The High Court has dismissed Michael Delaney’s judicial review challenge to Revenue’s refusal to grant vehicle registration tax relief on a car he brought into Ireland from the United Kingdom.
Mr Justice Binchy ruled on 21 May 2019 that the proceedings were brought outside the time limit and should also be dismissed for substantive reasons. The court did not decide whether Mr Delaney qualified for the relief; it said that issue was for Revenue or the Tax Appeals Commission through the statutory appeal process.
Mr Delaney said he had lived and worked in the UK from January 2012 until September 2015, apart from a period in Ireland in 2014 when he returned to assist his partner during a health scare and took temporary work. He bought a Mercedes E350 in February 2015 and brought it into Ireland in September that year, seeking relief under the transfer of residence rules.
Revenue refused the application on 2 December 2015, saying the documents provided were insufficient. After further correspondence and a review of additional information, Revenue again refused relief on 29 February 2016, concluding that Mr Delaney’s personal ties remained in Ireland and that his residence was therefore deemed to be here.
Mr Delaney appealed to the Tax Appeals Commission in April 2016, but did not register the vehicle or pay the assessed VRT, which the legislation required before the appeal could proceed. His appeal therefore did not progress. He argued in the judicial review proceedings that requiring payment before an appeal was determined was unlawful, and also challenged provisions allowing tax debts to be set off against any refund.
The judge held that even if time began to run from Revenue’s later decision in February 2016, the three-month deadline expired on 29 May. The judicial review application was not made until 29 July 2016. No formal application to extend the deadline was made and no reason was given for the delay.
The court also found that Mr Delaney had not provided particulars supporting his claims that Revenue handled his application unlawfully. The judge said disagreement with Revenue’s assessment of his residence was a matter for appeal, and that the appeal route was an alternative remedy he should have pursued. The constitutional and human-rights arguments about payment pending appeal and set-off were not pursued or substantiated sufficiently to succeed.
The High Court dismissed the proceedings. It made no order granting the requested tax relief.