The High Court has raised concerns about whether it should grant summary judgment for more than €5.2 million in estimated tax claims against a father and son, after their assessments became final because they did not appeal within the statutory period.
In an interim judgment delivered on 16 March 2017, Mr Justice Max Barrett said the Revenue Commissioners were seeking more than €2.7 million from Annino Forte and more than €2.5 million from Corrado Forte. The sums arose from a Revenue audit in which the two men chose not to participate. Revenue issued notices of assessment advising them that they could appeal to the Appeals Commissioners.
The Fortes, who appeared without legal representation, instead decided to wait for Revenue to sue them and then dispute the alleged liabilities in court. The judge said their failure to appeal meant the assessments became “final and conclusive” under the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. He noted that the legislation appeared to prevent a late appeal while court recovery proceedings were under way.
The judge said the Fortes insisted they did not owe the full amounts claimed. He described their dealings with Revenue as at times imprudent and not always polite, but said he was concerned that the court was being asked to give summary judgment for estimated sums whose accuracy had never been properly tested. He warned that granting the application at that stage could produce an order that did not reflect reality and potentially cause a grave injustice.
The judgment did not decide the tax liability or grant or refuse summary judgment. Instead, the judge asked Revenue’s counsel to seek instructions on whether Revenue would consider a further special audit, agree to the matter being sent back to Revenue or the Appeals Commissioners for a fresh determination, or propose another way forward.
The judge also said he might consider referring legal questions to the Court of Appeal if Revenue could not accept those proposals or suggest an alternative. Any adjournment for fresh consideration would depend on the Fortes undertaking to engage sensibly with Revenue. The judgment said they could still be held liable for the amounts claimed or another amount, and encouraged them to seek professional representation if able.