The Court of Appeal has dismissed appeals by Michael Gladney and two co-defendants against summary judgments in favour of Revenue for unpaid tax assessments totalling €246,565.79, plus costs. The court held that the assessments could not be challenged in the enforcement proceedings after the taxpayers failed to use the statutory appeal process or seek judicial review of their validity.
The appeals arose from High Court orders made on 6 July 2018. Revenue’s claims were for €170,813.84 against Adriano Taglienti and €75,751.95 against Samantha Kavanagh. The Court of Appeal judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Faherty on 10 November 2021, records Michael Gladney as the plaintiff/respondent in both cases. It does not explain that naming discrepancy.
The assessments concerned income tax, VAT and other tax liabilities for periods including 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2015. The taxpayers argued that they did not know how the amounts had been calculated and that Revenue had failed to provide promised documents. Taglienti also disputed that an audit Revenue relied on had taken place, and relied on a tax clearance certificate issued in 2010. Kavanagh said she could not determine the basis of her assessment. Revenue disputed their accounts and said the assessments had been sent to them or their agents in October 2014, with appeal rights explained. Neither taxpayer appealed the assessments.
The Court of Appeal said the statutory scheme provided a route to challenge assessments before the Tax Appeals Commission, including provision for late appeals in specified circumstances. It also said a challenge to the legal validity of an assessment could have been brought by judicial review. The court rejected the argument that the taxpayers’ claims about the audit, missing documents, Revenue’s codes of practice or the tax clearance certificate gave them a defence to the enforcement claims in these proceedings.
The taxpayers also sought to raise an argument that Revenue had issued the assessments outside the statutory time limit. The court refused to consider it because it had not been raised in the High Court or included in the notices of appeal, and was advanced late.
The court dismissed both appeals. It proposed that Revenue receive its costs, while allowing any party 21 days from receipt of the electronic judgment to request a different costs order. If a request is made, a costs hearing will be scheduled if necessary.