The High Court has rejected Niall Hade’s appeal against a Tax Appeals Commissioner’s decision that income from providing emergency accommodation was taxable as trading income rather than rental income.
In a judgment delivered on 8 July 2025, Ms Justice Nessa Cahill answered “no” to both questions of law in the case stated. She found no error in the Commissioner’s interpretation of section 96(1) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 or in his application of the High Court’s 2011 decision in *Twomey v Hennessy*.
The dispute concerned a property at 2 Kilakea Way, Firhouse, used for emergency accommodation under an agreement with Dublin City Council from 2003. Hade argued that the income was rent, chargeable under Case V. Revenue treated it as trading income under Case I. The Commissioner had rejected Hade’s appeal against amended assessments for 2010 and 2011, which sought additional tax of €31,879.28 and €26,967.15 respectively.
The Commissioner found that the council never took possession of the property and that occupants did not have exclusive occupation. Hade retained control, while providing supervision, security, bed linen, cleaning of communal areas and other services, as well as keeping records and reporting to the council.
Justice Cahill said the decisive issue was whether the payments arose in a landlord-and-tenant relationship. The statutory definition of rent can cover payments that include goods or services, but the presence of services does not itself settle the question. The relationship must be assessed from the arrangement’s substance, including possession and control.
The judge said the Commissioner’s findings did not support a conclusion that the council had exclusive possession or control of the property. She also rejected Hade’s reliance on the agreement’s use of the word “landlord” and council orders referring to “accommodation”: labels alone did not determine the nature of the arrangement. She said there was no legislative threshold for how many services would take an arrangement outside rent; their character and extent had to be considered in context.
The judgment did not make a separate finding on whether the income was trading income under Case I. Justice Cahill noted that the appeal’s stated questions focused on whether the payments were rent, and she did not determine how the “badges of trade” discussed in *Twomey* applied to Hade’s case.
The court listed the matter for 15 July 2025 to hear brief submissions on costs and the appropriate orders. The judgment did not specify the final costs decision or orders.