The High Court has determined that Michael Fahy is liable for a civil penalty of €88,872.42 after finding, on the balance of probabilities, that he deliberately failed to file income tax and VAT returns for 2015 to 2017.
Mr Justice Dignam made the determination on 26 April 2024 in proceedings brought by Revenue Officer Siobhán Dooner under tax legislation. He also ordered that the penalty may be collected and recovered in the same manner as tax. This was a civil penalty determination, not a decision on the separate criminal conviction that Mr Fahy challenged in his motion.
The court heard that Mr Fahy had registered as a self-employed sales consultant for income tax in 1997 and for VAT in 2009. The last income tax return he filed was for 2008, and the last VAT return was for January and February 2010. Revenue said he did not file the returns at issue and did not attend two meetings arranged during its investigation in April 2019, or provide requested records.
Revenue assessed income tax and VAT for the relevant periods and issued an amended notice stating its opinion that Mr Fahy was liable for a penalty. The assessments were not appealed. The judge found that Mr Fahy had not specifically disputed the alleged filing failures or explained them, and concluded that they were deliberate. He also found that Mr Fahy had not cooperated with the investigation, so no reduction for cooperation applied.
Mr Fahy argued that the figures were estimates and that the application should have used a summary summons procedure. The judge rejected those arguments, finding that the assessments had replaced earlier estimates and that the case sought a court determination of a penalty, rather than recovery of a fixed debt by summary summons.
The judge also rejected Mr Fahy’s requests in these proceedings to have a criminal conviction from a separate case quashed and to recover money Revenue had attached from his bank accounts. The conviction concerned different tax years, 2009 to 2012; the judge said any challenge must be brought by appeal or judicial review. He expressed no view on whether the attachment was lawful, saying a claim for return of the money would require separate proceedings.
The court refused Mr Fahy’s application for leave to cross-examine Ms Dooner, finding no relevant conflict of fact that required cross-examination. It also refused the other reliefs sought in his motion.