Revenue Commissioners v O'Flynn Construction Ltd & O'Flynn
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Donnell J.,Mr. Justice McKechnie |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] IESC 47 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | [S.C. No. 264 of 2006] |
| Date | 14 December 2011 |
Between:
AND
[2011] IESC 47
Fennelly J.
Macken J.
Finnegan J.
O'Donnell J.
McKechnie J.
THE SUPREME COURT
REVENUE
Taxation
Appeal against decision of High Court on case stated by appeal commissioners- Tax avoidance scheme - Whether scheme lawful -Whether scheme contravened Finance Act 1989, s 86 - Statutory interpretation - Whether transaction resulted directly or indirectly in "misuse or abuse" of provision - Whether scheme undertaken for purpose of obtaining benefit of expert sales relief - Determination of appeal commissioners - Whether transaction gave rise to tax advantage - Whether transaction not undertaken for purpose other than to give rise to tax advantage - Whether transaction not arranged with a view to realisation of profits in course of business - Standard of review - Assessment of purpose of relief - McCann v O'Culachain [1986] 1 IR 196; McGrath v McDermott [1988] IR 258; Ramsay v IRC [1982] AC 300; Furniss v Dawson [1984] 2 WLR 226; IRC v Duke of Westminster [1936] AC 1; O'Sullivan v P Ltd [1962] 3 ITC 355; Helvin v Gregory [1934] 69 F 2nd 501; IRC v McGuckian [1997] 1 WLR 991; MacNiven v Westmoreland Investments [2003] 1 AC 311; Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson [2005] 1 AC 682; Revenue Commissioners v Doorley [1933] 1 IR 750; Inspector of Taxes v Kiernan [1981] IR 117; Canada Trustco Mortgage Company v Canada [2005] 2 SCR 601; Lehigh v The Queen [2010] FCA 124; Saatchi & Saatchi Advertising Ltd v McGarry [1998] 2 IR 562; AG v Carlton Bank [1899] 2 QB 155; Partington v AG [1869] LR 4 HL 100; IR Commissioners v Wesleyan & General Assurance Society [1946] 2 All ER 749; Burmah Oil v Bank of England [1980] AC 1090; Cape Brandy Syndicate v IRC [1921] 1 KB 64; Ashbourne Holdings v An Bord Pleanála [2003] 2 IR 114; Mara v Hummingbird Ltd [1982] ILRM 421 and McNicoll v R [1997] 97] DTC 111 considered - Finance Act 1989 (No 10), s 86 - Finding that transaction tax avoidance transaction within meaning of s 86 and appeal dismissed (264/2006 - SC - 14/12/2011) [2011] IESC 47
O'Flynn Construction Ltd v Revenue Commissioners
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(3)(B)
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(12)
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(2)
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(2)(II)
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(3)
MCCANN v O'CULACHAIN 1986 1 IR 196
CARR THE O'FLYNN CASE: CLARIFICATION OF S811 TCA 1997 (IRISH ANTI-AVOIDANCE) 2006 ITR 37
MCGRATH v MCDERMOTT 1988 IR 258
RAMSAY v IRC 1982 AC 300
FURNISS v DAWSON 1984 2 WLR 226
IRC v DUKE OF WESTMINSTER 1936 AC 1
O'SULLIVAN v P LTD 1962 3 ITC 355
HELVIN v GREGORY 1934 69 F 2ND 501
IRC v MCGUCKIAN 1997 1 WLR 991
MACNIVEN v WESTMORELAND INVESTMENTS 2003 1 AC 311
BARCLAYS MERCANTILE BUSINESS FINANCE LTD v MAWSON 2005 1 AC 684
WALKER RAMSAY 25 YEARS ON: SOME REFLECTIONS ON TAX AVOIDANCE 2004 120 LQR 412
FREEDMAN INTERPRETING TAX STATUTES: TAX AVOIDANCE & THE INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT 2007 123 LQR 53
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(3)(A)(II)
BARCLAYS MERCANTILE v MAWSON 2004 3 WLR 1383
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(7)
TAXES CONSOLIDATION ACT 1997 S811
TAXES CONSOLIDATION ACT 1997 S811(A)
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(1)
REVENUE CMSR v DOORLEY & ORS 1933 1 IR 750
INSPECTOR OF TAXES v KIERNAN 1981 IR 117
CANADA TRUSTCO MORTGAGE COMPANY v CANADA 2005 2 SCR 601
FINANCE ACT 1974 S54
LEHIGH v THE QUEEN 2010 FCA 124
INCOME TAX ACT 1985 S245
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(2)(A)(I)
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(2)(A)(II)
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(2)(A)
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(2)(B)
FINANCE ACT 1989 S86(2)(C)
INCOME TAX ACT 1985 S245(4)
SAATCHI & SAATCHI ADVERTISING LTD v MCGARRY 1998 2 IR 562
AG v CARLTON BANK 1899 2 QB 155
PARTINGTON v AG 1869 LR 4 HL 100
IR CMSR v WESLEYAN & GENERAL ASSURANCE SOCIETY 1946 2 AER 749
BURMAH OIL v BANK OF ENGLAND 1980 AC 1090
FURNISS v DAWSON 1984 AC 474
TEXACO (IRELAND) LTD v MURPHY 1991 2 IR 449
CORPORATION TAX ACT 1976 S21
CAPE BRANDY SYNDICATE v IRC 1921 1 KB 64
ASHBOURNE HOLDINGS v BORD PLEANÁLA 2003 2 IR 114
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S26(1)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S26(2)
MARA v HUMMING BIRD LTD 1982 ILRM 421
FINANCE ACT 1974 S54
JUDGE IRISH INCOME TAX 2005 P9
FINANCE (MISC PROVISIONS) ACT 1956 PART III
FINANCE (MISC PROVISIONS) ACT 1956 S15
CORPORATION ACT 1976 S84
FINANCE ACT 1992 S52
INCOME TAX ACT 1985 S245
MCNICOLL v R 1997 97 DTC 111
INCOME TAX ACT 1985 S245(3)
This case has its origins in a complex series of transactions which were completed in the short period between the 5 th December, 1991, and the 24 th January, 1992. However the root of the issue goes back even further.
In 1958 the State sought to encourage the manufacture of products for export by introducing an Export Sales Relief Scheme ("ESR Scheme") whereby profits earned from qualifying exports would be exempt from corporation tax. Furthermore, dividends declared from such profits would also be relieved from income tax in the hands of shareholders. To this basic scheme there was one critical addition. From the outset it was recognised that the incentive in respect of dividends could be significantly devalued where the shares in an exporting company were held in a group structure by other companies. Accordingly, it was part of the scheme to ensure that the tax benefit of the scheme would be capable of being received by the ultimate individual shareholder. Thus, if income was received by way of dividend from an ESR company, a dividend declared in turn from such income would also be entitled to tax relief in the hands of that shareholder and so on until it came into the hands of an individual. The income, it was said, was "franked income" and retained its tax relieving status no matter how many companies it passed through.
It is to be presumed that the incentive scheme was successful in promoting exports. Certainly it was common place for companies during that time to set up specific exporting companies to ensure that the profits from such activity were isolated and that there could no dispute about the extent of tax relief available. One such company was Mitchelstown Export Company Ltd. (hereafter "Mitchelstown"), a subsidiary of the Dairygold Group. In late 1991, Mitchelstown had ESR reserved of IR£1.2 million which I understand to mean that it had generated profits from qualifying exports in that amount. However, for reasons which were not explained in these proceedings, Mitchelstown was not in a position to declare a dividend. Therefore, its shareholders or ultimate shareholders could not make use of the export sales relief to receive a tax free dividend. This state of affairs was particularly significant in late 1991 because Export Sales Relief was due to be phased out from the end of January, 1992.
While Mitchelstown, for its part, had a difficulty in exploiting its ESR reserves, there were many companies among the two companies at issue in these proceedings, O'Flynn Construction Limited ("OFCL") the principal shareholders which were the taxpayers in this case, Michael O'Flynn and John O'Flynn, and another company O'Brien and O'Flynn Limited ("OBOFL") which had profits capable of being distributed as dividends to their shareholder but in circumstances in which tax would become payable on such dividends in the hands of the shareholders. This state of affairs created a form of arbitrage opportunity for any person who could devise a scheme which would allow the export sales relief accumulated by Mitchelstown to take effect and provide tax relief to the distributable profits of companies such as OBOFL and OFCL, to the mutual benefit of the individuals, and sometimes companies. Thus it was that over the period of December, 1991, and January, 1992, three substantial businesses in the Munster region took a number of intricate steps to implement a tax avoidance scheme.
The scheme in this case was devised with some ingenuity and implemented with a precision which at a technical level is undoubtedly admirable. One of the features of a tax avoidance scheme such as this is that although it is presumably explained in some detail to the participants in order to encourage them to take part, only the mechanics of the transaction are disclosed to the Revenue. When this case made its way before the Appeal Commissioners, the tax payers and their advisors did not go into evidence. Accordingly, it is not always clear what exactly was involved in some of the steps, or why each individual step was taken. However, in sum, more that 40 individual steps were taken over a period of 50 days and the end result, as intended, was that the two companies OBOFL and OFCL, reduced their profit by making capital contributions to other companies (which contributions were later written off), while the shareholders of both companies received tax relieved dividends from other entities. The Dairygold Group, for its part, was, at the end of the transaction, better off by IR£117,668.
This case proceeded to some extent on the basis that since what was planned and executed here was a tax avoidance scheme, the only question was whether or not it contravened s.86 of the Finance Act 1989 ("the Act of 1989"), and for that purpose it was said, it was not necessary to understand in any detail how the scheme worked. That course has considerable attraction, but it seems to me that in order to resolve the question of the validity of the scheme by reference to the provisions of s.86, it is necessary to seek to understand the scheme at least in broad detail. Accordingly I have sought to set out in this judgment my understanding of what is a quite intricate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Droog
...3. Section 811 3.1 This Court has already given some consideration to section 811 in O'Flynn Construction v. The Revenue Commissioners [2011] IESC 47. In that case O'Donnell J., giving the judgment of majority, said that ‘…the essential starting point to the application of [s.811] is a dete......
-
McNamee v The Revenue Commissioners
...the Finance Act 1989 (the Act of 1989), was considered by this Court in Revenue Commissioners v. O'Flynn Construction Company Limited [2013] 3 I.R. 533. While there are some differences between the provisions of s. 86 and the provisions of s. 811, subss. (2) and (3) in each are in substanc......
-
Bookfinders Ltd v The Revenue Commissioners
...not apply. The respondent contends that the judgment of O'Donnell J. in The Revenue Commissioners v. O'Flynn Construction Company Ltd [2011] IESC 47, [2013] 3 IR 533 put to rest many of the misconceptions surrounding the interpretation of taxing 31 The respondent submits that the appellan......
-
The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources v The Information Commissioner
...Act 1998, was correct or otherwise.’ It is said that, really, the same point was made very clearly by O'Donnell J. in Revenue Commissioners v. O'Flynn Construction Company [2011] IESC 47. It is said that a careful reading of the judgment under consideration leaves no room for doubt, but th......