The Court of Appeal has dismissed Thomas Coloe’s appeal against a High Court judgment ordering him to pay €104,147.82 in outstanding capital gains tax, income tax and VAT, with interest. The court affirmed the High Court decision and proposed that Coloe pay the appeal costs, subject to a short further submission on costs.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Máire Whelan on 23 April 2021, says Revenue’s summary summons was issued in June 2016 and sought more than €105,000. The High Court granted summary judgment on 8 July 2019 after crediting payments made since the proceedings began.
Coloe had argued that Revenue’s assessments were wrong, including over the valuation and tax treatment of a Dublin property, business expenses and VAT payments. He also disputed that he was self-employed, said the Revenue audit remained open, challenged the named plaintiff’s authority to continue the proceedings and alleged non-compliance with a High Court practice direction.
The Court of Appeal said disputes about the assessments belonged within the statutory tax appeals process. Coloe had not appealed the assessments within the applicable time limits. The Tax Appeals Commission later refused to accept a late appeal because court enforcement proceedings had begun. The appeal court said it could not require the Commission to accept the late appeal; a judicial review challenge to that decision had not been brought.
The court rejected the argument that the proceedings could not continue in the name of Michael Gladney, who had ceased to be Collector General. It found that the successor Collector General had invoked the statutory procedure for continuing pending proceedings and had given notice.
Although the judgment said the Revenue audit had not formally closed, it found that the outstanding step was Coloe’s signature on Revenue’s determination. His refusal to sign did not make the audit an active matter capable of changing the liability, the court said.
The court also rejected the self-employment and practice-direction grounds. It said the employment-status dispute was not appropriate to resolve in these proceedings and that Coloe had not identified specific non-compliance or resulting prejudice. The appeal judges found no arguable grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision.
The proposed costs order was not stated as final. The court invited Coloe to submit, within ten days, a submission of no more than 1,000 words if he wished to dispute costs. The respondent would then have ten days to reply; absent a submission, the proposed costs order would take effect.