Case Law
In Keogh v Criminal Assets Bureau, Revenue Commissioners 2003 VI ITR 635 the Supreme Court held that Revenue failed to inform the taxpayer of his statutory right of appeal. The taxpayer was reinstated to the same position as if the undertaking had in fact been met by Revenue. In response to this decision, the Revenue included an appeals section on all notices of assessment which outlines the thirty day time limit and the mandatory pre-requisites to the filing of an appeal.
Kennerley v Revenue & Customs Commissioners 2007 SpC 578 considered whether an assessment by Revenue was invalid on the basis that no Notice of Enquiry had been given by Revenue to the taxpayer.
In M Deighan v E Hearne and Others 1986 III ITR 533 the taxpayer argued the assessments were invalid as his trade was incorrectly described as a furniture wholesaler. The Court concluded that it did not matter that the trade was described incorrectly (immaterial) .
In O’Rourke v The Appeal Commissioners 2010 IEHC 264 the issue before the High Court was whether the decision of the Appeal Commissioners that each assessment was valid can be subject to an immediate appeal or whether any right to appeal arises only on a determination of the appeal against each assessment.
The jurisdiction of the Appeal Commissioners on appeal was to make a decision as to the final assessments to be made on the taxpayer. Until the final amount was determined, the appeal was not determined within the meaning of the Taxes Act. The State v Michael Smidic (Appeal Commissioners) 1938 I ITR 571
The onus is on the taxpayer to make clear that an appeal is being made under this section. Criminal Assets Bureau v D (K) 2002 VI ITR 445
If the taxpayer was prevented from making an appeal within the time limits due to absence, sickness or other reasonable cause, the Inspector is obliged to allow a reasonable period for the late appeal to be made. Criminal Assets Bureau v P McS 2001 VI ITR 421
In Criminal Assets Bureau v Sean and Rosaleen Hunt (nee) Maher 2003 VI ITR 559 the Supreme Court held that in enacting elaborate procedures for the determination of a taxpayer’s liability by assessment and appeal, the Oireachtas provided exclusive machinery for the ascertainment of a taxpayer’s liability.
Where an agreement is based on an erroneous view of the law, the parties could enter into a corrective agreement outside the 21 day limit. Tod v South Essex Motors 1988 STC 392.
Schutdenfrei v Hilton 1998 STC 404 considered the term ‘agreement’ and it was held that an error in an amended assessment followed by a taxpayer’s silence was not an agreement.
The Court could amend an assessment which was based on an error in an agreement. Richart v Bass Holdings Ltd 1993 STC 122.
In Cassell v Crutchfiled 1995 STC 663 it was held that an accountant suspended from practice for criminal convictions had no right to an audience.
In Johnson v Walden 1996 STC 124 the taxpayer protested against the fact that the Appeal Commissioners had chosen to hear his case along with the case of another taxpayer where the transactions which formed the basis of the assessment for both taxpayers were the same transactions. The UK courts ruled that the Appeal Commissioners had a jurisdiction to make their own decision in the matter and were entitled to hear the two appeals together if they considered that neither taxpayer would suffer through the loss of privacy which was involved.
In R v IRC, ex parte Caglar 1995 STC 741 and Development Inc v CIR 1996 STC 440 it was held that it is only in exceptional circumstances that judicial review of an assessment would be entertained when the appeal procedure was in place.
Menolly Homes Limited v The Appeal Commissioners & Anor 2010 IEHC 49 considered if the taxpayer has a right to cross-examine a tax inspector on an appeal before the Appeal Commissioners
O’Rourke v The Appeal Commissioners 2010 IEHC 264 2010 IEHC 264 Section 942 TCA 1997 precludes interim appeals against an interim ruling which is pending a determination of the Appeal Commissioners.
The Tax Appeals Commissioner agreed with Revenue's refusal to allow the taxpayer's appeal against an assessment. 08TACD2016
The Tax Appeals Commissioners determined that the taxpayer's submission regarding Revenue's possible approach to the affairs of another taxpayer did not constitute a ground of appeal and did not merit the appeal proceed to a full, substantive hearing. Accordingly, Revenue were correct to refuse the taxpayer's application for appeal. 16TACD2016
The issue was if an application for appeal could be allowed or if Revenue were correct in law to refuse the appeal under section 933(1)(b) TCA 97. The Tax Appeals Commissioner determined that the taxpayer failed to demonstrate that there was a prima facie stateable case to be heard and consequently Revenue were correct to refuse the appeal. 02TACD2017
This case considered the scope of the jurisdiction of the Appeal Commissioners and the Circuit Court when hearing appeals against assessments to income tax Lee v The Revenue Commissioner (Unapproved) [2021] IECA 18 (28 January 2021)