The High Court has granted a Revenue application seeking information and documents about 19 transactions carried out through two bank accounts held in the name of a solicitors’ firm between 2005 and 2007.
Mr Justice Moriarty ruled on 21 February 2013 that the application met the reasonable-grounds threshold under section 902A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. The application formed part of Revenue’s investigation into offshore accounts used by Irish residents and the recovery of tax it said had been evaded through those accounts.
Revenue sought details relating to transactions involving four corporate entities, an individual and a couple, as well as financial institutions in the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Jersey. The two accounts were described as the firm’s office and client accounts.
The firm challenged whether Revenue had established reasonable grounds to suspect tax non-compliance likely to seriously prejudice the assessment or collection of tax, and whether the information sought was relevant. It also raised client confidentiality and legal professional privilege.
The judge concluded that Revenue had sufficiently demonstrated reasonable grounds. He said the information sought was limited to the names and addresses of transaction parties or ultimate beneficiaries, with relevant confirming documents. It did not include written legal advice or attendance notes. He found that neither legal professional privilege nor client confidentiality prevented disclosure of the requested identities and addresses in the circumstances described.
The judgment said the sums still in issue were below the tax, interest and penalties already recovered in the wider investigation, but were not derisory. The judge also said the public interest in completing the investigation supported disclosure. He noted that the people involved might ultimately have no tax liability, but said that possibility could be demonstrated to Revenue.
The court’s decision granted the application, but did not settle the final scope of the order. The parties agreed to return on 8 March to address costs and any remaining matters. The judge said he was inclined to make an order in the terms of Revenue’s schedule, but would hear counsel on that question. The court also left open whether any documents required partial redaction.