The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service has published its interim report on unclaimed tax reliefs.

Much of it is not very new, as the report essentially reflects the minutes of the recent committee meetings, supported by the transcripts of submissions from the Irish Taxation Institute, the Consumers Association and Revenue. Nevertheless the committee finds itself in a position to make several recommendations.

Firstly, it wants the Minister for Finance to commission a full independent assessment of the amount of unclaimed tax relief and allowances by individual taxpayers. This could present real practical difficulties. It is hard to envisage how what is unclaimed might be assessed without actually assessing the claims?

The Committee recommends that the 4 year rule which prevents taxpayers claiming tax rebates outside of this period be abolished. Yes, but the flip side of this rule is that Revenue cannot make routine enquiries outside this time period also, and this is a valuable protection. There must be some point at which a file can be closed. Four years (in practice it's five) is not unreasonable – it used to be six. The protection for the taxpayer would have to be preserved.

The Revenue Commissioners should be obliged to introduce ‘Tax Relief at Source’ in all areas where practical and appropriate says the committee. Tax relief at source certainly has a role – it works very well for Mortgage Interest for example, but it comes at the cost of devolving control of the tax system from Revenue to the private sector, thereby increasing the risk to the Exchequer and increasing the compliance burden on business. This point might need to be debated more.

As we work through the report, the recommendations include, as a primary task for the Revenue Commissioners, the elimination of the public's fear of officialdom. That could do wonders for the Revenue Audit yield.

The substantive issue addressed by the report, unclaimed tax reliefs, often relate to expenditure by the taxpayer, usually on a health care matter. Government seeks to help taxpayers in these circumstances, but it seems the committee has not addressed whether reliefs under the tax system which the taxpayer must claim is the best way to achieve this. The bottom line is that no one brings their sick child to a doctor for tax planning purposes. People with disabled children or relatives in care have priorities other than filling out tax forms. Options such as the operation of reliefs at source, or their replacement with direct subventions, need to be explored more.

The report might have benefited greatly from a consideration of other ways to help people with these kinds of bill, as they incur them, irrespective of their tax position. The focus should perhaps be on substance, over forms.