This own initiative case also included, among other matters,(4) the problem of unequal treatment of tutoring fees, depending whether paid to individuals or to tutoring centres. Only those paid to individuals are deemed as education expenses. This difference in treatment, although with legal basis, since tutoring centres are neither exempt from VAT nor taxed at the reduced rate(5), creates a discrimination that this State body deems unjustified. In fact, it treats differently households that bear the same type of expenditure, which is considered relevant, or not, for the purposes of the IRS deduction, depending on the rate of VAT applicable to the service provider. It was thus considered that such a circumstance was merely a formal requirement and not acceptable, and therefore this matter should be analyzed and, consequently, the legislation reviewed. Contacts with the State Secretary for Tax Affairs were also made on other issues related to the deduction of education and health expenses, since complaints kept being received. In a first letter, dated 29 April, the Ombudsman called the attention to the disparities that the legal system could generate on the grounds of detention, or not, of Economic Activity Code (CAE) of the education sector by the entity issuing the invoices. This may again constitute a substantive unequal treatment as to the IRS to be paid by different households with identical type of charges.(6) The reply to this letter was received in early August and reported that a proposal for a legislative amendment was being prepared «to be presented in due course». Notwithstanding, the Ombudsman addressed new communication to the State Secretary for Tax Affairs, calling the attention to the fact that education expenses which had been historically accepted should be maintained. This included pens, pencils, notebooks, electronic calculators required for the study of mathematics, materials used by art students, among others, as well as transportation costs to and from schools, costs of food in school canteens and accommodation when students study away from their residence. Regarding health expenses, a first letter was also sent to the State Secretary for Tax Affairs in April(7), which was equally replied in early August. On that occasion, the State Secretary for Tax Affairs considered that, in the specific case of health costs, the legal (4)  The complete letter sent to the State Secretary for Tax Affairs is available in the Ombudsman site: http://www. provedorjus.pt/site/public/archive/doc/oficio_P_16_9_SEAF_tributacao_conjunta.pdf (5)  See item a) paragraph 1 of article 78-D of the IRS Code, which states the following: «1 - A credit corresponding to 30% of education and training expenses borne by any of the household members shall be given, with the global limit of € 800,00: a) Included on invoices regarding supply of services and purchase of goods, exempt from VAT or taxed at the reduced rate...». (6)  The letter S-PdJ/2016/5330, of 29 April, sent in the framework of case Q-4270/15, is available in the Ombudsman site: http://www.provedorjus.pt/site/public/archive/doc/Oficio_Secretario_de_Estado_dos_Assuntos_Fiscais.pdf (7)  Letter S-PdJ/2016/4668, of 28 April, is available in the Ombudsman site: http://www.provedorjus.pt/site/public/archive/doc/Q6359_2015_IRS_Despesas_de_saude_Deducoes.pdf | 39