The High Court answered questions of law arising from Colm Murphy’s appeal concerning Revenue assessments, but did not determine the amounts of tax due. The court said it would hear the parties on any consequential orders, including costs.
The case came before Ms Justice Pilkington as a case stated under section 941 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, following a Circuit Court judgment by Judge Comerford. Revenue assessments issued in September and October 2013 covered income tax, capital gains tax and VAT, totalling €302,494 as listed in the judgment. The court stressed that the case stated did not involve a determination of those financial assessments or a tax computation.
The audit began in April 2009 and was suspended the following month after Revenue told Murphy that his affairs were under enquiry. It resumed in May 2013, and assessments followed. The parties agreed that Murphy had made three prompted disclosures during the audit, after filing the relevant returns.
Murphy argued that assessments should be treated as issued only when Revenue formally confirmed in January 2014 that the enquiry was no longer proceeding, and that the delay and an error in the VAT notice affected their validity. Revenue argued that the assessments were within time or that the four-year limit did not apply because the returns lacked full and true disclosure.
The High Court answered “Yes” to the first three questions. It found no rule of law preventing Revenue from resuming the audit while the enquiry was in being, or requiring the audit to take effect only after formal notice that the enquiry had ended. On the agreed chronology, the prompted disclosures came after the returns, so the statutory four-year limit was not available to Murphy.
The court answered “No” to whether estoppel could be considered by the Circuit Court in this tax appeal, and said the related question about whether the estoppel finding was lawful did not arise. It answered “Yes” to the question about whether an initial error in the stated assessment amount precluded a different amount being established: the judgment records that the error was corrected and the taxpayer notified.
Murphy had indicated he did not require answers to questions concerning delay, the European Convention on Human Rights and the relevance of his dispute with a professional body. The High Court nevertheless answered “Yes” to those questions. The judgment does not set out a final order on costs or other consequential matters; the judge reserved those for a further hearing.