Taxpayer’s appeal dismissed where he had attempted to run proceedings in both the Circuit and High Courts

Case arises from the steps taken by the appellant to challenge an adverse decision made by the Appeal Commissioners on 20th July, 2011 - appellant notified the respondent in writing that he wished to state a case to the High Court under s. 941 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 ("the Act") - a case was prepared and lodged in the Central Office, but it was lodged out of time and struck out of the High Court on application by the respondent - before that application was heard, the appellant attempted to progress an appeal to the Circuit Court by bringing a motion to fix a date for hearing - the Circuit Court Judge refused to list the matter as the appellant had elected for the case stated - appellant submits that the High Court was never seised of the case stated - either party to a hearing before the Commissioner may request a case stated on a point of law - the case stated must be transmitted to the High Court within seven days of receipt of the signed case from the Commissioner, and there is no provision for an extension of time - on 28th July, 2011 the appellant expressed dissatisfaction with the decision of the Commissioner and requested him to state a case to the High Court - by letter of the same date, the appellant’s solicitors sent to the inspector of taxes a notice of the appellant’s request to appeal the matter by way of a rehearing in the Circuit Court, pursuant to s.942 of the Act - this letter was misdirected within the respondent's offices and was not received by the inspector - solicitor for the appellant and solicitor for the respondent had phone conversation on 5th September, 2011 - solicitor for the appellant maintains that in that conversation he not did imply that he was withdrawing the Circuit Court appeal - on 19th November 2012, the case stated was sent by the respondent to the Appeal Commissioner - by letter dated 22nd November 2012, the office of the Appeal Commissioners sent the signed case stated by hand to the appellant's solicitors, for transmission by the appellant to the High Court - appellant's solicitor transmitted the case stated to the High Court on 30th November 2012 - respondent's solicitor wrote to the appellant's solicitor stating that it was their opinion that the requirements of the Act had not been complied with and that the case was not transmitted to the High Court within time - in April 2013, respondent notified the appellant's solicitor that an application would be brought to strike out the case stated as it was not transmitted to the High Court within the seven days as required by the Act - it was the solicitor for the respondent's position that by choosing to pursue a case stated in the High Court, the appellant had withdrawn his request for a re-hearing by the Circuit Court - in June 2013, the appellant issued a motion before that Court for the purpose of having the appeal listed for hearing - the applicant did not then apply for a hearing date for the case stated - this motion was heard in the Circuit Court and the Judge refused to list the appeal for hearing, holding that the applicant had pursued his appeal by way of case stated - the applicant appealed this decision to the High Court - the respondent's application to strike out the case stated was granted in the High Court on 15th July 2013 - the Act permits a dissatisfied taxpayer to serve the prescribed notification for both a case stated and an appeal by way of rehearing in the Circuit Court - two courts cannot be seised of the same issue at the same time - if the Circuit Court rehears a tax case, any decision made on a point of law by the Appeal Commissioner is open to re-argument - case stated procedure envisages the determination of the point of law by the High Court - no issue in this case as to the process of the Appeal Commissioner - no issue of statutory interpretation involved - it is for the taxpayer to elect for the process considered to be the most beneficial in the circumstances of any given case - appellant in this case lodged the case stated in the High Court in the belief it was lodged in time which shows the intention to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court - appellant then without accepting that the case was out of time attempted to get a listing in the Circuit Court - appellant made binding election in respect of a case stated - appeal dismissed.