The High Court has refused the Collector General’s application for summary judgment against Caroline Lambe in a €219,551.42 capital gains tax claim, directing that the proceedings continue to a plenary hearing and giving her leave to defend.
The claim concerns assessments for 2007 and 2008. The judgment says €193,220.53 was claimed for 2007, including tax and interest, and €26,330.89 for 2008. The plaintiff sought liberty to enter final judgment on foot of a summary summons.
The Collector General argued that the assessments had not been the subject of valid notices of appeal and were therefore final and conclusive under the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. The defendant submitted that her accountant had sent notices of appeal on 21 February 2011 and that she had no liability for the amounts claimed. She also argued that the appeals remained pending because the inspector had not issued a refusal under the statutory procedure.
The dispute focused on whether the letters met the statutory requirement to specify the amounts or matters being challenged and the detailed grounds of appeal. The plaintiff argued that they did not, and that the letters were invalid. The defendant relied on the letters and, for the 2007 assessment, a return, arguing that together they identified the matters under appeal. The judgment also records her substantive contention that she owed no capital gains tax.
Mr Justice Bernard Barton held that the validity of the letters was a mixed question of fact and law. Although a court may resolve a legal issue on a summary judgment application in some circumstances, it was not required to do so. He was not satisfied that the issue could be better determined without fuller argument and consideration, and found that a plenary hearing was appropriate.
The court did not decide whether the appeal letters were valid, whether the assessments were final and conclusive, or whether the defendant owed the claimed tax. It refused the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment, adjourned the proceedings for plenary hearing and gave the defendant liberty to defend. The underlying claim therefore remains unresolved.