High Court rules against retired farmer in €364k tax battle with Revenue

Peadar Hamill gave three different explanations for the discrepancies between the income declared by him and the lodgements that appeared in his various bank accounts

Revenue stated that it miscalculated his assessment and reduced the income tax bill to €237,551 and €126,963 for VAT for a combined €364,514. File photo: Laura Hutton/RollingNews.ie

A retired farmer has lost his long-running tax battle with the Revenue Commissioners concerning a disputed income tax and VAT bill for €364,514.

This follows Mr Justice Oisín Quinn at the High Court rejecting a claim made by Peadar Hamill that he was treated unfairly in the process where he claimed that taxation assessments were initially made because he was not provided with documents obtained by Revenue from various third parties.

Mr Justice Quinn also rejected Mr Hamill’s related complaint that these documents should not therefore have been admitted at the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) appeal hearing.

In his findings concerning Mr Hamill’s appeal against the July 2024 TAC ruling by way of a 'case stated', Mr Justice Quinn stated that whilst there may be a superficial attraction to the claim that a process was unfair by virtue of certain documents not having been delivered, that criticism melts away.

Mr Justice Quinn said the criticism melts away when Mr Hamill had the material in question, was told that the decision-maker was assembling this information and then refused to co-operate with the information gathering exercise or attend meetings to discuss the issues.

In the case stated before the High Court from the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC), Mr Justice Quinn said evidence does not demonstrate that Mr Hamill was treated unfairly in relation to the documents.

In his ruling, he said Mr Hamill was told that information was being obtained by third parties and he was written to about it.

He said: “This situation arose due to his own failure to co-operate with the audit. He was offered the opportunity to attend meetings. He declined to attend the meetings…. What is more, his accountant wrote essentially asking not to be contacted any further about the matter."

The case stated before the High Court asked three questions including ones which asked did the TAC err in law in permitting the admission of evidence procured by Revenue from third parties and did the TAC fail to protect Mr Hamill’s rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and thus err in law?

Mr Justice Quinn said the answer to both questions was no.

Case background

In the case, Revenue issued the initial €407,710 assessments after concluding that Mr Hamill had understated his income for the period from 2013-2015 and, in addition, had not charged VAT on agricultural products sold by him in both 2013 and 2015.

Revenue stated that Mr Hamill had during 2013 to 2015 purchased and sold plastic silage wrap and other agricultural supplies in the State on which he had not charged VAT.

Revenue pointed out that in 2013, Mr Hamill had declared income of €101,812 but had total lodgements to his three bank accounts of €971,112 and total expenditure of €915,697.

In 2014, Mr Hamill had declared turnover of €140,319, but had total lodgements to his three accounts of €481,401and total expenditure of €506,080.

In 2015, Mr Hamill declared turnover of €251,312 but had total lodgements of €544,246 and total expenditure of €413,013.

Mr Hamill gave three different explanations for the discrepancies between the income declared by him and the lodgements that appeared in his various bank accounts.

The first was that his only income was from the sale of cattle and a small amount of fertiliser contract work. The second explanation was that he had allowed his accounts to be used by others.

The third explanation was that he was a bulk buyer and distributor of agricultural products for other farmers.

The TAC found that “none of the three explanations provided by the appellant explained the very significant difference between his declared income and the lodgements to his accounts”.

At the TAC hearing, Revenue stated that it miscalculated the assessment and reduced the income tax bill to €237,551 and €126,963 for VAT for a combined €364,514.