The High Court granted summary judgments for the Revenue Commissioners against Annino Forte and Corrado Forte over estimated unpaid taxes of more than €2.7 million and €2.5 million respectively.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2017, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the assessments had become “final and conclusive” because the Fortes did not appeal them to the Appeals Commissioners. Under the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, he said, that left the estimated liabilities fully owing at law. The court was hearing the Revenue’s applications for summary judgment, not deciding the tax assessments afresh.
The judgment said the Fortes, who appeared without lawyers, had chosen to wait for Revenue to sue them so they could dispute the alleged liabilities in court. The court noted that Corrado Forte had sent lengthy correspondence disputing liability, but said whether that could distinguish the case from earlier authority had not been explored at the hearing. The judge also considered that both men appeared to have laboured under a misapprehension about their position and the available remedies.
After an interim judgment, the court asked Revenue to consider a further special audit, a fresh determination by Revenue or the Appeals Commissioners, or another way forward. Revenue renewed its request for judgment for the amounts sought. The judge said Revenue was entitled to take that position.
The Fortes argued that the relevant tax law was unclear, raised equitable estoppel, and sought discovery and a plenary hearing. The court rejected those arguments, finding no relied-on representation by Revenue to support estoppel and no basis to send the cases to a full hearing. It said the affidavit evidence disclosed no arguable defence and that discovery alone did not justify a plenary hearing.
The judge said a 2017 High Court decision, Gladney v Di Murrio, constrained what the court could do in the applications. He concluded that the amounts were owing at law and that the court had to grant the summary judgments. The Fortes’ other requested relief was refused as unfounded or moot.
The judgment also said the evidence appeared to show some level of tax evasion, which the court deprecated. The judge nevertheless expressed unease that the law required full and final judgments for likely ruinous sums that began as estimates and whose correctness had never been tested, although the Fortes continued to challenge them.