Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
LAST UPDATE | 5 Jan 2022
THE TAOISEACH HAS said there will be no change this week to rules for vaccinated close contacts but that the matter is to be discussed by NPHET when it meets tomorrow.
Tánaiste Leo Varadkar said yesterday he would favour people who have received a booster being exempted from the self-isolation rules, while Transport Minister Eamon Ryan also saying today that it “makes sense” to have different self-isolation rules depending on someone’s vaccination status.
The requirement of people to restrict movements is believed to be putting increasing pressure on different parts of the economy due to people being unavailable for work.
At present, close contacts who have received a booster are required to restrict movements for five days and undertake three antigen tests over several days.
Speaking after a Cabinet meeting today, Taoiseach Michéal Martin warned that making a change “too quickly” risked “accelerating even further the exponential growth of the virus”.
He said that certain sectors can apply for a derogation allowing them to be exempted from self-isolation rules. For example, healthcare workers are not required to self-isolate as a close contact if they test negative for Covid-19.
Education Minister Norma Foley said today she said she would not be seeking a similar derogation for teachers.
Martin said the five-day isolation advice was in line with other countries.
“First and foremost it’s public health advice and we’re not out of step internationally on this,” he said.
And also out of that the government created the senior officials group prior to Christmas, empowering secretary generals (of departments) to work with different sectors of the economy to give derogations if derogations were requested and deemed necessary.
“We are always aware of challenges in certain parts of the economy. The button hasn’t been pressed in some areas in terms of derogations. That’s a matter that will be kept under constant review, this process of derogations.
“The public health advice will be kept under review by NPHET and the Chief Medical Officer they are aware, they’re very conscious of the impact of all of this on society but the key call here of course is not to do something too quickly that could accelerate even further the exponential growth of the virus.”
Martin said that the country was dealing with “a very rapid-spreading, highly transmissible variant” that needed to be managed.
Yesterday, an additional 21,302 new cases of Covid-19 were confirmed. As of yesterday, 884 people were in hospital with the virus, up 80, with 90 in ICU, down 3.
Hospital data shows that the bulk of Ireland’s sickest Covid-19 patients have the Delta variant and not the highly contagious Omicron strain.
The Taoiseach said that hospitals are “under pressure” with staff absences which is causing concerns.
He added that the severity of the Omicron variant must be monitored over the course of the next 10 days, with “the bulk of ICU” cases still made up of people who had been infected with the Delta variant.
Martin said that that clinicians within the HSE have said that Omicron “is different” but that “it’s too early to be definitive about the connection between Omicron and admissions to ICU”.
He added: “There will be challenging number of weeks in January, the next week or 10 days will give us more evidence in terms of the impact of this variant on severity of illness and that will inform decisions, public health advice will be given giving in respect to a broad range of issues, not least the issue of close contacts.”
Antiviral drugs
Health Minister Stephen Donnelly also confirmed today that Ireland is pursuing the purchase of Covid-19 antiviral and monoclonal antibody treatments.
Ireland will seek to purchase treatments manufactured by Pfizer, Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) and Merck (MSD).
The EU Commission is currently progressing a Joint Procurement Agreement (JPA) in relation to antivirals, which includes MSD’s Lagevrio (Molnupiravir) and Pfizer’s Paxlovid (Ritonavir), and Ireland has formally indicated its intention to participate in this arrangement.
Ireland is already a participant in an EU JPA for the purchase of the GSK monoclonal antibody product Xevudy (Sotrovimab).
The HSE, in consultation with the Department of Health, is also exploring opportunities to procure antivirals through bilateral agreements at national level, in advance of the completion of the relevant EU JPA.
Foreign travel
The Taoiseach today also confirmed that testing requirements for vaccinated people entering Ireland from abroad are to be lifted, as the measures were introduced before Christmas to stem the spread of the Omicron variant, which now makes up 96% of cases.
The Taoiseach said the change will be made “in the next couple of days”, meaning anyone flying inbound in the next few days will likely still need a negative test to enter Ireland.
Martin also confirmed that his government had granted approval to buy antiviral Covid pills, and argued that the current restrictions in place are “effective”.
An Taoiseach was speaking to reporters after a Cabinet meeting where ministers discussed the “rampant” spread of Covid-19 but no further restrictions have yet been recommended by public health officials. NPHET are due to meet tomorrow.
The Taoiseach also defended the government’s decision to open schools as planned tomorrow, saying that they were putting the child’s needs first.
Minister for Education Norma Foley said yesterday there was no rationale to delay tomorrow’s return of schools but unions have continued to express concern about the availability of teachers due to Covid-related absences.
Speaking to reporters today, Martin said that “children do best when at school” and that this was the motivation behind the decision to proceed with the reopening of education.
He added: “It’s been a long pandemic, we had Delta in autumn and now Omicron. And I think people responded very well indeed and I think that will be reflected. NPHET will meet on Thursday and we we’ll be steady as she goes now in relation to dealing with this.”
Also speaking outside Government Buildings, Transport minister and Green Party leader Eamon Ryan said he does not see any additional Covid-19 restrictions being put in place in the short term.
Ryan, Martin and Fine Gael leader Leo Varadkar met yesterday ahead of today’s Cabinet meeting.
“The numbers are huge, the cases, but the critical numbers are the numbers in critical care and they have held relatively steady,” Ryan said today.
With Omicron, we don’t know the exact medical facts yet, but it looks like it’s less virulent and people are not getting as sick. The numbers being so large there’ll still be a lot of hospitals beds taken up but I don’t expect further restrictions this week. And hopefully, if the modelling was correct, we should be close to the peak and numbers will start to come down we will be able to cope.
Minister for Public Expenditure Michael McGrath also said further restrictions are not expected following today’s Cabinet meeting.
“As of today the government does not have any indication that NPHET intend to bring forward additional restrictions on the economy or on society,” he said.
We recognise that Omicron is rampant at the moment. We’re all seeing the huge case numbers that have been reported every day. Thankfully, all of the indications are that the impact on the individual level is not as severe as Delta. But there is no room for complacency and we are watching and monitoring the situation in the hospitals very closely.
McGrath said that “nobody knows for sure” when the peak of the Omicron wave would come and the government must remain “cautious and careful”.
Updated by Gráinne Ní Aodha and Hayley Halpin
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Inheritance tax is the real scandal. Why should a person be taxed for dying.
@Rob Coins: What’s inherently unfair about it is that these two blokes can marry on a whim to avoid paying it but the children of the deceased have to pay. Before the recession hit the threshold was about 500k so many avoided it, but from about 2010 onwards it was slashed to about 250k and is now about 300k. That means many people inheriting a modest 3 bed would be hit with a substantial tax bill.
@Rob Coins: the real scandal of it all is that money left in a will, is money that has already been taxed, assuming the person that died was above board. Some joke!
@Rob Coins:
What Edmund Burke said about the Penal Laws can also be applied to inheritance tax.
“A machine of wise and elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man”
@Rob Coins: inheritance tax is about preventing some families collecting everything over generations and protecting democracy. A society would become a neo feudal one quickly otherwise. We are far along that path as it is.
@Rob Coins: The person is not being taxed for dying their children are being taxed. The only child is being taxed more because there is a limit per person and not per total.
Massive estates in Britain and Ireland had to be broken up or sold to pay for the taxes.
Inheritance Tax is only one of the few taxes that is NOT in favour of the rich. Now, the media are looking to change this. The British reduced their inheritance tax to favour the rich. Now, we’re looking to do this while our children are sleeping on the streets and our hospitals are in disarray!!!
Feminists be up in arms cos chaps thought of this first!
From a legal standpoint are these lads not admitting to a sham marriage before it even happens? Similar to foreign nationals doing so for citizenship?
@Len Brennan: yep, basically
@Len Brennan: You think revenue will turn up and object on the day or raid the ‘wedding’? Doubt it very much.
@Niall Sullivan: likely not,
But births, deaths and marriages may have some issues, ultimately they have to issue the marriage cert for it to be a legal marriage
@Len Brennan: It’s very hard to prove. A marriage is classified as sham if the couple don’t know each other, don’t live together, don’t share income, don’t speak a common language at least one is a foreign national. Mixed sex couples have been getting married for financial reasons for centuries and our tax code actively encourages it
@Anne Marie Devlin: perhaps, but the people will still claim love etc.
These guys went on Liveline saying it was about avoiding tax.
@Anne Marie Devlin: is not that hard to prove, they’ve been all over the national news telling everyone it’s a sham. Best of luck to them getting away with it but it’s foolish being so blatant about it
@Niall Sullivan: Event may not turn up on the day of the marriage but they may disallow the inheritance being received tax free, if and when it happens.
@Barry Somers: I get your point, but from a legal perspective, i don’t think love is an issue.
@Len Brennan: not according to the contributors on Claire Byrne
@Len Brennan: The younger guy could decide to bring in another partner. then it’s the divorce courts or an annulment.
If there is loop holes to avoid a massive tax bill, you would want to be mad not to avail of it. Best of luck to them.
@Jamie Jj Tobin: To be honest I’ll be stunned if Revenue aloe the asset to pass from one to the other tax free.
They have no power to “disallow” any marriage but they can refuse to apply a tax relief if they feel it is being misused.
Section 811 is a very general anti avoidance provision which disallows transactions or arrangements which are undertaken purely for tax avoidance purposes.
It’s a nice story but may not get a fairytale ending….
@Brinster:
Nail on the head.
There have rumours of similar happening in farming circles since the referendum but by advertising it theses people have forced the Revenue’s hand.
@P.J. Nolan:
15 minutes of fame could prove expensive.
@Brinster: It depends, there are equal protection considerations as well. Could the Revenue prove that they are also applying this legislation to couples of the opposite sex marrying for tax reasons? Do they have specific guidelines and procedures in place for this that deal with same-sex/opposite-sex in a fair and equal way?
Can they justify the risk associated with the cost of fighting this all the way to the ECHR? Have they formally estimated how much additional revenue this could gather for the state, to justify this risk? It’s not just about enforcement, you also have to be able to show that said enforcement is in no way arbitrary or relating to gender. It’s very tricky to do that and my suspicion is that it’s not the kind of thing career civil servants are going to stick their neck out on.
Specifically, will a junior civil servant stick his/her neck out and try and enforce the law as it stands without cover from above? Will a senior civil servant issue a policy directive to their juniors to cover them and assume the risk themselves? My experience with these guys is that they are extremely risk averse and I don’t consider it likely. Time will tell, it’s a very interesting case.
@Brinster:
FG don’t do fairytale endings.
The Party that don’t give a sh### so long as their vulture funds are alright.
Ironically A marriage of friendship is probably the best marriage of all !
So now folks on these forums are supporting tax avoidance. Interesting u-turn.
@MK76: well they are hardly Apple now are they?
@Colin Morris: Same premise Colin, so why should one be okay and the other not?
@MK76: because one is a multi-million global empire that looking after its profits to enrich the already rich. The other is 2 elderly gentlemen trying to keep the roof over their head and having to move at an advanced age which is made more difficult due to hoarding problems.
@Carina Clarke: BS Carina. Tax avoidance is tax avoidance.
And under your populist view of the world, where do you draw the line? Are you okay with very wealthy individuals paying no tax on millions of inherited wealth?
@Carina Clarke:
So what’s the cut off Carina?
At what point are you allowed to evade tax?
If the house is worth less than €400,000?
If you’re over the age of 80?
@Brinster: Is it tax evasion though?
@Dave Murray: Tax evasion is illegal. Getting married and tax avoidance is not.
@MK76: “Tax evasion is illegal. Getting married and tax avoidance is not.”
Firstly, an arrangement which is done purely for the avoidance of tax is disallowed, per Section 811. They even use the term “tax avoidance transaction” – not tax evasion transaction.
Here’s the link – http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/39/section/811/enacted/en/html
So in this case the avoidance (not evasion) is disallowed.
Secondly, regardless of the above, I agree with Dave Murray – this is evasion, not avoidance.
@Brinster: If it were evasion, they would be breaking the law. The got married today so obviously the law has not been broken or the civil ceremony would not go ahead. These two men have nothing but respect and love for each other. Good luck to them.
Fair dues to them..rich ppl have the luxury of luxemburg/liechenstein etc to avoid tax..the money these 2 men ade hoping to avoid paying is only a drop in the ocean compared to the bigger players
Would it be better if marriage was essentially ignored by institutions such as banks and government, and instead there was just legal recognition of a couple raising children? With accompanying special financial status?
Marriage honestly seems like a sham and maybe it should be devalued legally as well in order to reflect that.
@Georgio Zizek: But then why should those raising children only get different tax arrangements?
Marriages come with social, legal and tax implications.
It isn’t all about money, its about so much more especially when it comes to having a say in difficult health situations. Without marriage a partner can have no say
@Georgio Zizek: what about married people that don’t have children?
@Georgio Zizek: Yeah in Canada you have common-law status where 2 people in a relationship and living together for over a year (or 3 in some provinces) can apply for it. So couples in marriage-like relationships have much of the same rights as married couples under federal law. Common-law partners may be eligible for various federal government spousal benefits, such as combined tax returns.
We should look into it here…
@Georgio Zizek: there’s the small matter of the constitution…
@Aidan Mitchell: we already have, check qualified cohabitants.
Apple can get away with how many billion…just saying
I’m getting married next Tuesday to Conor McGregor.I love him as he’s the most gentle person in de world!
You’re all welcome to the bash,eh I mean party.
The question for me is why did they broadcast this? To what end. Did they need to be sure everyone knew they weren’t gay. Was is thought up as a way do devaluate SSM and at the same time gain by
it? If one was going to engage in tax avoidance, would not keeping schtumm be the motto?
Sorry lads a marriage isn’t real until it’s consummated
@Stevie Doran: didn’t know that was part of getting married or indeed having a life partner. Sounds like canon law. Who’s to say that it wasn’t consummated anyway. The surviving partner.
If a man gets up every morning of his working life and say he puts in 40 yrs and he pays his tax and he pays his Vhi and pays his vat on everything he buys and he educates his children and they become good citizens and they do the same ,what is fair about taxing him on his death
I fail to see why this is a big deal.
I’d like to see the Irish courts cast judgement on whether or not they love each other. Now THAT would be interesting.
@Danny Rafferty:
The test isn’t whether they love each other.
It’s whether they entered into an arrangement purely for tax avoidance purposes.
Which they are admitting is their intention…..
@Brinster: based on the interview I saw, one of the men is physically feeble, 85 years of age, unable to look after himself and is incapable of independent living. He would need to enter a nursing home for care otherwise. he is unable to afford to pay for a career. His physical condition is likely to become Moore frail.
The younger man is willing to look after him, around the clock if necessary, without payments and in recompense for this he will get a capital settlement of the family home.
It might be possible to get a capital valuation of the unpaid care commitment and use that to offset the capital value of the property on death but that would not address an early death situation which is a possibility even on the actuarial index of an 85 year old male.
My impression is that the relationship and care arrangement is genuine and the men appear to gave a real affection, a platonic warmth towards, each other.
It so happpens that a civil marriage (query a formalised civil partnership?) is tax effective but it seems that they predominant motive is care and mutual affection based on what the men say.
@Fiona deFreyne:
Fiona that’s all well and good, and laudable etc, but let’s for one minute imagine that these two both recently inherited €1 million.
If so, would you be happy for them to continue with the arrangement tax free?
If not, why not?
Shouldn’t laws be applied equally.
BTW Revenue specificaly disallow transactions where –
“the Revenue Commissioners form the opinion that—
(i) the transaction gives rise to, or but for this section would give rise to, a tax advantage, and
(ii) the transaction was not undertaken or arranged primarily for purposes other than to give rise to a tax advantage,”
which this was (or will be).
Nothing you’ve said comes close to refuting that.
The only test to be satisfied is Revenue’s opinion…..after that it’s the courts.
Best of luck to them
Anti avoidance legislation might kick in. Then the very good idea might unravel.
Why not just get apply for the dwelling house exemption if he is already living with him?
The fact that they came out saying this may make it difficult when the tax man comes a knocking. Legally do they have a leg to stand on? Can Revenue challenge it?
Revenue won’t get trip to tipp
Its always sunny :) ha
@stephen mc galey: Im suprised that the goverment dont want them to produce a baby to prove their union is real .
have your say