The High Court has refused to quash decisions rejecting several tax appeals brought by members of the Sheridan family, finding that the Appeal Commissioner gave adequate reasons in the circumstances.
The judicial review concerned decisions made on 26 April 2018 by the Tax Appeals Commission. The Sheridans argued that the Commissioner had failed to explain why their appeals were rejected. Their underlying position was that they were not tax resident in Ireland and should not have to file returns or pay tax as a precondition to appealing assessments.
The assessments had been raised by the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB). Some appeals were accepted, but others were refused because returns had not been filed or self-assessed tax liabilities had not been paid. In the example of John Sheridan Senior, appeals for 2004–2007 and 2009–2011 were accepted; those for 2008 and 2012–2014 were not.
At the 2017 hearing before the Appeal Commissioner, the Sheridans’ counsel argued that they were non-resident because they spent time working in different European countries. The High Court noted that the Sheridans provided no oral evidence and no documents supporting non-residence, including evidence that they were tax resident elsewhere. Returns filed for some years stated that family members were resident in Ireland. A tax adviser described that wording as an unfortunate misrepresentation of the intended position.
The Commissioner’s 2018 decision stated that statutory requirements to submit returns and pay tax had to be met before the relevant appeals could be accepted. The High Court acknowledged that the decision could have explained more explicitly why the non-residence argument was rejected. But it found that, given the absence of supporting evidence and the evidence of returns for some years, the decision sufficiently explained the outcome and showed that the Commissioner had considered the issue.
The court therefore refused the requested order of certiorari. The ruling addressed the adequacy of the reasons given for the Commissioner’s decisions; it did not determine the underlying tax assessments on their merits.