The High Court ruled that a taxpayer must produce a 1993 tax amnesty certificate in response to each new Revenue Commissioners enquiry if he wishes to rely on its protection. It refused a farmer’s judicial review challenge to a Circuit Court ruling concerning tax assessments.
Mr Justice Barr said section 5 of the Waiver of Certain Tax, Interest and Penalties Act 1993 applies to the particular enquiry underway when a certificate is produced. It does not prevent the Revenue Commissioners from starting separate enquiries later, including where new information emerges.
The applicant had obtained an amnesty certificate in July 1994 covering declared income and gains for the period ending on 5 April 1991. A Revenue enquiry in 2001 into tax arrears was concluded after the farmer paid £4,000. The parties disputed whether he produced his certificate during that enquiry.
A separate investigation began in 2005 after the farmer made a qualifying disclosure concerning money invested in life assurance products. The Revenue Commissioners later issued amended assessments for the tax years ended 5 April 1992 and 5 April 1994. The Appeal Commissioners upheld them, and the farmer appealed to the Circuit Court.
At the Circuit Court hearing, the farmer argued that any later Revenue enquiry into the period covered by his certificate required an application to the Appeal Commissioners to challenge his declaration. Judge Hickson rejected that preliminary argument and proceeded to hear the appeal. The High Court challenge concerned that preliminary ruling; it was not an appeal deciding the farmer’s tax liability afresh.
The High Court found that even if the certificate had been produced in 2001, it did not protect the farmer in the separate enquiry begun in 2005. He produced it in 2013, well outside section 5’s 30-day period for the later enquiry. The court therefore held the Circuit Court judge was entitled not to consider the certificate as a preliminary point and refused judicial review.
Mr Justice Barr separately extended the time for bringing the judicial review to 24 November 2014. He accepted that the applicant had a justifiable explanation for the delay and that, after relations with his former solicitor broke down, bringing proceedings within the original limit was essentially beyond his control. The extension did not change the result of the judicial review.