Tuition Fees - Definition of "Child"

Very narrow query here but views very welcome. Father paid fees for a 2 year postgraduate course I was on in 2001 (course qualified for relief). Was 22 yo at time but in "full-time" education on course. Father wrote letter in 2003 seeking tax relief on fees paid but was rejected by means of a very short letter which simply quoted the definition of "dependant" from S.474 of the TCA 1997:
""dependant", in relation to an individual, means a spouse or child of the individual or a person in respect of whom the individual is or was the legal guardian;"
Let it go at the time but have just rediscovered the rejection letter. I know that most people would interpret "child" to mean someone U18. But have just discovered the following definition of dependant in relation to health expenses relief:

You can claim Medical Expenses incurred by you:

• On your own behalf
• On behalf of a dependant. (A dependant is any relative of yours or any other person who at any time during the year of claim is aged 65 years or over or who is permanently incapacitated by reason of mental or physical infirmity.)
• On behalf of a relative. A relative is defined as:
  • Husband, wife, ancestor, lineal descendant, brother or sister
  • Mother or father of your spouse
  • Brother or sister of your spouse
  • Spouse of your son or daughter
  • Your child, Any other child, who in the year of the claim, is in your custody and maintained at your expense and under 18 years of age, or if over 18 years of age, is receiving full-time education.

Granted, the statutory definition of "dependant" when it comes to relief for tuition fees is far narrower. But if it was intended to apply only to a "child" under the age of 18, shouldn't that be specified? Also, just how many "children" (if the definition is supposed to be understood as referring to U18s) would be doing the undergraduate and postgraduate courses listed as eligible for relief ? Does it not defeat the purpose of the relief if it only applies to fees paid for children U18? I know my father is technically out of time to apply for relief but if the revenue made a mistake in 2003, I don't think that should bar him from claiming some dough back now.
I realise this is a narrow query but I would welcome any views to help me decide whether I should argue the toss with the revenue!

If you want to get to the root of this then you might want to quote/compare the original applicable extracts from the TCAs rather than what looks like summary guidance material above. Did you/your father seek professional advice on the rejection of the tax relief claim?

Ta for the reply. You're right. I've just been too lazy to date to trawl through the TCAs properly! But I don't think they worked off anything more than the definition of "dependant" in S.474 in deciding to reject the claim for relief. No, didn't seek professional advice as didn't have an acct. at the time. But have one now so the I guess the most sensible thing is to just raise it with him.

Was the course taken directly after you finished school. If you are a child in continuous full time education then fees would have been allowable i.e. you went straight from leaving cert to college. If you had a break in education you are no longer deemed to be a dependent on your parents so they cannot make a claim for tuition fees.

No need to worry about it either way, you can only go back 4 years when claiming the relief.

Mini3277 said:

No need to worry about it either way, you can only go back 4 years when claiming the relief.

Click to expand...

If the revenue wrote a letter that was incorrect I think the OP might have some grounds for a back claim. I do not know the answer to the definition of a child but I recall it was a child in full time education until 23 or 25. You couldn't be when you were 30 not sure why I think this but maybe it was an old rule.

google tca 1997 them print page 649 and the next few pages.

draft letter to revenue with previous rejection and ask them to highlight on page section they refused application on.