Attorney-General (Irish Free State) v White

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date03 March 1931
Date03 March 1931
CourtHigh Court (Irish Free State)

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, IRISH FREE STATE-

SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE, IRISH FREE STATE-

(1) Attorney-General (Irish Free State)
and
White

Income Tax - Failure to make return - Penalty - Income Tax Act, 1918 (8 & 9 Geo. V, c. 40), Section 107 (1); Irish Free State Finance Act, 1925, Section 10 (3).

On 10th April, 1928, the Defendant was served with a notice requiring him to make a return of income within twenty-one days, but he failed to do so. Estimated assessments were made and proceedings were instituted in the High Court of the Irish Free State for the recovery, under Section 107 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, as amended by Section 10 (3) of the Irish Free State Finance Act, 1925, of a penalty of £455 7s. 6d., as representing £20 plus treble the tax chargeable. The Defendant appealed against the assessments, but when the action for penalties came before the High Court the appeals had not been heard. The High Court awarded the penalty as claimed.

Held, in the Supreme Court, that the action for penalties should not have been brought before the assessments had become final and that it failed accordingly.

High Court of Justice, Irish Free State-15th October, 1930

Hanna, J.-This is an unusual case of some importance. The Defendant, William Xavier White, was at the time of the matters complained of State Solicitor for the County of Leix, and had in addition a private practice. He has now been promoted to the position of County Registrar; and this information is laid against him by the Attorney-General to recover from him £455 7s. 6d., a penalty fixed by Section 107 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, for neglecting to make the return of his income required by the Act in response to the notice served by the assessor. It appears that in years previous to 1928 there had been disputes between the Defendant and the Commissioners as to his Income Tax assessments, but with these we are not concerned. On 10th April, 1928, Mr. White was served by registered letter with the notice prescribed by Section 99, requiring him to deliver to the assessor a true and correct statement in writing of his income under both Schedule D and Schedule E. The period within which he was to make the return was limited to 21 days, so that the time for delivering same expired on 1st May following. In the Irish Free State, by virtue of the operation of Section 190 of the Act, the Inspector is in the same position as the assessor. This notice was served upon Mr. White by registered post, and it is significant that according to the evidence he was the only

one out of three thousand taxpayers in the county who was so served. It is obvious that the Inspector anticipated trouble. Mr. White ignored the notice and was only galvanised into life when on 5th September, 1928, the Commissioner, in discharging the obligation upon him under Section 107 (2), proceeded to make peremptory assessments upon him both in respect of his earned income and his emoluments as State Solicitor. In respect of his professional earnings he was assessed at £700, making him liable to a net tax of £94 10s., and in respect of his office he was assessed at £500, making him liable to a net tax of £67 10s.

On the very day that he received these peremptory assessments, Mr. White lodged appeals. The Inspector requested him on 11th September to give certain particulars of his income and to complete and forward the return mentioned in the letter of the 10th April. He took no notice of these requests. The appeals, in the ordinary course, should have come on for hearing at the appeal meeting at Maryborough on 22nd October, but they were not listed for the reason, I find, that he had refused to facilitate the investigation of his case by furnishing the necessary particulars. No protest was made at the time, but complaint has been made before me about this action of the Inspector in not listing the appeals. If there was anything wrong in the Inspector's conduct it is for the consideration of the Commissioners and not for this Court. On 5th December, 1928, the summons in this action was issued for the recovery of the penalty of £20 and treble the duty which he ought to be charged for his neglect to furnish the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT