Why can you not claim tax back for routine dental work?

eoghanm

Anyone know the rationale behind not allowing fillings, extractions etc. to be claimed back on tax? (I was just reading the Revenue page on dental expenses.)

It looks like I'm going to need some expensive work done in the near future. I've paid a mind-boggling amount of tax this year and it seems a bit strange that Revenue won't let me claim even a little bit back for an essential medical procedure.

I think most people would think it's fair that you get tax back on, for example, a GP visit. And fairness aside, healthy people generally live longer and work more and pay more tax in the future, so it's really a win-win. So what is the reason for singling out "routine" dental treatment as something separate?

Maybe there's some obvious reason I've missed here...

relax carry on

No idea of the rationale but section 469 of the TCA 1997 is where it's excluded. As it's legislation, you would want to query a politician for an answer as to why the exclusion exists. It may be that back in the day PRSI contributions covered routine work and therefore were excluded from tax relief. That's a guess.



Section 469 TCA 1997 specifically excludes relief for expenditure incurred on the extraction, scaling and filling of teeth and the provision and repairing of artificial teeth or dentures. These items are excluded from relief even if there is an
underlying medical condition that gives rise to the dental treatment or if the treatment in a particular case is considered to be of a non-routine nature.

A treatment for which relief is claimed must be considered in the light of the above exclusion (i.e. relief for the cost of any work carried out may not be allowed where the treatment is the extraction, scaling or filling of teeth, etc.)\0

eoghanm

Oh thanks, good info there! And that's an interesting point about the PRSI... so maybe the exclusion is just a historical oddity rather than a rational thing.

Guess I'll be writing to my TD...

wiggle16

The reason is, as previously mentioned, partially because of the historical cover by PRSI and because of the universality of routine dental work (your teeth are not designed to last 35/40+ years and our lifespans now far exceed the working life nature had in mind for our teeth) and the expense which would be involved in refunding tax to that degree for something so common, and which is commonly preventable.

Most credits have some hidden benefit to the state behind them, even if it is in a very round about way: in order to claim the home renovation incentive you have to be LPT compliant and the contractor has to be tax compliant too, thereby encouraging people to use legitimate contractors and to bring illegitimate contractors into the tax net, for example. Nursing home fees are given at the marginal rate of 40% and can be claimed back in real time rather than at the end of the year, which [theoretically] alleviates some of the burden of getting private nursing home care and reduces reliance on the state and state-run homes; effectively the state is paying you back some tax to keep your elderly relative elsewhere.

I needed eight fillings put in over the course of a couple of months - if I'd taken better care of my teeth I would not have had to and would have a fatter wallet, so it could be weakly argued that the incentive involved in not refunding routine dental work is to encourage people to take better care of their teeth... but I would say it's just the expense involved in refunding that amount of tax.

As an aside, everyone pays tax at the rate appropriate to their income level in the same way... so there's no such thing as paying a mind boggling amount of tax. You pay tax at 20% and then at 40% just like everyone else.... and to be fair, if you paid a mind boggling amount of tax then by that logic you would need a mind boggling income.

Mrs OBumble

wiggle16 wrote: »

Most credits have some hidden benefit to the state behind them, even if it is in a very ..... You pay tax at 20% and then at 40% just like everyone else.... and to be fair, if you paid a mind boggling amount of tax then by that logic you would need a mind boggling income.

What is the hidden benefit on the tax credit for routine medical treatment, or physiotherapy? It's crazy that there's a relief for treating some parts of your body but not for others.

Also, it's not 40%. It's 50% (plus a small bit) for everything over 35k. That's mind boggling when you compare 35k to the average income.

wiggle16

I said most credits, not all. Some, such as the incapacitated child credit and health expenses, are largely purely altruistic. Medical insurance relief encourages people to insure themselves, reducing reliance on the state.

It's not crazy. Your teeth are not excluded from tax relief - routine treatments for them are, and you already get a check up once you pay enough PRSI. There are very few things specifically excluded from health expenses claims, notably *elective* cosmetic treatment and complementary/alternative medicine without referral by a GP.

It's 40% for the purposes of this argument - USC and PRSI are not refundable and there are no credits applied to them.
And for the purposes of this argument, it's not mind-boggling. The OP said that he/she has paid a mind-boggling amount of tax - the implicit premise is that most people do not pay a mind-boggling amount of tax and that the OP's liability is in some way exceptional. It isn't. It can't be. Everyone pays at the same rate, be it 52% or 40% or 20%, according to their income.

I happen to agree that the 52% effective rate of tax is extortionate considering that you start to pay at the higher rate before you're even on a decent wage, but for the OP to say that he/she is paying a mind-boggling amount isn't true since they are paying the same as everyone else - I say this as someone who has never earned enough to be taxed at 40%. I'm on a low wage and could ill afford to get my fillings, and just like the OP, could not claim tax relief on them. With respect, if you pay "mind-boggling" tax then you must have a "mind-boggling" income and then to complain that you cannot claim for routine dental expenses leaves a bad taste in the mouth, pardon the pun.

Calahonda52

wiggle16 wrote: »

...
.. With respect, if you pay "mind-boggling" tax then you must have a "mind-boggling" income and then to complain that you cannot claim for routine dental expenses leaves a bad taste in the mouth, pardon the pun.

Well said.:)

eoghanm

I've paid an amount of tax this year that I find mind-boggling. It's kind of funny if someone is actually taking issue with that statement