The High Court has given the Revenue liberty to enter final judgment against Antonio Di Murro for €2,159,766.86 in income tax and interest, after finding that his proposed challenges to the assessment could not be litigated as defences in the summary proceedings.
Mr Justice Hunt’s judgment, delivered on 11 January 2017, concerns tax assessed for 2002. The sum claimed comprises €1,039,882.28 in tax and €1,119,884.58 in interest, with continuing interest also sought. The order allows the plaintiff, Michael Gladney, to enter final judgment on the terms pleaded in the summary summons. It is not a ruling after a trial of the underlying tax dispute.
The judgment recounts that Revenue assessed the tax manually in November 2012, following an investigation into funds held in an offshore account. Di Murro had said the funds were transferred to Italy, where he paid about €79,000 in tax, and that he had no outstanding Irish tax liability. Revenue later questioned the source of the funds and pointed to eight lodgements to the offshore account through a Bank of Ireland account in Ballyfermot between 1993 and 2000. The judge noted that the explanations given for the funds’ origins had differed and that Di Murro’s response did not address those eight transactions.
Di Murro argued that he had raised arguable defences, including challenges to the assessment’s form and timing, the amount claimed and possible double tax relief. He also sought discovery to establish the basis of the assessment. Gladney argued that disputes about a tax assessment had to be taken through the statutory appeal system.
The judge agreed with Gladney. He held that the issues raised concerned the assessment and required factual findings, so they belonged in the specialist tax appeal process; legal or jurisdictional challenges could also be pursued through judicial review where appropriate. The judgment says Di Murro did not use the appeal procedures before the Revenue began enforcement proceedings, despite being reminded of them. It notes that an appeal may remain possible at this late stage if the statutory conditions are met.
The court concluded that no admissible arguable defence had been raised in the summary claim. It rejected the complaint that the claim lacked sufficient particulars, noting that the assessment calculations had previously been provided. The order grants liberty to enter final judgment; the judgment does not state that final judgment had already been entered.