The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Tobin’s appeals against orders refusing to dismiss a bankruptcy summons and adjudicating him bankrupt. The court found no real and substantial issue that the debt demanded by the Collector General was overstated or that Revenue’s handling of stamp duty certificates gave Tobin a basis to challenge the summons.
The appeals concerned a High Court order of 30 May 2017 refusing Tobin’s application to dismiss the summons, and an order of 13 November 2017 adjudicating him bankrupt. Tobin’s application to dismiss was made about six months after the deadline. The Court of Appeal treated the time-extension question as moot and expressed no concluded view on it. It reviewed the High Court’s findings on the substance of the challenge.
The summons demanded €405,808.66, based on seven judgments obtained by Revenue between 2011 and 2015. Tobin accepted that a significant sum, estimated at about €330,000, was due. He argued that a €71,030 credit, plus interest, should have reduced the amount because of an alleged overpayment of stamp duty connected to property bought by a former client. The judgment does not identify that client.
The court found no credible evidence that the client had overpaid tax. It noted evidence of an outstanding stamp duty liability relating to one of the properties, as well as other income tax and capital gains tax liabilities. Revenue’s evidence was that funds attached from forestry grant payments had been applied to the client’s income tax and capital gains tax liabilities. The court also concluded that, even if an overpayment had occurred, Tobin had shown no basis for claiming a refund or credit from Revenue: the client, not Tobin, was the person liable for the stamp duty. The court rejected Tobin’s subrogation argument as a basis for a claim against Revenue.
Tobin also argued that Revenue had delayed issuing a stamp duty certificate for one property and had not issued one for another. The court found no demonstrated error giving Tobin a basis for damages or for setting aside the summons. The evidence indicated that the first liability was discharged after a further payment in 2015, leading to a certificate, while the second remained unpaid.
The court also rejected Tobin’s argument that the petition fell outside the statutory three-month period. It held that the relevant act of bankruptcy arose after the 14-day period to pay the summons expired, not on the date the summons was served, and that the petition was presented within three months. The appeals were dismissed. The judgment observed that the law on challenging bankruptcy summonses over disputed amounts may need further attention; that observation did not alter the result in Tobin’s appeals.