The High Court has dismissed a fuel trader’s judicial review challenge over Revenue’s refusal to disclose the identities of 44 customers it interviewed during an investigation into marked gas oil sales.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2023, Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan refused the relief sought by Michael Quigley and dismissed the proceedings. The underlying tax appeals remain before the Tax Appeals Commission, which must decide whether the assessments were properly raised. The High Court did not determine Quigley’s tax liability or whether his records were accurate.
Revenue assessed Quigley for excise duty of €1,012,337.85 and VAT of €636,842 for periods from 2009 to 2016. It said records for about 300 of 700 customers could not be used to identify them. Of 44 customers it interviewed from the approximately 400 it could locate, Revenue said 33 denied buying marked gas oil from Quigley. It used those enquiries to derive a percentage that it applied to certain sales in calculating the assessments. These are Revenue’s assertions; the tax appeals have not been decided.
Quigley sought the interviewees’ identities and interview records, arguing that the material was needed to answer Revenue’s case and secure a fair hearing. Revenue opposed disclosure, citing public interest and informer privilege, and concerns about confidentiality and future enquiries. The Tax Appeals Commissioner refused to direct disclosure in December 2021 and reaffirmed that decision in January 2022. The Commissioner also directed Quigley to provide information to help identify 300 customers Revenue said it could not trace.
The High Court held that Revenue’s refusal was not a decision that could be quashed by certiorari in these proceedings, because the disclosure dispute had proceeded to a ruling by the Commissioner. The judge found that the identities and interview records were not necessary for Quigley to prepare his case, provided Revenue did not challenge his evidence by relying on information from the interviews.
The court emphasised that the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing entitlement to the reduced rates. It also said the Commissioner must safeguard fair procedures during the appeal. If Revenue seeks to challenge Quigley’s records or honesty using third-party interview information, the Commissioner may need to consider further steps, including disclosure, an adjournment, limits on questioning or excluding evidence. The judgment did not decide what steps would be required; that would depend on the evidence and submissions at the tax appeal.
The judge said Quigley could make a further application to the Commissioner if reliance on the interview information made it necessary. She refused the relief sought and dismissed the judicial review proceedings, reserving consequential matters for the parties to address.