Tax Appeals Commission Determinations
Published in February 2021
Case reference |
Tax head |
Legislation |
Case stated requested |
Matter under determination |
Corporation tax – Sporting tax exemption |
Yes |
The was an appeal against a decision by Revenue to refuse an application for sporting tax exemption under section 235 TCA 1997. The Appellant, a company, providing facilities for horse racing at its premises, argued a conjunctive reading should be applied to the definition of approved body of persons within section 235 and that horse racing was a sport within an industry. Revenue as respondents argued a disjunctive reading should be applied to the definition and that the Appellant was engaged in industry rather than sport. It was determined that the test, whether the words were read conjunctively or disjunctively, included further tests on the activity and that the Appellant could not be said to exist for the “sole purpose of promoting...”. The Appeal Commissioner found that the requisite legal test could not be satisfied, and the Appellant was not entitled to an exemption to corporation tax under section 235. |
||
Income tax |
section 997A TCA 1997 |
Unknown |
The Appeal Commissioners determined that Revenue, as Respondents, were incorrect in amending the assessments for the 2010 and 2011 tax years outside of the time limits contained in s955 and 956 TCA. The Appeal Commissioner considered a full and true disclosure of all material facts necessary for the making of an assessment for the chargeable period to have been made in the returns of the proprietary directors in claiming credits for tax deducted (but not remitted) by the company. The Appellants had submitted their returns in the belief that the credits claimed for deductions from their salaries by the company would be paid by the liquidator from surplus assets, as detailed in the statement of affairs presented on the liquidator’s appointment. For the same reason, the Appellants were not considered to be negligent in claiming the tax credits. |
|
VRT |
section 145 Finance Act 2001 |
Unknown |
This appeal relates to a Revenue assessment assigning an open market selling price (“OMSP”) that the Appellant considered excessive, not to have been computed in accordance with the Respondent’s manual, unfair and opaque in application. Based on the evidence and submissions, the OMSP was determined to be fair and reasonable. |
|
CAT |
section 2 CATCA 2003 |
Unknown |
This appeal concerns an assessment raised by the Respondents on the Appellants inheritance of €4 million from their son. The Appellants contended the inheritance was exempt from tax, as their son had taken a non-exempt gift from his parents to pay solicitors fees of €11,346 within the five years immediately prior to his death. The Appellants submitted that the payment was not the provision of support under section 82. It was determined that their son did not have the legal capacity to enter a contractual relationship with the solicitor, owing to the fact he was a minor and had sustained severe brain injuries in an accident, and as such, the contract for legal service was said to be with the Appellants and not their son. The Appellants were found to have not discharged the burden of proof for entitlement to the exemption under section 79. The Appeal Commissioner considered the application of section 82 to the case and found the payment to be part of the normal expenditure of a person in the circumstances of the Appellant. |
|
Income tax – Artists’ exemption |
Unknown |
The appeal concerned a claim for artists’ exemption in relation to a book offering comparison and translations useful for the three major Irish dialects with sound accompaniments. The Appellant was determined to have been entitled to avail of the artists’ exemption having satisfied the necessary legal test, in particular section 7(2)(c), (d) and (e) in the relevant guidelines. |
