The High Court dismissed J. McN.’s appeal against summary judgment in a Criminal Assets Bureau claim for income tax and interest, finding that the evidence and admissions established the debt despite an error on a certificate relied on by the Bureau.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Feeney on 14 September 2009, concerns a summary summons issued in October 2007. The Bureau claimed €3,313,990.15, comprising €1,791,168.75 in income tax and €1,522,821.40 in interest. A Master granted judgment for that sum in March 2008, and the defendant appealed.
The defendant’s affidavits said accountants were preparing late tax returns that would show a lower liability, which he put at €492,080, and that he intended to seek permission to appeal the assessments late. The High Court had already rejected his preliminary argument that a conflict in the affidavit evidence deprived the Master of jurisdiction. The judgment records that the defendant was not permitted to pursue a late appeal against the assessments.
The defendant also argued that the Bureau’s summons did not adequately establish the officer’s authority to bring the claim, and that a certificate used to support the tax claim was defective. The certificate referred to provisions that the judgment said were incorrectly cited or had since been replaced. The court nevertheless found the officer’s authority sufficiently established, noting that the summons pleaded it and the defendant’s defence and counterclaim had not disputed that plea.
On the certificate issue, the court held that a certificate could prove specified matters, including that tax was due, demanded and remained unpaid, but was not the only permissible means of proof. It found those matters established through affidavits, exhibited documents and admissions, including that assessments had been served and no appeal had been made in time. It concluded the assessments were final and conclusive in law and that the defendant had not identified a bona fide defence.
The appeal was dismissed. The court said judgment should be granted for the amount claimed, less payments made since the proceedings began. It did not make the final order at that stage, reserving that for a further hearing between the parties.