Levy can be imposed on judges

THE attorney general’s interpretation that the public sector pension levy cannot be imposed on the judiciary has surprised many people.

The relevant article of the constitution states that “the remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office”.

The key question as regards whether this can be invoked with regard to the levy is whether the term “remuneration” is regarded in this case as gross or net remuneration.

If taken literally, the pension levy should be regarded as a pension contribution.

In accounting, gross remuneration includes the value of contributions to pension funds while net remuneration does not.

The gross remuneration would not be reduced by the imposition of the new pension levy.

Net remuneration, on the other hand, would be regarded as taxable income and would be affected by the levy. In the Courts of Justice Act 1953, it states that pensions for judges are calculated based on final “remuneration” at time of retirement: “There shall be granted to a judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court who, having reached the age of 65 years, retires after 15 years’ service or upwards a pension for life of two-thirds of his remuneration at the time of his retirement.”

Current judicial pensions are calculated based on gross – not net – remuneration. Therefore, it would seem there is no reason why the pension levy cannot be imposed on the judiciary.

The attorney general’s reasoning should be made public for the sake of clarity, given the differing opinions on the question.

John Kennedy

Knocknashee

Goatstown

Dublin 14