Latest news with #ClareO'Driscoll
Sunday World
4 days ago
- Business
- Sunday World
Former managing director loses appeal over €317k tax bill after inheriting house from aunt
The man claimed he was a dependant relative of his aunt and that he is permanently incapacitated due to mental health issues Independent Trustee Company (ITC) says Mr Kelly living at the property 'does not break any Revenue investment rules'. Photo: stock image A former managing director who is said to be 'struggling to survive emotionally' has lost an appeal against a €317,312 bill for Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT) which arose from a bequest from his aunt. After the man's aunt died in 2017, he inherited her house. Following an investigation, the Revenue Commissioners issued a bill to him last year for underpayment of €288,465 in CAT along with a €28,846 surcharge for a late submission return. Revenue issued the assessment on the basis that the man received a house that was not his aunt's main residence, along with free accommodation and cash gifts. Disputing the assessment and claiming exemptions from the imposition of CAT, the man claimed he was a dependant relative of his aunt and that he is permanently incapacitated due to mental health issues. Independent Trustee Company (ITC) says Mr Kelly living at the property 'does not break any Revenue investment rules'. Photo: stock image News in 90 Seconds - August 15th In a submission to the Tax Appeals Commission on his behalf, it was stated that he is at the end of his working life and unable to support himself. 'He is very vulnerable and emotionally struggling to survive, which his medical reports have clearly stated,' the submission read. However, appeals commissioner Clare O'Driscoll found as a material fact, and based on medical documentation, that the man was not permanently and totally incapacitated due to mental or physical infirmity prior, or at the time of, his aunt's death in 2017. She noted his LinkedIn profile from August 2022 stated that the man was a managing director at the time and had been since July 1988. A letter from April 2024 was submitted on the man's behalf by a doctor who said he 'has suffered from an extremely disabling condition for the past 25 years or so'. The doctor said 'the level of anxiety associated with this condition is the highest for any mental health condition. Resolution to this condition has been impossible to general adult psychiatry to date'. He said the man 'is doing everything in his power to combat the exceptional level of anxiety that he is would not surprise me if the High Court designated him as a vulnerable adult and made him a ward of court to protect his welfare'. The doctor did not appear as a witness. Revenue contended that the appellant was not incapacitated at the time of his aunt's death in 2017. Ms O'Driscoll accepted the appellant had experienced poor mental health since at least 2008, but none of the documentation showed he was ever totally incapacitated. She had no documentation on the man's health in 2017. She found that the man was not a dependant relative and therefore not entitled to an exemption from CAT.
Irish Examiner
5 days ago
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Former MD 'struggling to survive emotionally' fails in €317,212 tax battle with Revenue
A former Managing Director, struggling to survive 'emotionally', has lost an appeal against a €317,312 bill for Capital Acquisitions Tax (CAT) which arose from the bequest of a house from his aunt. The man's aunt died in 2017, and her nephew inherited a home from her, but following an investigation, the Revenue Commissioners last year issued a bill to the man for an underpayment of €288,465 in CAT, along with €28,846 surcharge for a late submission return. Revenue issued the assessment on the basis that the man received a house from his aunt on her death, which was not her main residence, along with free accommodation and cash gifts from the woman. Disputing the assessment and claiming exemptions from the imposition of CAT, the man claimed that he was a dependent relative of his aunt and that he was permanently incapacitated due to ongoing mental health issues. On a submission to the TAC on behalf of the appellant, it stated that he is at the end of his working life and is unable to support himself. It further stated that 'he is very vulnerable and emotionally struggling to survive, which his medical reports have clearly stated'. The submission also states that his ongoing medical condition has resulted in a further decline in his ability to support himself in any independent way. The submission states that he is a person for whom the dwelling house exemption was legislated for. However, in her findings, Appeals Commissioner Clare O'Driscoll has found that as a material fact that the man, prior to or at the time of his aunt's death in 2017, was not permanently and totally incapacitated due to mental or physical infirmity from maintaining himself. Ms O'Driscoll stated that this was on the basis that the medical documentation did not establish that the appellant was at any time permanently and totally incapacitated from mental or physical infirmity. In further supporting her conclusion, Mr O'Driscoll pointed to the man's LinkedIn profile from August 2022, which stated that the man was an MD at the time and had been since July 1988. A letter from April 2024 was submitted on the man's behalf by a doctor who said that the man 'has suffered from an extremely disabling condition for the past 25 years or so'. The doctor stated that 'the level of anxiety associated with this condition is the highest for any mental health condition. Resolution to this condition has been impossible to general adult psychiatry to date'. He said that the appellant 'is doing everything in his power to combat the exceptional level of anxiety that he is would not surprise me if the High Court designated him as a vulnerable adult and made him a Ward of Court to protect his welfare'. However, the doctor did not appear as a witness to be cross-examined, and Revenue contended that the appellant was not incapacitated at the time of his aunt's death in 2017. Ms O'Driscoll accepts that the appellant has experienced poor mental health since at least 2008 but none of the documentation states that the appellant was at any time permanently and totally incapacitated. Ms O'Driscoll stated that she had no documentation on the man's health in 2017 and as a result has no guidance as to the state of his mental health at the time of his aunt's death in December 2017. Ms O'Driscoll found that the man was not a dependent relative and therefore not entitled to an exemption from CAT and that the man was not entitled to an exemption to CAT as the home was not his aunt's main residence.
RTÉ News
29-04-2025
- Business
- RTÉ News
Marketing company wins €2.55m VAT battle with Revenue
A marketing company engaged in building brands has won a €2.55m VAT battle with the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners rejected the firm's €2.55m VAT repayment claims from 2016 to 2020 and now the firm has succeeded in part showing that the Revenue Commissioners were wrong to refuse the cumulative €2.55m repayments on appeal at the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC). After five days of evidence at the TAC, Commissioner, Clare O'Driscoll has concluded that Revenue's decision to refuse the appellant's claim for the repayment of VAT be varied and Revenue shall repay to the firm the input VAT incurred by the company relating to its economic activities for the periods July-August 2016 to November-December 2020. Ms O'Driscoll has also found that Revenue shall, following a detailed apportionment exercise between the parties, repay to thefirm the input VAT incurred by the company relating to its non-economic activities where there is a direct and immediate link with the company' output transactions which give rise to a right of deduction for the periods July-August 2016 to November-December 2020. In her ruling, Ms O'Driscoll cited sections of the EU Principal VAT Directive as envisaged by the EU Court of Justice. Ms O'Driscoll has directed that both sides will have to go through a detailed apportionment exercise to establish the precise details and amounts to determine the VAT to be repaid to the firm. Ms O'Driscoll said that for her to make a determination as to apportionment following such an exercise would have required an oral hearing of weeks if not months. The 'highly matrixed' organisation is registered for VAT and is engaged in economic and non-economic activities. In its argument before the TAC, legal representatives for the company contended that the firm is entitled to full input deduction in accordance with the law and case law concerning VAT input deduction. The hearing was told that the appellant firm conducts a mixture of activities which are both taxable and outside the scope of VAT. It stated that the case law of the EU Court of Justice has clarified that inputs used by a business both for taxable supplies and for outside the scope of VAT activity enjoy full VAT input deduction notwithstanding their partial utilisation for outside of the scope of VAT activity. The case may ultimately be decided by the High Court as a note at the end of the 91 page ruling - heavily redacted in parts - states that the TAC has been requested to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court in respect of the determination.
Irish Times
29-04-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Marketing company wins €2.55m VAT battle with Revenue
A marketing company has won a €2.55 million VAT battle with the Revenue Commissioners . Revenue originally rejected the firm's €2.55 million VAT repayment claims from 2016 to 2020. However, an appeal to the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) has succeeded in part, showing that the Revenue Commissioners were wrong to refuse the cumulative €2.55 million repayments. After five days of evidence at the TAC, commissioner Clare O'Driscoll has concluded that Revenue's decision to refuse the appellant's claim for the repayment of VAT should be amended and Revenue will have to repay the firm the input VAT incurred by the company relating to its economic activities for the periods July-August 2016 to November-December 2020. READ MORE Ms O'Driscoll has also found that Revenue shall, following a detailed apportionment exercise between the parties, repay the firm the input VAT incurred by the company relating to its non-economic activities where there is a direct and immediate link with the company's output transactions which give rise to a right of deduction for the periods July-August 2016 to November-December 2020. In her ruling, Ms O'Driscoll cited sections of the European Union Principal VAT Directive as envisaged by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Ms O'Driscoll has directed that both sides will have to go through a detailed apportionment exercise to establish the precise details and amounts to determine the VAT to be repaid to the firm. Ms O'Driscoll said that for her to make a determination as to apportionment following such an exercise would have required an oral hearing of weeks, if not months. The 'highly matrixed' organisation is registered for VAT and is engaged in economic and non-economic activities. [ Almost €560m paid to Revenue in unpublished tax settlements Opens in new window ] In its argument before the TAC, legal representatives for the company contended that the firm was entitled to full input deduction in accordance with the law and case law concerning VAT input deduction. The hearing was told that the appellant firm conducts a mixture of activities which are both taxable and outside the scope of VAT. It stated that the case law of the CJEU has clarified that inputs used by a business both for taxable supplies and for outside the scope of VAT activity enjoy full VAT input deduction notwithstanding their partial utilisation for activity outside of the scope of VAT. The case may ultimately be decided by the High Court as a note at the end of the 91 page ruling – heavily redacted in parts – states that the TAC has been requested to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court in respect of the determination.
Irish Examiner
29-04-2025
- Business
- Irish Examiner
Marketing firm wins €2.55m Vat battle with Revenue
A marketing company engaged in building brands has won a €2.55m Vat battle with Revenue. Revenue rejected the firm's €2.55m Vat repayment claims from 2016 to 2020, and now the firm has succeeded in part, showing that the Revenue were wrong to refuse the cumulative €2.55m repayments on appeal at the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC). After five days of evidence at the TAC, commissioner Clare O'Driscoll has concluded that Revenue's decision to refuse the appellant's claim for the repayment of Vat be varied and Revenue shall repay to the firm the input Vat incurred by the company relating to its economic activities for the periods July to August 2016, to November to December 2020. Ms O'Driscoll has also found that Revenue shall, following a detailed apportionment exercise between the parties, repay to the firm the input Vat incurred by the company relating to its non-economic activities where there is a direct and immediate link with the company's output transactions which give rise to a right of deduction for the periods July to August 2016, to November to December 2020. In her ruling, Ms O'Driscoll cited sections of the EU Principal Vat Directive as envisaged by the EU Court of Justice. Ms O'Driscoll has directed that both sides will have to go through a detailed apportionment exercise to establish the precise details and amounts to determine the Vat to be repaid to the firm. Ms O'Driscoll said that for her to make a determination as to apportionment, following such an exercise would have required an oral hearing of weeks if not months. The organisation is registered for Vat and is engaged in economic and non-economic activities. In its argument before the TAC, legal representatives for the company contended that the firm is entitled to full input deduction in accordance with the law and case law concerning Vat input deduction. The hearing was told that the appellant firm conducts a mixture of activities which are both taxable and outside the scope of Vat. It stated that the case law of the EU Court of Justice has clarified that inputs used by a business both for taxable supplies and for outside the scope of Vat activity enjoy full Vat input deduction notwithstanding their partial utilisation for outside of the scope of Vat activity. The case may ultimately be decided by the High Court as a note at the end of the 91 page ruling states that the TAC has been requested to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court in respect of the determination.
