Court of Appeal dismisses appeal concerning the interpretation of the phrase “net cash value to the person of his or her annual housing costs”, as used in social welfare Regulations, on the grounds that the interpretation advanced by the Minister For Employment Affairs And Social Protection was consistent with the literal and ordinary meaning of the words used, and consistent with the purpose of the applicable statute.
Court of Appeal – Revenue – tax - statutory interpretation - what is meant by the phrase “net cash value to the person of his or her annual housing costs” as used in Regulation 142 of S.I. 142/2007 , being the Social Welfare (Consolidated Claims Payments and Control) Regulations 2007 (the 2007 Regulations”) – relevant legislation – background facts – pleadings – judgments of the High Court – notice of appeal - the word “net” implies a computation - Oireachtas has drawn up a detailed and sophisticated system for determination of eligibility to a very wide range of social welfare benefits - applicants must be assessed for eligibility to whatever benefit they may apply for, and that in turn a key element of that assessment is an assessment of means , in the contexts of both the initial determination of eligibility , and , if that is established , the amount of benefit to be paid -scheme requires that both income in cash and such non cash benefits as are prescribed, are to be taken into account in assessment of means - also allows for what has been described as a “statutory disregard” - being a sum that is to be disregarded in the assessment of a claimant’s means - the non-cash benefit to be assessed is the value of that benefit in the hands of a claimant less the prescribed sum to be disregarded, which results in the net cash value to the claimant of the non-cash benefit that is reckonable for the purposes of assessment - consistent with the literal and ordinary meaning of the words used - no ambiguity – consistent with the purpose of the act - examples of anomalies do not provide the answer to the question in this appeal - the interpretation of the legislation contended for by the respondent is the correct interpretation – appeal dismissed –