The Court of Appeal has dismissed Cormac Lohan’s appeal against a High Court order requiring him to pay €144,788.50 in penalties for incorrect VAT returns. It affirmed the principal sum and legal costs, but adjusted the order to remove interest after the Collector General said the claim for interest was not being pressed.
The penalties had been determined by the High Court in 2017 after an application by Revenue officer Adrian Dorr. The order set penalties of €47,379 for negligently delivered incorrect returns covering 2003 to 2007, €42,752 for deliberately furnished incorrect returns for 2008 and 2009, and €54,657.50 for deliberately furnished incorrect returns in 2010. Lohan’s appeal against that determination was dismissed in 2019.
The current appeal concerned a separate summary judgment action brought by Collector General Joseph Howley to recover the penalties. The High Court granted judgment in October 2023. Lohan argued that a Revenue officer should have reconsidered the penalties and served notice before recovery proceedings began, and that matters he raised about his former accountant could support a defence.
Justice Allen said the statutory process for determining liability had already concluded: the High Court had determined the penalties and the Court of Appeal had upheld that decision. The legislation did not entitle or require Revenue to reopen those questions as part of collecting the amount ordered. The court agreed with the High Court that Lohan had not put forward a credible defence. A separate challenge to the refusal of an adjournment was abandoned during the appeal.
The court affirmed recovery of €144,788.50 and legal costs, to be assessed if the parties could not agree. It did not award the claimed interest: counsel for the Collector General said that claim was not being pursued, and the court said the order could be adjusted accordingly. The court proposed awarding the Collector General his appeal costs but gave Lohan until 14 October 2024 to make a written submission on costs, with the respondent allowed 14 days to reply. The judgment does not state the final appeal-costs order.