Decision that purchaser could not rely on sub-sale relief and owed further stamp duty is upheld

Court of Appeal – Revenue Commissioner – Appeal from two judgments of the High Court – Appeal by way of case stated from a determination of the Tax Appeals Commission – whether conveyance was a sub-sale of a property – if so, the conveyance was sufficiently stamped – if not, the conveyance attracted a much higher stamp duty, as well as interest – whether even if the deed was subject to the higher amount of duty, the appellant is the “accountable person” – s.949AQ of the Tax Consolidation Act, 1997 – s. 46 of the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act, 1999 – manuscript declaration of trust – declaration that entire interest in the contract for purchase was held in trust on foot of the Property Transfer Agreement – to be transferred to trustee on her nominee when called upon to do so – found that there was no evidence that the executors were asked for, or provided their consent to the trust arrangement – conveyance of property to appellant – appellant made a self-assessed stamp duty return calculated on the consideration it had paid on the basis that it was entitled to sub-sale relief – Revenue Commissioner took the view he was not entitled to this relief and it was appealed to the Tax Appeals Commission – found that the effect of the declaration of trust was that Mr. D was no more than a bare trustee or nominee and had no power of sale and divested himself of his beneficial interest in the property – effect of the nominee agreement is that Mr. D ceased to hold a bare trusteeship in relation to the property – Mrs. D had appointed a new trustee – purchaser in main contract and vendor in the sub-sale contract must be the same person – conveyance must be in consequence of original contract and sub-sale contract – must arise from contracts which are enforceable by specific performance – must be no intervening act between main contract and execution of conveyance – application before the High Court – application to send back the case stated to the Tax Appeals Commission – the construction of the taxing Acts – the correct construction of s.46(1) of the Stamp Duties Consolidation Act, 1999 – Mr. D did not have a power of sale at time of contract for sub-sale to the appellant and could not have validly done so – no legal nexus between the contract for sub-sale and the subsequent conveyance – conveyance cannot have been in consequence of that contact – conveyance to the appellant required the concurrence of the executors and Mrs. D – cannot be said that the same property was immediately conveyed to the appellant – High Court was correct in answering the first case stated in the affirmative and in refusing the application for an order remitting the case to the Appeal Commissioner for amendment – whether the appellant must pay stamp duty on both transactions – accountable person is to be identified by establishing the identity of the purchaser under the conveyance or transfer – the appellant is to be accountable for stamp duty for two separate and distinct agreements for sale.