Case Law

In Harris v Quigley & Irwin 2005 VI ITR 839 the Judge observed that although the determination of the Appeal Commissioners was not final, it was a lawful determination which then had to be put into effect. Therefore monies due to the taxpayer by Revenue pending the determination of the case stated to the High Court were lawfully due to be paid to the taxpayer. Subsequent legislative amendment to section 934 by FA 07 now provides that if a decision is subject to an appeal on a point of law to the High Court, no tax will be payable or repayable following a determination by the Circuit Court.

In the case of fraud and negligence the initial burden is on the Revenue to show a loss of tax. Hurley v Taylor (Inspector of Taxes) 1998 STC 202

In O’Dwyer v Irish Exporters and Importers Ltd (in liquidation) 1942 I ITR 629 it was held that a retired Appeal Commissioner is entitled to sign a case.

The Court would not decline to entertain point not covered in the case stated where the point had already been argued before the Appeal Commissioners and Revenue had given due notice to the taxpayer of their intention to raise the point again Muir v CIR 1966 TC 367.

It is more appropriate for judicial review proceedings to deal with complaints that a taxpayer was not fairly treated in proceedings than the General Commissioners. Mellor v Gurney 1994 STC 1025 , Brittain v Gibb 1986 STC 418, Read v Rolliston 1982 STC 370

It is vital that the time limit for an appeal to the High Court is strictly complied with in order for the Court to hear the appeal. Petch v Gurney 1994 STC 689 and IRC v McGuckian 1994 STC 888

In it was held that a dissenting partner can declare dissatisfaction where the appellant is a partnership. Sutherland & Partners’ v Barnes 1993 STC 399

Where a taxpayer failed to give a copy of the case and notice to the High Court within the required time the case was struck off. A & B v WJ Davies (Inspector of Taxes) 1942 II ITR 60

This case considered whether the development of property constituted a trade (or revenue in nature) or an investment (or capital transaction) Revenue Commissioners v O'Farrell [2018] IEHC 171

This case considered the scope of the Appeal Commissioners and the Circuit Court Lee v The Revenue Commisioners, [2018] IEHC 46

These cases considered a determination as being ‘erroneous in point of law’ to require the Appeal Commissioner to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court. “Citywest Logistical Limited v The Revenue Commissioners [2018] IEHC 18 Monaghan Bottlers Limited v The Revenue Commissioners”