The High Court has upheld the refusal of a further appeal by a taxpayer over Revenue’s recovery of tax relief linked to an investment in a film partnership.
In a judgment delivered on 7 March 2025, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy answered “No” to the question in a case stated: whether Appeal Commissioner O’Callaghan had erred in law by upholding Revenue’s decision to refuse the appeal. The case concerned a 2013 amended assessment following a tax avoidance opinion that had become final after the taxpayer settled an earlier appeal.
Revenue’s 1998 notice said the investment in Albany Partners, a partnership involved in acquiring, distributing and licensing films, was a tax avoidance transaction. It put the tax advantage at IR£31,252.80. The taxpayer’s appeals to the Appeal Commissioners and Circuit Court were unsuccessful. In 2012, he agreed to withdraw a further appeal and to be bound by the Circuit Court decision. Revenue then treated its opinion as final and sought repayment of tax relief. Its amended assessment in May 2013 sought €34,583.70.
The taxpayer argued that he could appeal the assessment under provisions imposing four-year time limits on amended assessments and Revenue enquiries. Revenue refused the appeal, saying those appeal rights and time limits did not apply after the tax avoidance opinion became final. The Appeal Commissioner upheld that refusal in 2015. The question reached the High Court by case stated, completed by the Tax Appeals Commission in 2024.
Justice Mulcahy first refused the taxpayer’s application to send the case back for a rehearing. He found the attached transcript gave the court enough information to decide the legal issue, and that remittal would serve no useful purpose or address any identified prejudice.
On the merits, the judge held that section 811(5)(d) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 clearly excluded further appeal rights under the other provisions once the appeal under section 811(7) had been exhausted. He also concluded that section 811(5A), as applied to assessments made after 28 February 2012, disapplied the relevant time limits. Following the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Hanrahan v Revenue Commissioners, he said a constitutional challenge to the provision could not be pursued in this case stated.
The judge also considered Revenue’s argument that the settlement barred an appeal under section 957(1)(c). He agreed that the settlement amounted to prior agreement to withdraw the relief specified in the notice, and that an appeal against a lesser amount would not be available on that basis. However, he observed that section 957(1)(c) did not appear to exclude an appeal against Revenue’s entitlement to issue an amended assessment at all. That issue did not change the result and might merit further analysis where its resolution would determine a case.