The High Court has rejected a fisherman’s appeal over a €27,472 VAT refund claim, answering in the negative all ten questions referred in a Case Stated appeal and finding that the Tax Appeals Commissioner did not err.
Mr Justice Oisín Quinn delivered the judgment on 3 May 2024. The appeal concerned the Commissioner’s determination of 6 October 2022, which upheld Revenue’s refusal to repay VAT charged on professional services obtained by a receiver during the sale of the fisherman’s fishing capacity.
The fisherman had worked in the mackerel fishing business until around 2010. Bank of Ireland, which held a charge over the capacity as security for other borrowings, appointed a receiver to sell it. The capacity was sold for €817,000. The receiver did not charge VAT on that sale, considering it not to be a taxable supply. The receiver paid €27,472 in VAT on solicitors’, consultants’ and receiver’s services and later gave the invoices to the fisherman. He re-registered for VAT and sought repayment of the full amount.
Revenue refused the claim because the invoices were addressed to the receiver, whom it considered the relevant accountable person. The Tax Appeals Commissioner also found that the fisherman was not entitled to repayment: if the capacity sale was taxable, no VAT had been charged on it; if it was not taxable, there were no other taxable supplies in the relevant periods against which to claim a deduction. The Commissioner also noted that he was not registered for VAT when the services were invoiced.
The fisherman argued that the receiver was acting as his agent and that VAT paid on services related to his business should be refundable. He also submitted that ongoing boat maintenance and harbour costs meant he remained in business. Revenue argued that he was not carrying on a business or making taxable supplies during the relevant period.
Justice Quinn held that the statutory deduction and refund scheme applied to an accountable person in respect of taxable periods. The fisherman had ceased fishing, was not making taxable supplies, and was not registered at the time of the invoices. The court also concluded that the maintenance and harbour costs did not establish taxable economic activity from which a deduction could be claimed.
The judgment said the Commissioner’s remit did not extend to deciding complaints of the kind raised about alleged procedural irregularities, perjury and bias, which were matters more suited to judicial review. The judge found no error in the Commissioner declining to entertain those complaints. The court’s ruling was on the questions in the Case Stated; it did not order repayment of the VAT.