The High Court has rejected an appeal by Offaly service-station owner Fergus Byrne over €451,770 in VAT credits disallowed on fuel purchases, leaving the Tax Appeal Commissioner’s determination in place.
In a judgment delivered on 13 April 2021, Mr Justice Twomey answered “yes” to all three questions referred in a Case Stated. He concluded there was evidence supporting the Commissioner’s finding of a transaction connected with VAT fraud, and that a reasonable commissioner could find Byrne should have known about that connection. The court said it was not deciding the tax dispute afresh: Byrne had to show that no reasonable commissioner could have reached the conclusion she did.
The assessments concerned fuel invoices attributed to FQ Services in 2010, McCarthy Oil in 2011 and John Kelly Fuels in 2012. Byrne had bought about €2.5 million of fuel and claimed €451,770 in input VAT. Revenue evidence before the Commissioner was that the VAT on the invoices had not been accounted for. The Commissioner upheld the assessments in December 2019.
A central issue was an arrangement under which Byrne received fuel and invoices from McCarthy Oil but paid John Kelly Fuels. Byrne accepted that the arrangement was unusual. The judgment also records that he did not contact either company directly to clarify it, and that he later asked for invoices from John Kelly Fuels so they would match his payments. He had sent a fuel sample for testing because of concerns about laundering, but did not test fuel from the other suppliers.
The High Court said the evidence was cumulative. It included the unusual payment arrangement, the scale of the purchases, fuel-fraud concerns in the area, unmarked delivery trucks and the absence of checks on suppliers. While another commissioner could have taken a more benign view of Byrne’s conduct, the High Court held that it could not say no reasonable commissioner would have reached the conclusion in the determination.
The court expressly said neither the Commissioner nor the High Court found that Byrne had actual knowledge of VAT fraud. It rejected the appeal on a point of law. The judgment did not set out final orders: it asked the parties to discuss outstanding matters and said the case would be listed for mention one week later if needed.