The High Court has directed that a dispute over an alleged repayment arrangement between a doctor and the Revenue Commissioners proceed to a plenary hearing, while rejecting his arguments against the underlying income tax assessments.
In a judgment delivered on 10 October 2017, Ms Justice Faherty considered the defendant’s application to set aside an order allowing final judgment in a Revenue claim. The claim sought €1,063,228.86, comprising income tax and interest. The Master of the High Court had granted liberty to enter final judgment on 7 July 2016.
The Revenue assessments, issued in March 2014, charged income tax of €537,798.61 for 2010 and €370,528.47 for 2011. The defendant did not appeal them within the statutory 30-day period. The judge held that the assessments had become final and conclusive, and found that the defendant had not shown an arguable defence to those income tax sums. She said his explanations for large transfers through his bank account were unsupported by sufficient evidence to establish a defence.
The defendant said the transfers related to work arranging property transactions for others, and that only about €118,000 represented his income. The Revenue’s evidence described a different account given during the audit: that the transfers related to an arrangement to help a friend buy equipment and trucks. The judgment records these as disputed accounts, not findings about the source or purpose of the money.
The judge also found an arguable defence to the €154,901.78 interest claim because the Revenue’s documents gave different interest figures and its affidavits did not explain how the amount claimed was calculated. She noted that the assessments addressed income tax, not interest, so the failure to appeal those assessments did not prevent the defendant from disputing the interest amount.
Separately, the defendant alleged that Revenue had agreed he could repay the liability over time, possibly after qualifying as a GP. The Revenue disputed that such an arrangement had been made. Because the accounts of a November 2014 meeting differed and no note of it existed, the judge said the issue could not be resolved on the affidavits and could form an arguable defence.
The court did not decide whether a repayment agreement existed, set aside the assessments, or determine the interest calculation. It said it would hear submissions on the form of the order needed to send the identified issues to plenary hearing. It did not determine the defendant’s discovery requests at this stage.