The High Court has refused Express Motor Assessors Limited’s application to add two questions to a case stated arising from its tax appeal against the Revenue Commissioners. The company, which was in liquidation, was unsuccessful in seeking an amendment under section 949AR of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.
The application concerned a case stated by Appeals Commissioner Phelan after his 30 April 2020 determination. The existing case stated posed a single question of law. The proposed additions concerned Revenue’s audit and investigation of the company, and an objection to sworn evidence during the tax appeal.
The liquidator had argued before the Appeals Commissioner that Revenue acted unlawfully by communicating with company directors and receiving records and attending meetings with a former director while the company was in voluntary liquidation. The liquidator said the company could be represented only by him. Revenue disputed, among other things, the claim that he had not been notified of meetings. The Appeals Commissioner said he lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the investigation was unlawful and made no findings about what occurred during the audit or whether the liquidator had been notified.
Justice Stack held that the High Court could amend a case stated itself or send it back to the Appeals Commissioner, depending on the circumstances. But the first proposed question would require factual findings that the Commissioner had not made. The judge said the legality of Revenue’s investigation powers was a matter for judicial review, outside the Appeals Commissioner’s jurisdiction in the tax assessment appeal. She declined to add that question or return the case for findings on it.
The second question concerned Revenue’s objection to the liquidator’s proposed evidence. The Commissioner had recorded that he adjourned to allow discussions, then overruled the objection under section 949AC, which permits him to admit evidence whether or not it would be admissible in court. The judgment noted that the liquidator accepted he had given the impression he was no longer seeking to introduce an email. Justice Stack said hearing an objection that was ultimately overruled disclosed no error of law; she considered the proposed question frivolous and refused to add it.
The judge also held that bringing a separate interlocutory motion was appropriate because the proposed questions were new and could require further factual findings. Despite that procedural ruling, the company was unsuccessful on the amendment application. The court refused the relief sought. The judgment does not determine the underlying tax appeal or the allegations about Revenue’s audit conduct.