The High Court has allowed the Revenue Commissioners to amend a summary summons so that its claim for income tax said to be due for 2012 is pleaded as arising from an assessment rather than a tax return. The court refused the defendant’s request to adjourn the amendment hearing but made no decision on the underlying tax dispute or the separate motion for judgment.
The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice Mark Heslin on 21 November 2024. The claim concerns income tax said to be due for 2012, 2013 and 2014. The original summons, issued in January 2019, claimed €93,289.14, excluding interest. The court said the amendment did not change the amount or nature of the claim.
The Revenue sought to replace the word “return” with “assessment” in relation to 2012 and add that a notice of assessment was sent to the defendant by ordinary post on 15 November 2017. The plaintiff’s evidence described the earlier wording as a clerical error. The judgment records that the defendant had filed a nil return for 2012, but that the Revenue’s position was that a later assessment following an audit was the source of the claimed liability. Those matters were recounted as background; the court stressed that the amendment hearing was not a trial and expressed no view on the merits.
The defendant’s counsel sought an adjournment because the solicitors on record intended to apply to come off record, citing insufficient instructions and outstanding documents. The defendant was absent. His daughter attended, but the court did not hear submissions from her because she was not a party and the defendant had solicitors on record. Counsel relayed that the daughter said the defendant was ill, but no medical evidence was tendered.
Justice Heslin said the defendant had long been on notice of the application and that the proposed change was minor. He also noted that the defendant had consented in May 2023 to similar amendments concerning 2013 and 2014. The defendant’s counsel argued that changing the pleading could prejudice the defendant’s ability to appeal the assessment. The judge found no evidential basis for that claim, noting that the assessment had not been paid and that the defendant had not sought an appeal. He said the tax appeal process was for the relevant statutory route, not for the court to determine in this application.
The court permitted the amendment under Order 28, rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. It made no order for costs. The amended summons is to be served on the defendant’s solicitors within seven days, with permission for service by post and email to the defendant. The defendant may file a replying affidavit by 24 January 2025. The case was listed for mention only on 5 February; the court did not determine the pending motion for judgment or the solicitors’ application to come off record.