Tax Appeals Commission Determinations
Published 17 August 2021 – 16 September 2021
Case reference |
Tax head |
Legislation |
Case stated requested |
Matter under determination |
Income tax |
Unknown |
This appeal relates to a repayment claim for the tax year 2011 following the submission of the 2011 tax return in August 2019. The Appeal Commissioner determined that the repayment claim was out of time, and owing to the wording of section 865, the Appeal Commissioner has no discretion on the application of the four-year statutory limitation period. |
||
Income tax |
Unknown |
This appeal relates to a repayment claim in respect of the tax years 2013 and 2014. The Appellant was not in a position to apply for tax relief until 2020 due to challenging personal circumstances. While this was accepted by the Appeal Commissioner, she noted that owing to the wording of section 865, there is no discretion on the application of the four-year statutory limitation period. Accordingly, the repayment claim for the tax years 2013 and 2014 were determined to be out of time. |
||
Income tax – artists’ exemption |
Unknown |
This appeal concerns a non-fiction book for which the Appellant submitted a claim for the artists exemption for determination by Revenue. The Appeal Commissioner determined that the work did not satisfy the requisite tests, in particular paragraph 7(2) of the guidelines drawn up under section 195 by an Comhairle Ealaíon and the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. |
||
Capital gains tax |
Section 57 of Finance Act 2019 |
Unknown |
This appeal concerns the conveyance of agricultural property to the Appellant, which was purchased in September 2019 and transferred in mid-January 2020. The issue at appeal concerns whether stamp duty at a rate of 7.5% applied to the conveyance, rather than the 6% which previously applied before Budget 2020 announcements on 8 October 2019. The Appellant contended that the deadline for transitional arrangements between the date of the Budget and 1 January 2020 had been missed due to delays by Revenue in issuing the CG50 certificate. The Appeal Commissioner determined that the 7.5% stamp duty rate was correctly applied and it was incumbent on the Appellant and her advisers to ensure there was no delays in the completion and that all documentation was correct. |
|
PAYE – Health expenses |
Section 1017 TCA 1997 |
Unknown |
This appeal concerns a balancing statement for the tax year 2016, which arose as a result of the Appellant electing to be jointly assessed and the transfer of the standard rate cut off point to her husband. The Appeal Commissioner determined that the Appellant had been assessed at the correct tax and the balancing statement was correct. It was noted that there was no facility within the legislation to allow joint assessment for part-years. |
|
Income tax – PRSI |
Unknown |
This appeal relates to a repayment claim for the tax year 2015, which was submitted in 2020. The Appeal Commissioner determined that the repayment claim was out of time, and owing to the wording of section 865, the Appeal Commissioner has no discretion on the application of the four-year statutory limitation period. |
||
PAYE – USC |
Section 531AM TCA 1997 |
Unknown |
This appeal considers the application of USC to payments received from the Department of Social Protection under an agreement with the State following the insolvency and subsequent wind-up of a pension scheme for the employees of a company that had also been wound-up due to insolvency. The Appeal Commissioner determined that the payments were relevant emoluments under section 531AM and not excluded from USC. The Appeal Commissioner further determined that the payments received were not payments under the Social Welfare Act, but those pursuant to section 48B of the Pensions Act, 1970. |
|
Income tax – VAT |
Unknown |
This appeal relates to repayment claims for VAT in respect of the tax years 2013, 2014 and 2015, by the Appellant’s estate. The returns for the relevant years were filed in 2019, following the Appellant’s long illness and death. The Appeal Commissioner determined that the repayment claim was out of time, and owing to the wording of section 865, the Appeal Commissioner has no discretion on the application of the four-year statutory limitation period. |
||
Income tax |
Unknown |
Owing to an oversight by the Appellant’s accountant, the income tax return for the tax year 2008, which gave rise to a repayment, was filed in 2019. Revenue declined to process the repayment on the basis that a valid claim was not made within the four-year statutory period. The Appeal Commissioner determined that the repayment claim was out of time, and owing to the wording of section 865, the Appeal Commissioner has no discretion on the application of the four-year statutory limitation period. |
||
Income tax |
Section 112 TCA 1997 |
Unknown |
This appeal relates to consolidated appeals by a company who received a notice of estimation for PAYE, and the Appellant, a proprietary director of a company who received an amended notice of assessment. The Appellant contended the payments concerned were the reimbursement of expenses incurred by him in his role as proprietary director for the company. Revenue argued that the expenses were not incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of the Appellant’s employment duties. The expenses in question comprised unvouched travel and subsistence calculated by the company on a flat rate basis and ‘vouched’ expenditure on certain foreign travel and related expenditure; certain client meetings/presentations; and sundry Christmas/gifts/other. Owing to imprecision in the maintenance of detailed records, the Appeal Commissioner determined that 20% of travel and 25% of subsistence should be disallowed under section 114. Similarly, due to errors of overstatement in distances travelled the Appeal Commissioner restricted the Appellant’s entitlement to milage expenses to 80% of the amount claimed. A significant amount of vouched expenses reimbursed by the company but not recovered by the company under its contract with a client were disallowed. |
|
DWT |
Section 20 TCA 1997 Section 172A TCA 1997 Section 172B TCA 1997 Section 172D TCA 1997 |
Yes |
This appeal centres on whether two Irish incorporated, Irish tax resident companies were liable to dividend withholding tax (DWT) on gross distributions paid to certain non-resident shareholders living in the UAE. Revenue contended that the shareholders were not resident in the UAE for the “purposes of tax” in the UAE, as “tax” is defined in section 172A, meaning “any tax imposed in that territory which corresponds to income tax or corporation tax in the State”, and the UAE has not introduced income tax or corporation tax on its residents. The Appeal Commissioner considered the word “imposed” in section 172A as not being time specific. The Appeal Commissioner also noted that section 172D(3)(a)(ii) considered the status of the shareholder under UAE law, and so the companies were entitled to rely on the UAE tax residence certificates issued to the shareholders. It was noted that section 172B(4) requires a company to satisfy itself of the relevant requirements before making a distribution and not after. Owing to the absence of UAE tax residence certificates for certain years, it was determined that the conditions under section 172D(3)(a) were only complied with in particular years, and the DWT assessments were amended accordingly. |
|
Income tax – CGT |
Section 123 TCA 1997 |
No |
This appeal considers the tax treatment of a payment made under a Compromise Agreement and termination of the Appellant’s employment with a firm. Revenue, as Respondents, contended that the entire payment was subject to income tax under section 123, as it was in consideration or in consequence of the termination of the employment. The Appellant argued that a significant portion of the payment was exempt from tax, being a payment for injury or disability, or compensation or damages for injury suffered in his or her profession or under employment legislation providing for the protection of employees. The Appeal Commissioner determined that a portion of the sum related to the Appellant’s contractual and statutory entitlement on his resignation, which was taxable under the general Schedule E charging provision, section 112. The remaining element was determined to relate to the Appellant extinguishing his lawful entitlement to sue the firm and was therefore chargeable to capital gains tax under section 535(2)(a)(iii). |
