The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge brought by five anonymised applicants over who must prove whether they were Irish tax-resident when seeking to appeal income tax assessments.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens held that the applicants had to provide evidence to displace the assessments, including evidence supporting their claim that they were not tax-resident. He said residency did not determine the Appeals Commissioners’ jurisdiction to hear the appeals; it was an issue to be decided on evidence in the appeal process.
The applicants received assessments in March 2016 covering tax years from 2008 to 2014. They said they had worked abroad as nomadic tarmac contractors and were not tax-resident in Ireland. They argued that Revenue had to establish their residence before the Appeals Commissioners could require them to make returns or pay tax as a condition of appealing.
The dispute followed an earlier Court of Appeal judgment in 2020, which sent the matter back for reconsideration after finding that an Appeal Commissioner had not adequately addressed the applicants’ legal arguments. In decisions made in June, October and December 2022, an Appeal Commissioner concluded that the applicants would have to prove their non-resident status in a preliminary process concerning whether their appeals could be admitted. The applicants sought judicial review of that approach.
Mr Justice Owens said a tax assessment is presumed valid on matters bearing on tax liability unless displaced through an appeal. He found that the person appealing must prove the facts supporting a claim that no tax, or less tax, is due. That could include evidence of non-residence, he said. A successful appeal on that basis would not retrospectively invalidate the assessment or the Commissioner’s jurisdiction to hear it.
The judge dismissed the judicial review application. He said the applicants had not challenged the validity of the assessments themselves in these proceedings. He also gave a provisional view that costs should be awarded to the Criminal Assets Bureau, with either side able to seek an opportunity to make oral submissions on costs.
The judgment did not decide whether the Appeals Commissioners have statutory power to conduct the preliminary hearing at issue. Justice Owens said that power might not exist and that the Commissioners would need to determine whether the relevant legislation expressly or implicitly authorises it. That question was left open; the court’s ruling resolved the applicants’ challenge to the burden of proof.