The High Court has dismissed T. J.’s judicial review application seeking disclosure of information behind income tax assessments raised by the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB). The ruling leaves the assessments in place and the applicant’s statutory appeal process available; it does not determine the tax appeal itself.
The assessments, issued on 21 February 2005, covered tax years 1992/93 to 2003 and classified the income as Schedule D, Case IV miscellaneous income. The judgment says the CAB obtained papers from the applicant’s accountant under statutory powers. T. J. appealed the assessments in March 2005, and the appeal was listed before the Appeal Commissioners for 10 March 2006.
In February 2006, T. J.’s solicitors sought the information forming the basis of the assessments. The CAB offered to return papers taken from the accountant’s office, which it said were the only papers supplied by or on behalf of the applicant. T. J. argued that the round figures appeared arbitrary and that, without the assessment basis, he could not prepare meaningfully for the appeal. His counsel also argued that the CAB’s role in the appeal could leave him facing an ambush, and relied on fair-procedure and legitimate-expectation arguments, including the Revenue Commissioners’ customer service charter.
The CAB denied that the figures were arbitrary. It argued that tax legislation did not require supporting particulars to accompany notices of assessment or require it to disclose its case in advance. It said T. J. could use his own records and knowledge of his income to challenge the assessments before the Appeal Commissioners, where he could call witnesses. If he were taken by surprise, the commissioners could consider whether an adjournment was needed.
Justice Gilligan found that T. J. had not shown specific prejudice beyond the possibility of extra legal costs if an adjournment became necessary. The judge rejected the claim that the applicant was in an impossible position and said the assessments alleged undeclared income and gains, not criminal wrongdoing requiring protections for a criminal trial. The court also found that the customer service charter did not promise disclosure of all information held by the CAB and created no reasonable expectation that it would provide the material sought.
The judge said fair procedures remained applicable. If T. J. could demonstrate prejudice during an appeal before the Appeal Commissioners or the Circuit Court, an adjournment would have to be granted; if it were refused, judicial review could be pursued. The court dismissed the application, finding no entitlement to the relief sought.