Tax Appeals Commission determination 175TACD2020 regarding Domicile Levy, 2020

• Administrative Decision Number: 175TACD2020
• Date: 13 March 2015
• Subject Matter: Domicile Levy
• Respondent: THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

1

175TACD2020

BETWEEN/

[NAME REDACTED]

Appellant

V

THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

Respondent

DETERMINATION

Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………….

2

Background ………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2

Legislation ………………………………………………………………………………………………….

3

Submissions ……………………………………………………………………………………………….

3-5

Analysis ……….……………………………………………………………………………………………

5

World-wide income ……………………………………………………………………………..

6

Sub-section (a) of ‘world-wide income’ ……………………………………………….

13

The meaning of ‘income tax’ for the purposes of the domicile levy …….

15

Determination ……………………………………………………………………………………………

25

2

Introduction

1. This is an appeal against an assessment dated 13 March 2015, in relation to the

imposition of the domicile levy in respect of the tax year of assessment 2011, in

the sum of €50,745.

Background

2. The Appellant was Irish tax resident and domiciled for the tax year of assessment,

2011. His return of income and notice of assessment in respect of 2011 showed

that he had income of €1,001,267 from Irish rental property, taxed interest of

€4,612, emoluments of €94,580 and pension of €9,507.

3. There is no dispute between the parties in relation to the facts of this appeal. The

differences between the Appellant and the Respondent relate to points of law

involving matters of statutory interpretation.

4. The Appellant’s position was that he was not subject to the domicile levy and was

not a ‘relevant individual’ for the purposes of section 531AA of the Taxes

Consolidation Act 1997 (‘TCA 1997’), on the basis that his world-wide income in

respect of 2011 did not exceed €1,000,000. In this regard the Appellant submitted

that his Case I trading losses of €466,491 (shown as arising from his trade as a

dealer in residential land), were deductible from his income sources and were

therefore taken into account in calculating ‘world-wide income’.

5. In addition, the Appellant submitted that his ‘liability to income tax’ in respect of

2011 was not less than €200,000 on the basis that USC constituted income tax and

that USC paid by the Appellant in 2011 should be taken into account in computing

the amount of income tax paid by the Appellant in respect of 2011.

6. The Respondent submitted that Case I trading losses were not deductible for the

purposes of the definition of ‘world-wide income’ but were to be excluded from the

calculation of ‘world-wide income’ in accordance with the definition thereof and

that USC did not constitute ‘liability to income tax’ for the purposes of the domicile

levy. The Respondent also submitted that deductions pursuant to sub-paragraphs

(a)(ii) and (a)(iii) of the definition of ‘world-wide income’ were not allowable in

computing ‘world-wide income’ in accordance with section 531AA TCA 1997.