The Court of Appeal allowed the Revenue Commissioners’ appeal in proceedings seeking to recover about €1.66 million in tax and interest from solicitor Eoin Swaine. It held that the evidence did not support a credible defence based on a separate agreement to postpone recovery until litigation over nursing home charges had concluded.
The case began in April 2012, when the Commissioners, acting through nominee Gerard Harrahill, sought €1,692,849.12 for alleged arrears of income tax, PAYE, PRSI, VAT, capital gains tax and corporation tax for 2004 to 2012. Revised assessments later reduced the claim to €1,662,288.
Swaine said he had reached a repayment agreement with Revenue officials at a meeting on 20 June 2011. He maintained that Revenue agreed to hold off proceedings while he restructured his legal practice and licensed premises, and that fees from about 140 cases concerning alleged illegal nursing-home charges would be used to discharge his tax liabilities. He also said a personal tax refund of €186,617 was set against a company’s liabilities.
The Commissioners accepted that they had agreed to postpone proceedings, but said the arrangement required Swaine to pay over fees from the nursing-home litigation by October 2011 and remain tax compliant, including filing future returns and making payments on time. The Court of Appeal noted that the underlying tax assessments had not been appealed and were final and conclusive under section 933 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. It therefore did not consider a challenge to the amount claimed.
The High Court had adjourned the summary summons proceedings for a plenary hearing, finding a reasonable probability that Swaine had a real or bona fide defence. Among its reasons, it considered that his June 2011 undertaking and Revenue’s July reply might amount to a separate binding agreement to delay recovery until the nursing-home litigation ended.
The Court of Appeal rejected that analysis. It said Swaine’s affidavits had relied on the repayment agreement and had not advanced a separate agreement detached from its conditions. It also rejected an argument raised on appeal that the agreement required him to manage historic liabilities but not keep his ongoing tax affairs up to date, finding that interpretation inconsistent with his own evidence.
The court further held that a promise to pay tax already owed at a later date did not provide consideration for a separate enforceable agreement. It concluded that there was no credible defence based on promissory estoppel either. The appeal was allowed. The judgment records that outcome; it does not state in its final paragraph the precise further order made on the summary summons.