The High Court ruled that Shane Coleman’s book *Foot in Mouth – Famous Irish Political Gaffes* did not qualify for an income tax exemption available to certain artists’ works, overturning the Appeal Commissioner’s determination in Coleman’s favour.
In a judgment delivered on 25 November 2014, Ms Justice Donnelly answered “no” to the question of law referred in a case stated by the Appeal Commissioner. The Revenue Commissioners had appealed that determination to the High Court. The proceeding concerned whether the book, as non-fiction, met the requirements of paragraphs 9(i) and 9(ii) of the guidelines under section 195 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.
The Appeal Commissioner had found that the book was not an actual biography in the ordinary sense, but nonetheless treated it as a set of “mini biographies” and held that it came within the guidelines’ biography category. He also considered that readers might gain new insights from it. Revenue argued that this approach departed from the ordinary meaning of biography and relied on perceived consistency with how it had treated another book. Coleman, who represented himself, submitted that the book offered researched background and analysis of Irish political figures and was pioneering.
The High Court said its role was limited to deciding the legal question in the case stated; it was not making a fresh determination of the book’s character. Applying the principles governing case-stated appeals, the judge treated the Appeal Commissioner’s initial finding—that the book was not a biography in the normal sense—as a primary finding of fact that had to stand.
The court held that the Appeal Commissioner was wrong in law to then conclude that the book qualified as biography by relying on a perceived comparison with Revenue’s treatment of another work and on the Customer Service Charter’s commitment to fair, reasonable and consistent administration. The statutory scheme and guidelines required the ordinary meaning of biography to be applied, the court said.
The judgment did not decide whether the book met the separate requirement that a non-fiction work’s ideas or insights be significant enough to make it pioneering. That question was unnecessary to resolve after the biography finding. The book’s cultural or artistic merit was also not in issue in this appeal; the judgment records that the Appeal Commissioner had ruled in Coleman’s favour on that point.