The Court of Appeal has dismissed Colm Murphy’s appeal against a High Court judgment in a dispute over €302,494 in tax assessments, ruling that the issues he sought to pursue were not properly before it.
The decision, delivered by Mr Justice Robert Haughton on 21 June 2023, addressed a preliminary issue about the scope of the appeal. The court held that questions concerning section 956 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 and alleged procedural unfairness over the resumption of a Revenue audit could not be considered in this appeal.
The assessments covered income tax and capital gains tax for 2006 and VAT for several periods in 2005 and 2006. The Appeal Commissioners confirmed the assessments in March 2015. The Circuit Court dismissed Murphy’s appeal in 2017, and the High Court answered the questions in the resulting case stated largely in Revenue’s favour in 2020.
Murphy’s appeal to the Court of Appeal focused on whether section 956 prevented Revenue from resuming its audit and issuing assessments in 2013. He also argued that a letter he sent in May 2013 should have counted as an appeal to the Appeal Commissioners, suspending further action until that appeal was determined. The Revenue Commissioners objected that section 956 was not part of the case stated.
The Court of Appeal said the case stated contained no question about section 956, and no application had been made in the High Court to return it for amendment. The court also found that the issue had not been properly raised or argued before the Circuit Court, where relevant evidence could have been required and Revenue would have had an opportunity to respond. The court said the Circuit Court and Appeal Commissioners had limited statutory jurisdiction over tax appeals, focused on whether the assessments correctly reflected the tax charge. Murphy’s October 2013 appeals had raised issues about the amounts assessed, not a section 956 challenge to the audit action.
The court held that the separate procedural fairness argument about the lack of formal notice that the Revenue enquiry had ended was also outside the Appeal Commissioners’ jurisdiction. It said such an argument, if pursued, should have been raised by judicial review.
The court therefore granted Revenue’s preliminary application and dismissed the appeal. It expressed a provisional view that Revenue should receive its appeal costs. Murphy was given 10 days from electronic delivery of the judgment to submit reasons for disputing the proposed costs order; Revenue could then respond within 10 days. The judgment does not record a final costs order.