Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Circuit Court has jurisdiction to determine whether parties to taxation assessment appeal had reached prior settlement
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, by way of a consultative case stated from the Circuit Court (Riordan J), finds that the Circuit Court (when hearing an appeal from a decision of a taxation appeals commissioner) does have statutory jurisdiction to determine whether the parties to an appeal have entered into a prior settlement or accord with respect to any tax liability at issue in an appeal, as it would be unwarranted and unfair to adopt an artificially narrow construction of the elaborate procedures enacted by legislation to determine tax liabilities.
Case stated - scope of jurisdiction of taxation appeal commissioners and Circuit Court under appeal - taxation legislative regime - whether decision to abate, reduce, permit to stand or increase any assessment on appeal requires a consideration of whether a prior settlement has been reached between the parties on relevant liability - qualifying disclosure made out of time stipulated - respondent treated cheque sent by appellant, in furtherance of his tax liability, as a payment on account - whether appellant's liability settled - years assessed - terms of correspondence with respondent relied upon at appeal hearing - intention that solicitor's letter of offer constituted full and final settlement - respondent's acknowledgement of receipt of letter and subsequent encashment - parol evidence rule - exceptions - whether accord between parties at material time - manner in which respondent dealt with appellant's correspondence - powers and authorities of appeal commissioners - statutory powers of commissioners oblige them to give rulings on law or fact - unfair to adopt artificially narrow construction of bodies' powers to determine issues of fact and law - revenue law has no equity - no jurisdiction to entertain claim of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
