Three siblings are planning to initiate High Court proceedings, arguing that they should have been allowed to make their case before decisions were made about the taxation of their property investments. James Flynn, a director at Kilmore House in Killiney, Co Dublin; John Paul Flynn, a property investor from Calladium Gardens, Palm Beach, Florida, USA; and Elaine Flynn, a homemaker from Indian Road, Palm Beach, Florida, are all seeking to begin proceedings against the Tax Appeal Commissioners (TAC) regarding a 2019 tax appeal dismissal.
On Monday, Bernard Dunleavy SC’s application to initiate judicial review proceedings on behalf of the siblings was postponed by Ms Justice Niamh Hyland. She expressed concern over the delay since the 2019 decision was made, acknowledging the complex interactions between that decision and subsequent happenings. Hence, she deferred the hearing to next month, scheduling a condensed hearing of the application to initiate proceedings and the substantive leave application.
In their case, the Flynns are seeking a court order to overturn the TAC’s decision not to permit a rehearing of the initial 2019 dismissal of appeals over assessments for the years 2007-2009. In addition, they are demanding declarations including that the TAC should have allowed them the chance to make a case for a rehearing. Furthermore, they want the TAC to admit that they failed to provide any formal notice of their tax appeal reference.
They claim in their statement of grounds that they did not receive any communication from the TAC about their appeals at any time. Had they received any communication from the TAC, they would have appointed a legal representative with expertise in taxation to represent them.
They assert that they were uninformed about the conclusion to reject their appeal in April 2019. There seems to have been no collaboration between Revenue and their accountant at that time to explore the possibility of an agreement, they claim.
In November 2021, they received the initial acknowledgment that confirmed their appeals were rejected and the owing amounts for the appropriate tax years were being retrieved. This took place nearly three years post the hearings and rejection of their appeals, they state.
They stress that their plea for judicial review was launched at the first practicable moment, as it was only in the preceding December that the TAC declined to acknowledge their failure to notify them that their initial appeals had been forwarded to the TAC.