quick answer. Issue a High Court plenary Summons against the Revenue Commissioner, Ireland and the Attorney general.