Tax Appeals Commission determination 133TACD2021 regarding CGT, 2021

• Administrative Decision Number: 133TACD2021
• Date: 18 February 2015
• Subject Matter: CGT
• Respondent: THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

1

Ref:

Between/

Appellant

-and-

THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

Respondent

DETERMINATION

A. Matter under Appeal

1. The matter that arises for determination herein is a preliminary issue as to whether

or not there is a valid appeal before me pursuant to section 956(2)(a) of the Taxes

Consolidation Act 1997 (hereinafter “TCA 1997”) against enquiries made by a

Revenue Inspector into certain share disposals involving the Appellant. At least some

of these share disposals occurred outside the 4-year limitation period prescribed in

section 956(1)(c) in respect of enquiries made under that provision.

2

2. The matter proceeded by way of oral hearing before me at which both parties were

represented by Counsel, who made helpful submissions on the legal and factual issues

that arise herein.

B. Facts relevant to the Appeal

3. Most of the background to this matter was set out in correspondence between the

Appellant’s tax agents and the Respondent. The relevant correspondence is

described in detail hereunder.

4. On the 28th of February 2013, the Respondent wrote a letter to the Appellant headed

“Offshore Enquiry”, which sought clarification of the extent of the Appellant’s

involvement in offshore financial transactions. The Respondent stated that it had

reason to believe the Appellant was associated with such transactions because of

information disclosed to it by a financial institution in compliance with a court Order.

The Order had been obtained in the context of an investigation by the Respondent

into offshore tax evasion and avoidance. The Respondent did not receive a reply to

its correspondence of the 28th of February 2013.

5. On the 10th of December 2014, the Respondent wrote again to the Appellant, this time

requiring the provision of a detailed explanation concerning his receipt of funds in

five specified transactions in the years 2003, 2006, 2007 and 2008. This

correspondence noted the Appellant’s status as the settlor of a trust fund named the

Trust (hereinafter referred to as “the Trust”) which owned a foreign-

based company named Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”)

that was involved in the transfer of the aforesaid funds. The Respondent sought