Annual Report2019

www.taxappeals.ie

Table of Contents

Foreword 3

Glossary 4

Reform of the Tax Appeals System 9

Statutory Basis of the Tax Appeals Commission 11

Functions of the Tax Appeals Commission 12

Organisation Chart 13

Key Outputs and Public Services Activities 14

Current Appeals 16

Legacy Appeals 18

Pre-Establishment Appeals 19

Cases Stated 20

Determinations Overview 21

Review of the Workload and Operations of the TAC 45

Statistics 47

Governance and Administration 65

Funding and Expenditure 72

Appendix - Customer Service Charter 73

1

2

Foreword

In accordance with section 21 of the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015, we are pleased to present this fourth annual report of the Tax Appeals Commission.

2019 was a significant year for the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) in which the Commission made significant improvements in its delivery of services to stakeholders. Full details of the work of the TAC is set out in the Statistics chapter of this report, but some points worth highlighting are:

• The TAC closed 1,584 appeals during 2019; the quantum of monies involved in the closed appeals amounted to approximately €665m.

• The TAC issued 111 determinations in 2019 clearing a quantum of approximately €60m.

• The TAC scheduled 224 hearings in 2019 and has scheduled a further 112 for 2020 with a total quantum of €181m. Further hearings will be scheduled as the year progresses.

None of this would have been possible without the commitment and hard work of the Commission’s staff during 2019. We are truly fortunate to have such an excellent team and are sincerely appreciative of their support and assistance over the past year.

In addition, key personnel were recruited and started working in the Tax Appeals Commission in 2019. We were delighted to welcome three new Temporary Appeal Commissioners who were appointed by the Minister for Finance, Paschal Donohoe TD. Commissioners Paul Cummins and Fiona McLafferty commenced in September and Commissioner Charles Phelan commenced in December. On the administrative team, our new Chief Operations Officer, Ms. Sinead Boyle, joined in February and our recruitment campaign added 11 additional staff to our appeals administration, IT and Finance teams. On 31 December 2019 we had a staff of 28 with 4.5 vacancies remaining.

In 2019 we made significant progress on our three-year organisational transformation programme to

deliver on the recommendations in the O’Donoghue Report. We were pleased to appoint our Audit and Risk Committee in 2019. The Committee has met twice and has a full programme for 2020, working closely with our internal auditors. In addition, we commenced work on significant IT infrastructure projects which will be key to the Tax Appeals Commission delivering improved processing of appeals in the years ahead.

2019 also saw the enactment of the Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act. The amendments in this Act will allow the Minister for Finance to recruit a Chairperson for the Commission. This will be a significant appointment in 2020.

We are conscious that a great deal remains to be done in 2020 and in the coming years and while we appreciate the scale of the work that remains to be carried out, we are extremely pleased that the Commission has now been given the resources and supports to enable it to meet its obligations and overcome the challenges it has faced. The Commission is in a far better position than it was a year ago; we believe that great improvements have already been made and are optimistic that they will continue in 2020 and into the future. We look forward to delivering those improvements to all our stakeholders.

Mark O’Mahony, Appeal Commissioner

Lorna Gallagher, Appeal Commissioner

3

Glossary

Appeals adjourned prior to hearing Appeals that were allocated a date for hearing but adjourned at the request of the parties prior to the commencement of the hearing.

Appeal Commissioner A member of the Tax Appeals Commission appointed by the Minister for Finance pursuant to section 8 of the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015.

Appeals closed Appeals that have been finalised and no longer require further action by the TAC.

Appeals on hand Live/active appeals that require further action.

Appeals settled Appeals that have been settled by agreement between the parties.

Appeals settled prior to hearing Appeals settled between the parties after the appeal had been listed for hearing, but before the commencement of the hearing.

Appeals withdrawn Appeals where the Appellant has notified the TAC that he/she/it no longer wishes to proceed with his/her/its appeal.

Appeals dismissed Appeals which have been dismissed pursuant to section 949AV of TCA 1997 because the Appellant has failed to comply with one or more directions of the Appeal Commissioners.

Appeals refused Appeals which the Appeal Commissioners have refused to accept in accordance with section 949N of TCA 1997.

Appeals determined Appeals in which the Appeal Commissioner has decided the appeal and has issued a determination to the parties.

A.P. Assistant Principal

C&AG Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General

4

CMC Case Management Conference

Case Management System Database that contains details of all appeals, both open and closed.

C.O. Clerical Officer

E.O. Executive Officer

FLAC Free Legal Advice Centre

FSS Financial Shared Services

GDPR General Data Protection Regulation

Hearing commenced and adjourned Appeals where the hearing commenced and was adjourned for one or more of the following reasons: for further hearing, for additional information, for additional documentation, for further submissions, and/or for the attendance of witnesses.

H.E.O. Higher Executive Officer

HR Human Resources

ICT Information and Communications Technology

Leader follower appeals A group of appeals which share similar points of law and/or fact. In some instances, the parties to these appeals will run a test case from the group (the “leader appeal”), the determination of which is likely to be dispositive of the other appeals in the group.

Legacy appeals Appeals that were submitted to Revenue prior to the establishment of the TAC. These legacy appeals were transferred to the TAC during the second half of 2016.

5

Notice of Appeal The document which first notifies the TAC of a taxpayer’s wish to bring an appeal. Section 949 of TCA 1997 states that all applications for appeals to the TAC must be made by the submission of a Notice of Appeal.

Office of the Appeal Commissioners The body seized with the adjudication of tax appeals prior to the establishment of the TAC. The Office of the Appeal Commissioners ceased to exist on 21 March 2016.

OPW Office of Public Works

Outline of Arguments A written outline of the arguments on which a party intends to rely at the appeal hearing, furnished by a party to the TAC in accordance with section 949S of TCA 1997.

PAS Public Appointments Service

P.O. Principal Officer

Pre-establishment appeals Appeals that were on hand in the Office of the Appeal Commissioners prior to 21 March 2016.

PSSC Payroll Shared Service Centre

Quantum The amount of tax in dispute, which is the difference between the assessment and what the Appellant considers is due.

Revenue Office of the Revenue Commissioners

SLA Service Level Agreement

Statement of Case A written precis of the facts and evidence that a party expects to present at the hearing of the appeal, furnished by a party to the TAC pursuant to section 949Q of TCA 1997.

TAC Tax Appeals Commission

6

TAX RELATED TERMS

AVC Additional Voluntary Contribution

BIK Benefit in Kind

CAT Capital Acquisitions Tax

CATCA 2003 Capital Acquisitions Taxes Consolidation Act 2003

CGT Capital Gains Tax

CT Corporation Tax

DIRT Deposit Interest Retention Tax

DWT Dividend Withholding Tax

EII Employment and Investment Incentive

HRI Home Renovation Incentive

IT Income Tax

LPT Local Property Tax

OMSP Open Market Selling Price

PAYE Pay As You Earn

PREM PAYE & PRSI paid by the Employer

PRSI Pay Related Social Insurance

PSWT Professional Services Withholding Tax

RCT Relevant Contracts Tax

SPCCC Single Person Child Carer Credit

7

SURE Start-up Refunds for Entrepreneurs

TCA 1997 Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, as amended

TCC Tax Clearance Certificate

USC Universal Social Charge

VATCA 2010 Value Added Tax Consolidation Act 2010, as amended

VRT Vehicle Registration Tax

8

Reform of the Tax Appeals System

Following a commitment in Budget 2014 by the Minister for Finance, Mr. Michael Noonan TD, to reform the role, functions and structure of the Office of the Appeal Commissioners (OAC), the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) was established on 21 March 2016. Governance, operations and developments of the Tax Appeals Commission in 2016, 2017 and 2018 are addressed in our previous Annual Reports. The Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act 2019 was enacted on 10 December 2019 and certain provisions of that Act were commenced by Ministerial Order on 18 December 2019. Enactment of the said provisions enables the appointment by the Minister for Finance of a Chairperson of the Tax Appeals Commission.

The appointment of a Chairperson of the TAC is imminent and will make a significant impact in terms of the governance and operations of the Tax Appeals Commission.

Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act 2019

Subsection 4F of the Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act 2019 entrusts the Chairperson with the overall responsibility for the management and control of the administration and business of the TAC and such other functions as may be assigned under the Act. The Act identifies the following functions of Chairperson:

• to ensure the integrity of the accounting and financial reporting systems of the Tax Appeals Commission;

• to ensure that appropriate systems of control are in place in relation to risk management, financial and operational control and legal compliance obligations;

• to ensure compliance with Freedom of Information obligations;• to ensure compliance with data protection obligations; • to ensure the functions of the TAC are performed efficiently;• to determine the priority of appeals having regard to the interests of justice and the

efficient operation of the Act and Part 40A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.

Subsection 4F provides that the Chairperson shall establish and maintain efficient and effective systems and procedures so as to secure the processing, adjudication and determination of appeals in a timely and effective manner. The legislation provides that the Chairperson shall be the Accounting Officer and shall be accountable to the Minster for Finance for the efficient and effective management of the Commission and for the due performance of his/her functions.

9

The Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act 2019 also effects the following changes to Part 40A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, as amended;

Section 949AP of the Act of 1997 is amended by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (3):

‘(3) The notice referred to in subsection (2) shall—(a) state in what particular respect the party concerned is dissatisfied with the

determination,(b) state in what particular respect the determination is alleged to be erroneous on

a point of law,(c) be sent to the Appeal Commissioners within 21 days after the date of the

notification of their determination under section 949AJ (1), and(d) be sent to the other party when it is being sent to the Appeal Commissioners.’

Section 949AQ of the Act of 1997 is amended by the insertion of the following subsections after subsection (7):

‘(7A) The party requesting the case stated shall—(a) compile a copy of the exhibits specified in the case stated, and(b) include the copy of the exhibits so compiled with the case stated when sending

it to the High Court in accordance with subsection (7).

(7B) Where the party requesting the case stated does not have within his or her possession or control or within his or her procurement, for the purposes of complying with subsection (7A), a copy of an exhibit specified in the case stated, the party requesting the case stated may request the Appeal Commissioners to instruct, by notice in writing, the other party to provide a copy of the exhibit to the party requesting the case stated.

(7C) Where the Appeal Commissioners receive a request under subsection (7B) from the party requesting the case stated, the Appeal Commissioners may instruct, by notice in writing, the other party to provide a copy of the exhibit to the party requesting the case stated.

(7D) Where a party receives a notice under subsection (7C) and the exhibit to which the notice relates is within that party’s possession or control or within his or her procurement, that party shall provide a copy of the exhibit within the time specified in the notice.’

10

Statutory Basis of the Tax Appeals Commission

The Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) is an independent statutory body tasked with providing a modern and efficient appeals process in relation to the hearing and adjudication of tax disputes, in accordance with the provisions of relevant legislation.

The legislation concerned is the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015, the Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act 2019, the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, as amended, and related legislation.

The Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”) was signed into law by the President on 25 December 2015. The Minister for Finance signed the relevant commencement orders to give effect to the new legislative provisions on 26 February 2016. On 21 March 2016, the TAC was established and the new regime for the processing of tax appeals came into force.

Section 10 of the 2015 Act specifically provides that the Commission and its members shall be independent in the performance of their functions. In addition, various provisions in the 2015 Act provide the Commissioners with powers to manage cases more actively than in the past, thereby reinforcing the independent operation of the appeals process.

The provisions of the Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act 2019, which amend the 2015 Act to enable the recruitment of a Chairperson for the TAC and make other technical amendments, were activated by Ministerial order dated 18 December 2019. The remaining sections will be activated by Ministerial order following the appointment of a Chairperson.

As of 31 December 2019, the Commission had 28 staff including two Appeal Commissioners, four Temporary Appeal Commissioners, three Case Managers and a number of administrative staff who support the Commissioners in their work. Recruitment for a Chairperson is currently underway.

The TAC will review its legislative procedures and statutory mandate on an ongoing basis with a view to refining its processes to achieve efficiencies in terms of the appropriate conduct of appeals.

11

Functions of the Tax Appeals Commission

The main role of the TAC is to adjudicate, hear and determine appeals against decisions and determinations of the Revenue Commissioners concerning taxes and duties. The specific functions of the Appeal Commissioners are set out in section 6 of the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015.

In carrying out their functions, the Appeal Commissioners are obliged to ensure that proceedings before them are accessible, fair and conducted as expeditiously as possible.

The 2015 Act contains a number of provisions which are intended to underpin and safeguard the impartiality and independence of the Appeal Commissioners in the exercise of their functions, including section 3 which establishes the Tax Appeals Commission as a body corporate, section 6 which establishes the functions of the Appeal Commissioners and section 10 which requires the Tax Appeals Commission and its members to be independent in the performance of their functions.

The Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act 2019 provides for the appointment of a Chairperson to the Tax Appeals Commission. The process of recruitment in respect of the Chairperson, who will also be an Appeal Commissioner, is underway at the time of preparation of this annual report.

12

Organisation Chart

Corporate Services/

Appeals SupportAP

Current Appeals Support 2 x EO

Historic Appeals Support 2 x EO

Scheduling Support

EO

HR/Finance1 x CO

Chairperson(Vacancy)

AppealCommissioners

x2

Chief Operations Officer PO

Scheduling Manager

AP

FinanceHEO

Historic Appeals Team

Manager HEO

HRHEO0.5FTE

Current Appeals Team

Manager HEO

Temporary Appeal Commissioners

x 3.5FTE

Case Managers

4 x AP(1 x Vacancy)

IT Support/Data Security

HEO(Vacancy)

Appeals Admin2 x CO

(1 x Vacancy)

Appeals Admin3 x CO

ICT Manager

AP

13

Key Outputs and Public Service Activities

Indicator 2016 2017 2018 2019 Output Target

2020

Processing Tax Appeals

No. of Appeals Closed 206 690 1,438 1,584 1,500

No. of Determinations Issued* 26 34 42 111 70

No. of Appeals on Hand at year-end** 2,151 3,208 3,459 3,370 3,200

No. of Hearings scheduled n/a 65 167 224 250

Quantum of Appeals on Hand*** €1.4bn €2bn €4bn €3.7bn €3.5bn

Organisational Capacity

No. of staff members at the TAC 7 12.5 19 28 33

The objective of the Tax Appeals Commission is to fulfil its obligations under the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015 (as amended), the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (as amended) and related legislation, thereby ensuring that all taxpayers may exercise, where appropriate, their right of appeal to an independent body against decisions of the Revenue Commissioners that affect them.

The following key outputs and public service activities provide performance information to support the TAC in assessing the outputs and outcomes from public expenditure. This is important in ensuring value for money and to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public expenditure by linking the funding of the TAC to the results delivered.

Key High-Level Outputs and Public Service Activities:

* One determination issued in 2019 was related to 32 individual appeals. ** A review of all appeals opened and closed on the Case Management System from 21

March 2016 took place in 2019. Each individual appeal was reviewed separately. Any inconsistencies or duplications were analysed and amended accordingly, resulting in the opening figure differing slightly to the Annual Report 2018 figure.

*** It is difficult to provide an actual quantum figure, as the original quantum of tax under appeal may be modified post filing of the notice of appeal (i.e. where an aspect of the appeal is settled or withdrawn), in cases where the parties disagree in relation to the precise quantum of tax in dispute or where the monetary value of an appeal is not always calculable (e.g. in appeals where the rate of tax is in dispute, in appeals in relation to the refusal of Tax Clearance Certificates, or where the quantum in dispute represents a refusal of loss relief

or deductions).

14

Indicator 2016 2017 2018 2019

Processing Tax Appeals

Establishing finality and certainty for Appellants and Respondents in respect of tax disputes –(Metric: Number of appeals closed)*

206 690 1,438 1,584

Establishing certainty for the exchequer and PAC in respect of the quantum of tax due – (Metric: Quantum of taxes regarding Appeals Closed) **

€11m €241m €569m €665m

Providing clarity on the interpretation of Irish Tax Law and assisting in its refinement and effectiveness – (Metric; Number of Determinations issued)***

26 34 42 111

Number of Hearings Scheduled n/a 65 167 224

Context and Impact Indicators:

* A review of all appeals opened and closed on the Case Management System from 21 March 2016 took place in 2019. Each individual appeal was reviewed separately. Any inconsistencies or duplications were analysed and amended accordingly, resulting in the opening figure differing slightly to the Annual Report 2018 figure.

** It is difficult to provide an actual quantum figure, as the original quantum of tax under appeal may be modified post filing of the notice of appeal (i.e. where an aspect of the appeal is settled or withdrawn), in cases where the parties disagree in relation to the precise quantum of tax in dispute or where the monetary value of an appeal is not always calculable (e.g. in appeals where the rate of tax is in dispute, in appeals in relation to the refusal of Tax Clearance Certificates, or where the quantum in dispute represents a refusal of loss relief or deductions).

*** One determination issued in 2019 was related to 32 individual appeals.

15

For the purpose of this report, “current appeals” are those which were received on or after 1 January 2016.

Current appeals are received, processed and determined in accordance with the provisions of Part 40A of TCA 1997. During 2019, the Tax Appeals Commission continued to monitor progress of the current appeal files and made decisions (and gave directions where appropriate) in relation to holding Case Management Conferences, seeking further information and/or Statements of Case and/or Outlines of Argument. Where possible, appeals were listed for hearing.

In 2019, 92 current appeals were listed for hearing, which is an increase of 23% compared to 2018. In addition, 60 determinations were issued in relation to current appeals, which is an increase of 240% in comparison to 2018. As legacy appeals and pre-establishment appeals progress towards conclusion, the TAC can apply its resources increasingly towards current appeals.

The following table provides an outline of the year current appeals were received and how many of them were closed by the end of 2019:

* A review of all current appeals opened and closed on the Case Management System from 21 March 2016 took place in 2019. Each individual appeal was reviewed separately. Any inconsistencies or duplications were analysed and amended accordingly, resulting in the opening figure differing slightly to the Annual Report 2018 figure.

While there was a significant increase in the number of appeals received in 2017 compared to 2016, the number received in 2019 is marginally smaller than 2018. While the number of appeals received has risen substantially since 2016, the number of current appeals closed has also increased. In 2016, a total of 196 current appeals were closed. This increased to 482 in 2017, 1,101 in 2018 and 1,305 in 2019.

Current Appeals

Year No. of Current Appeals Received*

No. of Current Appeals ClosedBy End of 2019*

No. of Current Appeals remaining

2016 901 709 192

2017* 1,747 869 878

2018 1,689 848 841

2019 1,495 658 837

Total 5,832 3,084 2,748

16

Overall, since 1 January 2016, the TAC has received 5,832 current appeals and has closed 3,084 in the same period, with 2,748 current appeals on hand on 31 December 2019.

A detailed analysis of the types of appeals received is contained in the Statistics chapter. The percentage of appeals received by tax type has remained largely stable; Income Tax appeals account for over 42% of all appeals received by the TAC. In 2018, 6.6% of all appeals related to more than one tax type but this decreased to 5.5% in 2019.

The statistics also show that there are substantial differences in the types of appeals received, based on matters such as complexity of issues and tax heads, number of years of assessments under appeal and quantum in dispute.

Some of the tables included in the Statistics chapter contain data in relation to the quantum in dispute concerning appeals received (see Note 1 on page 47) which describes how ‘quantum in dispute’ figures are estimated.

On 31 December 2019, the quantum in dispute in relation to appeals received in 2019 totalled €379 million and the quantum in dispute in relation to current appeals closed in 2019 totalled €427 million. Seven appeals received in the final two weeks of December 2019 amounted to approximately €170 million. Had these appeals been omitted from the annual total, the quantum figure for appeals received in 2019 would have totalled €209 million.

17

Legacy appeals are aged appeals that were made directly to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the establishment of the TAC. In the second half of 2016, 2,758 legacy appeals were transferred to the TAC in accordance with Part 40A TCA 1997.

Mr Conor Kennedy BL was appointed as a Temporary Appeal Commissioner in June 2017 and was tasked with responsibility for the legacy appeals. Commissioner Kennedy’s appointment was renewed in June 2019 for a further three years. Following his detailed initial review of the files, 1,599 of the appeals were grouped with related appeals or with leader-follower appeals. In light of this review, the number of individual appeals reduced from 2,758 to 1,159. A review of all legacy appeals opened and closed on the case management system from 21 March 2016 took place in 2019. Any inconsistencies or duplications were analysed and amended accordingly, resulting in the opening figure differing slightly to the Annual Report 2018 figure.

A total of 109 legacy hearings affecting 467 individual appeals with a total quantum of €209m were scheduled for hearing in 2019. From the total number of hearings scheduled, 37 appeals proceeded to hearing, 13 appeals settled prior to hearing and 59 appeals were postponed to enable the parties to progress a resolution.

During 2019, 205 appeals were closed (i.e., the appeals were either determined, settled, withdrawn or dismissed). As of 31 December 2019, 526 legacy appeals remained open. Approximately 250 of those appeals have been progressed to an advanced stage.

Commissioner Kennedy completed 13 determinations in relation to 19 appeals in 2019 with a quantum of €41 million. 7 of those determinations were appealed to the High Court in accordance with section 949AQ TCA 1997. Information in relation to the status of these appeals is contained in Chapter 11, which addresses cases stated.

Case Management Conferences continued to be effective in progressing legacy appeals, 10 case management conferences were scheduled in 2019, which affected 30 appeals with a total quantum of €30m.

The Tax Appeals Commission has already scheduled 23 hearings for legacy appeals in 2020, involving 80 appeals with a quantum of €16m.

Legacy Appeals

18

Pre-Establishment Appeals

Pre-establishment appeals are appeals which were on hand in the Office of the Appeal Commissioners prior to the establishment of the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC).

There were 170 pre-establishment appeals on hand in the TAC as of 1 January 2019.

During 2019, a thorough review was carried out on all 170 open appeals with appropriate action taken in order to advance matters. Any inconsistencies or duplications were analysed and amended accordingly, resulting in the opening figure differing slightly to the Annual Report 2018 figure.

Significant progress was made and by year end 74 pre-establishment appeals, with a quantum in dispute totalling €55,690,000, had been closed.

Of the 74 appeals closed, 45 were closed by means of determination (this includes a ‘leader - follower’ appeal where the same determination issued in respect of 32 appeals). A further 7 appeals were dismissed by the TAC for failure to comply with a direction issued in accordance with section 949E TCA 1997.

In the course of the progression of appeals by the TAC, engagement between the parties led to settlement, consolidation or withdrawal of 22 pre-establishment appeals. In addition, 39 pre-establishment appeals with a quantum of €39,855,573 were listed for hearing and 9 were listed for case management conference.

There are now only 96 pre-establishment appeals remaining open as of 31 December 2019 and each file is being progressed in line with the review carried out during 2019.

19

Section 949AP of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 provides that a party who is dissatisfied with an Appeal Commissioner’s determination on the grounds that the determination is erroneous on a point of law may require the Appeal Commissioner to state and sign a case stated for the opinion of the High Court.

During 2019, the Commissioners signed 10 cases stated pursuant to section 949AQ TCA 1997 to enable determinations to be appealed to the High Court.

In addition to the foregoing 10 cases stated, the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) had 34 pre-establishment cases stated on hand at the beginning of 2019, i.e. appeals which were determined and where requests for a case stated were made by a dissatisfied party prior to the establishment of the TAC. Of these, 3 requests for case stated were withdrawn during 2019, while 3 appeals have requested a re-hearing. Case Management Conferences took place in February 2020 to progress the remaining applications for cases stated and correspondence is ongoing in relation to the remaining requests. The pre-establishment cases stated are processed by the TAC in accordance with the transitional provisions contained in sections 29 and 30 of the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015.

In 2019, the High Court handed down judgment in the following appeals by way of case stated:

• Nationwide Controlled Parking Systems -v- Revenue Commissioners [2018] No. 154R;• An appeal in relation to determination 30TACD2018 which has not been made public.

Cases Stated

No. of Cases Stated received by Year Opened and Category

Year Total Legacy Pre Est’t 2016 2017 2018

2016 0

2017 3 1 2

2018 11 4 5 1 1

2019 10 3 3 1 2 1

20

Determinations Overview

Please note that this chapter is a commentary highlighting relevant issues in the context of 2019 determinations, in general terms. For detailed information on all published determinations please see our website at www.taxappeals.ie

Claims for repayment of tax and the four-year statutory limitation period

The statutory limitation period which applies to taxpayers seeking a repayment of tax provides that claims for repayment must be made within four years after the end of the tax periods to which they relate.

The Tax Appeals Commission (“TAC”) has previously issued a number of determinations in relation to this matter and has made plain its adherence to the clear statutory language used to ensure that the four-year rule has uniform application. The TAC does not have the power to disapply the rule for extenuating circumstances, or to create exceptions to the four-year rule on compassionate grounds.

Where it has been established that a claim for repayment was made outside the four-year period, the refusal of the repayment claim will be upheld by the TAC, as the legislation provides that a valid claim must be made within the four-year statutory period.

The TAC issued the following determinations in 2019 in relation to ‘out of time’ appeals:- 14TACD2019, 20TACD2019, 69TACD2019, 70TACD2019 and 01TACD2020.

Vehicle Registration Tax

The TAC receives a substantial volume of appeals each year in relation to VRT and during 2019 issued 30 VRT-related determinations.

Many of the appeals relate to disputes between taxpayers and Revenue in relation to the value attributed to a vehicle’s ‘open market selling price’ (‘OMSP’) (see determinations 45TACD2019, 53TACD2019, 57TACD2019, 58TACD2019, 60TACD2019, 62TACD2019, 63TACD2019, 64TACD2019, 65TACD2019, 66TACD2019, 67TACD2019, 68TACD2019, 71TACD2019, 11TACD2020, 10TACD2020 and 11TACD2020). Broadly put, the ‘open market selling price’ is the price, inclusive of all taxes and duties, which the vehicle might reasonably be expected to fetch on a first arm’s-length sale thereof in the State.

21

‘Transfer of residence relief’ was considered in 9 VRT determinations issued in 2019, namely 10TACD2019, 19TACD2019, 27TACD2019, 39TACD2019, 40TACD2019, 43TACD2019, 51TACD2019, 52TACD2019 and 07TACD2020. In these appeals, the Appellant had sought relief from VRT on the transfer of their ‘normal’ residence from another country into the State, pursuant to section 134(1)(a) of the Finance Act 1992. Statutory Instrument no. 59/1993 Vehicle Registration Tax (Permanent Reliefs) Regulation 1993 sets out the conditions which must be met in order to qualify for the relief.

In determination 10TACD2019 the relief had been refused by Revenue as their position was that, although the Appellant’s ‘normal residence’ for the purposes of the VRT legislation had transferred from the UK, paragraph 4(a) of S.I. 59/1993 required possession and use of the vehicle for a 6-month period prior to relocation. It was determined that the expression ‘in the possession of and used by …. for a period of at least six months…’ means that a vehicle owner who wishes to avail of the relief will be required to demonstrate reasonable use of his/her vehicle over the stipulated six-month period, in this regard, absences will be permissible if reasonable. While the Appellant had taken a seven-week holiday during the six-month period, the Commissioner determined that the Appellant had satisfied the requisite statutory conditions and was entitled to avail of the transfer of residence relief.

Determinations 34TACD2019, 42TACD2019, 44TACD2019 & 61TACD2019 dealt with the question of whether the imposition of a VRT late registration charge was correct. The determinations found that the legislation as it is written is clear and unambiguous and does not afford any discretion on the application of the charge where the vehicle was registered outside of the 30-day statutory time frame. In appeals 44TACD2019 and 61TACD2019, the Commissioner found that the Appellant had in fact registered the vehicle within the prescribed 30-day period.

Determination 18TACD2019 concerned an appeal against a VRT charged in relation to a motor vehicle conversion. The vehicle was originally categorised as a category N1 vehicle with five seats and had been converted to a category N1 vehicle containing two seats. The Appellant stated that he expected to pay VRT in the sum of €200 in accordance with s.132(3)(d)(ii) of the Finance Act 1992. The Respondent was of the view that the vehicle did not qualify for the €200 rate as the vehicle was not a category N1 vehicle that ‘at all stages of manufacture, is classified as a category N1 vehicle with less than 4 seats’. As a result, the Appellant was charged VRT in accordance with s.132(3)(c). The Commissioner determined that as the vehicle was not ‘at all stages of manufacture … a category N1 vehicle with less than 4 seats’, the vehicle did not satisfy the requirements of s.132(3)(d)(ii) thus the VRT charge should stand.

22

Capital Acquisitions Tax

Determination 29TACD2019 concerned the issue of whether payments made to the CEO of a company from its two main shareholders were subject to income tax as emoluments in accordance with section 112 TCA 1997 or whether the payments comprised a gift from the shareholders to the Appellant, taxable in accordance with the Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003, as amended (‘CATCA2003’).

The Appellant submitted that the payments were made to him in respect of his personal qualities, and for gratitude, appreciation, admiration and friendship. That they formed part of the personal equation and were not taxable as an emolument arising from employment.

The Revenue Commissioners contended that the payments were made in recognition of the Appellant’s significant contribution to the successful re-flotation of the company. They arose, they submitted, from his role as CEO and were emoluments assessable to tax under Schedule E.

The Commissioner found that the payments received by the Appellant were for the exceptional services rendered by him which contributed significantly to the increase in value of the shares of the private equity firms (the principal shareholders) who generated a substantial return on their investments. The Commissioner further held that it was not possible to separate the Appellant’s individual excellence from his role as CEO in circumstances where the means of demonstrating his excellence was by being CEO, by acting as CEO, and by delivering exemplary results as CEO.

In conclusion, it was determined that the payments made to the Appellant constituted taxable emoluments assessable to income tax in accordance with section 112 TCA 1997.

Capital Acquisitions Tax, Exemption for Qualifying Expenses of Incapacitated Persons

Determination 32TACD2019 related to an inheritance taken by the Appellant from his uncle, on which he claimed relief under section 84 of the Capital Acquisitions Tax Consolidation Act 2003 (CATCA 2003), as he intended to use the inheritance for the medical care and maintenance of his two children, who had physical disabilities.

23

Section 84(2) provides an exemption from CAT where a benefit “is taken exclusively for the purpose of discharging qualifying expenses of an individual who is permanently incapacitated by reason of physical or mental infirmity and Revenue is satisfied that it has been or will be applied to such purpose.” The Appellant argued that while the deceased was not aware of the exemption provided for in section 84(2), he was sympathetic to the condition suffered by the children and in leaving money to the Appellant in his Will, he intended the monies would be used to provide for the ongoing care of the Appellant’s children.

The Revenue Commissioners contended that the exemption did not apply because the benefit must be taken by a person who is permanently incapacitated. The Appeal Commissioner found that, for the purposes of Section 84 CATCA 2003, the Appellant’s children were permanently incapacitated and the inheritance had been or would be applied exclusively to funding qualifying expenses. Section 84 is silent as to the identity of the recipient of the benefit; it simply requires the recipient to take the gift or inheritance exclusively for the purposes of discharging qualifying expenses of an individual who is permanently incapacitated. Thus, the Commissioner determined that Revenue were incorrect in law in refusing relief on the basis that the Appellant rather than his children received the inheritance.

The Appellant’s appeal was therefore allowed.

Income Tax-Interest Relief

The primary issue in determination 47TACD2019 concerned interest relief claimed by the Appellant pursuant to section 248 of TCA 1997, as extended by section 250.

The facts were that the Appellant invested in a company . The investment was funded partially by the Appellant’s own funding but to a large extent was also funded from a loan taken out in Turkish lira. The company was raising finance for the purpose of investing in an Irish property and also investing through a wholly-owned subsidiary company in a financial derivative (“the Derivative”) issued by a securitisation vehicle that tracked the performance of the European Property Real Estate (EPRA) Index. A hedging transaction was also undertaken to ensure that the loan would be repaid in the event of a depreciation of the Turkish lira.

Revenue argued that the somewhat complicated transactions involved a circular flow of monies back to the investor and hence the interest deduction should be restricted to the net economic cost to the investor of the overall transaction. Revenue challenged the Appellant’s interest relief claims based on non-compliance with four statutory provisions, namely section 248(2)(c), section 248(3), section 250(2)(a) and section 817A of TCA 1997. Accordingly, Revenue denied

24

the relief by amending the notices of assessment for the years under appeal. The Commissioner determined that the tax assessment made by the Respondent for the earliest year under appeal was lawfully made within 4 years from the end of the chargeable period in which the return was delivered, and therefore the tax arising on same was due and payable in light of his findings below.

Firstly, the Commissioner found that the sole or main objective of investing in Investco was to obtain a reduction in a tax liability. Consequently, the relief should be denied pursuant to section 817A for all years under appeal.

Secondly, the Commissioner found that under the Articles of Association of Investco, the Appellant was disqualified from acting as a director in respect of the years of assessments due to his failure to attend a directors’ meeting “for a period of six calendar months without special leave of absence from the other directors”, and therefore relief should be denied in respect of the years under appeal.

Thirdly, the Commissioner found that the Appellant did not perform any active duties as a “part-time director” as required by section 250 and therefore could not be considered to be a “part-time director.” As such, the relief for the interest paid on the loan to acquire the shares in Investco should be denied.

Fourthly, the Commissioner found that to import the anti-avoidance and recovery of capital provisions within section 248 into section 250, as contended for by Revenue, would be to act contrary to the express statutory wording contained in section 250 and therefore contrary to the Constitutional scheme. Accordingly, the Commissioner refused to endorse the approach adopted by the Revenue.

In light of the above points, the Commissioner determined that the assessments for the years under appeal should stand.

Income tax- Case I or Case V income

When the provision of emergency accommodation came under the remit of Dublin City Council (DCC), the Appellant commenced the provision of emergency accommodation for indigenous homeless persons and non-nationals. This service was governed by a standard agreement with DCC. (Determination 09TACD2020)

25

The Appellant had sought to classify the income derived from DCC as rental income and claimed section 23 relief against that income for the tax years 2010 and 2011. Revenue asserted that the income was derived from trading activities and had assessed the Appellant under the provisions of Schedule D, Case I.

The Commissioner determined that it was highly unlikely that the Appellant would enter into an agreement with DCC without establishing the specific obligations required of him in light of the fact that the agreement with DCC was worth a significant sum of money per annum. The Appellant ran the property under strict rules agreed between him and DCC. The Commissioner found that a landlord/tenant relationship did not exist between the Appellant and DCC, or indeed with the homeless persons staying in the property. The Appellant remained in occupation of the property and provided services substantially beyond those normally provided by a landlord. The payments that were made by DCC to the Appellant were not in the nature of rent. It was further found that there was no lease between DCC and the Appellant; rather, the Appellant agreed to provide lodgings and other substantial services for homeless persons who were referred to him.

By virtue of the agreement with DCC and the actual services performed by the Appellant, the income received from DCC was not rent derived pursuant to a landlord and tenant agreement but was instead income received on foot of an agreement to provide miscellaneous services.

The Commissioner therefore determined that the Appellant was not involved in a rental activity taxable under Schedule D Case V but the carrying on of a trade pursuant to the agreement with DCC. As such, the income tax assessments raised by the Revenue should stand.

Income Tax and Application of Double Taxation Agreement (DTA)

Determination 36TACD2019 related to Revenue’s refusal to refund PAYE withheld in respect of a distribution that the appellant had received in 2012 from an Approved Retirement Fund (ARF). PAYE was operated on the basis that the distribution constituted “emoluments to which Schedule E applies”. The Appellant claimed that section 784A of TCA 1997 was not applicable.

In 2011, the Appellant and his wife acquired a Maltese property which he occupied periodically with this wife. In December 2011, the Appellant disposed of his Irish home to a Trust of which he and his son were trustees and his children were beneficiaries.

The Appellant submitted that he was tax resident in Malta under the Ireland–Malta DTA and as a result, was not liable to Irish tax on the distribution under Article 18 (Pensions, annuities and

26

similar payments) or, alternatively, Article 21 (Other income), being a “catch all” provision of the DTA.

The Appellant submitted that he did not have a permanent home available in Ireland but did have a permanent home available in Malta. The Revenue Commissioners disagreed, submitting that the disposal of the property to the trust did not prevent it being a “permanent home available” to the Appellant in Ireland for DTA purposes.

The Commissioner determined that the Appellant was a treaty resident of Ireland in 2012 under the tie-breaker clause in Article 4, as his centre of vital interests was located in Ireland in 2012, due to the fact that the greater part of his personal and economic relations were situate in Ireland in that year. Ireland therefore had primary taxing rights in respect of the distribution, and the Appellant was not entitled to a refund of PAYE withheld.

For completeness, the Commissioner considered the application of the DTA as if the Appellant had been treaty resident in Malta. The Commissioner determined that the distribution from the ARF did not come within Article 18 of the DTA and did not come within Article 21 of the DTA.

Income Tax Treatment of PAYE Payments - Accruals or Receipts Basis.

In determination 48TACD2019 the Commissioner considered section 112 of TCA 1997 and the refusal of Revenue to treat salary payments made to the Appellant in 2019 but relating to earnings in 2018 as taxable in 2018. The Appellant was a PAYE taxpayer in both 2018 and 2019. She took a career break in August 2017 and returned to work approximately a year later.

In 2019, the Appellant was paid 3 weeks’ pay in respect of work done in December 2018. Under the PAYE system, the payment was treated as earnings in 2019. The Appellant disputed this as she would have had a lower tax liability if the payments were treated as 2018 earnings, as she had available credits due to her career break which would have attracted a lower quantum of tax.

The Commissioner determined that there was no ambiguity attached to the relevant legislation, which clearly provided for the year 2018 and onward that tax payments under the PAYE system “shall be computed on the amount of emoluments paid to the person in the year to assessment”. Accordingly, he determined the Appellant was not entitled to have her December 2018 earnings taxed in 2018. The Commissioner, in response to the sense of unfairness expressed by the taxpayer in her submissions on her tax treatment, reiterated that the TAC

27

does not have any jurisdiction on the fairness of the application Irish tax law and can only determine an appeal in accordance with legislation. Determination 49TACD2019 (which considered section 531AM(1) and section 531AL(1) TCA of 1997) related to the imposition of Universal Social Charge (USC) on income earned by the Appellant in 2014 but paid in 2015. The Commissioner determined that Revenue were correct imposing USC on the Appellant’s maternity leave payments in 2015.

Income Tax-Residence Status of Appellant and Quantum of Earnings

Determination 23TACD2019 concerned the liability to tax of the Appellant in respect of income from an unknown or unlawful source. The Appellant contended that he was not resident or ordinarily tax resident in Ireland and he was not domiciled in Ireland for the tax years in respect of which the Notices of Assessment were raised.

The Commissioner dealt with the preliminary issue regarding the right of appeal available to non-chargeable persons such as the Appellant and determined that the appeal should proceed as to do otherwise would be contrary to statute, the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the absence of any evidence being adduced by the Revenue and based on the viva voce evidence of the taxpayer, the Commissioner determined that the Appellant was not tax resident in the State as he had left Ireland at a young age and had lived abroad since then, only returning to Ireland sporadically. The Commissioner further determined that, based on the evidence adduced, the Appellant was not tax resident in Malta for DTA purposes.

The Commissioner determined that as a non-resident individual, the Appellant was only liable to tax in respect of his Irish source income. On that basis, the Commissioner quantified the Appellant’s Irish source income based on the evidence he provided as to the number and quantum of business transactions he concluded while in Ireland.

Income Tax-Split-Year Residence Relief

Determination 25TACD2019 related to the refusal of Revenue to grant split-year residence relief to the Appellant in respect of his US employment income on his return to Ireland from the US in 2014.

28

The Appellant and his wife went to the US in 2013, intending to remain abroad for a number of years. However, due to his wife’s promotion and the requirement that she work in Ireland in her new position, the couple returned to Ireland in 2014.

Revenue granted split-year residence relief on a concessional basis to the Appellant on his departure from Ireland in 2013 but refused to grant concessional relief in respect of his return to Ireland in 2014. Thus, he was fully liable to Irish income tax on his employment income in 2014. The Appellant was aggrieved with the refusal to grant split-year residence relief which would have sheltered his US employment income from Irish tax for the period prior to his relocation to Ireland.

The Commissioner found as a material fact that the Appellant was tax resident in Ireland in 2013 as he spent more than 183 days in Ireland in that year. Accordingly, he determined the Appellant did not meet the prior year non-residence condition set out in section 822(1)(a)(i) of TCA 1997 and did not meet the statutory requirement to qualify for split-year residence relief.

The Commissioner further stated that it would be inappropriate for him, based on the established caselaw, to embark on a consideration of whether a liability to tax is unfair given the lack of equity in relation to tax. Likewise, he determined that the operation of a non-statutory concession of the Revenue was not a matter within the jurisdiction of the TAC. He commented that a potential avenue of relief could possibly be a claim for legitimate expectation but again he concluded this was not a claim within the remit of the TAC’s jurisdiction. The Commissioner accordingly refused the Appellant’s appeal and upheld the Revenue’s assessment to income tax for 2014, subject to adjustment for credits by way of DTA relief in accordance with the Ireland/US DTA.

Income Tax-Entitlement to Seafarer’s Allowance

Determination 02TACD2020 related to the refusal by Revenue to grant Seafarer’s Allowance to the Appellant for the years 2012-2015. Section 472B of TCA 1997 provides an entitlement to a tax deduction when the statutory requirements relating to Seafarer’s Allowance are satisfied. The relief would have been available to the Appellant if he could establish that he spent at least 161 days absent from the State for the purposes of performing duties of a qualifying employment.

A qualifying employment is an employment, the duties of which are performed on a sea-going ship. A sea-going ship is one defined as a ship registered in the Member State’s Register and which is used solely for the trade of carrying passengers or cargo for reward.

29

On his own evidence, the Appellant conceded that the ship was used partially for research operations. The Commissioner therefore determined that he could not find the ship was used solely for the carriage of cargo or passengers. The Commissioner further determined that the Appellant had not produced any evidence in accordance with the “badges of trade” test to support an argument that the ship was used for the purposes of a trade. The Commissioner determined that the conditions to secure entitlement to Seafarer’s Allowance were not met and accordingly he upheld the refusal of Revenue to grant the Allowance.

VAT, Transfer of Business Relief

Determination 15TACD2019 related to the disallowance by Revenue of an input credit entitlement claim by the Appellant on the grounds that transfer of business relief applied to the transaction in question in accordance with section 20(2)(c) of VATCA 2010. This section applies where there is a transfer of assets to an accountable person where the transfer of such assets constitutes the transfer of an undertaking or part of an undertaking capable of being operated on an independent basis. Where the conditions of the relief are met, the transaction is deemed not to be a supply of goods.

The facts of the appeal involved the transfer of premises, stock, fixtures and fittings to a company. The Appellant operated the business as a hotel. The Commissioner accepted the submission of the Revenue Commissioners that there was no requirement in section 20(2)(c) for the transferor of the business to be an accountable person. As the Appellant did not dispute the fact that it traded in the relevant period, the Commissioner found that the Appellant could not succeed in its argument that it did not intend to trade. The absence of a licence to operate as a hotel trade was held not to preclude a transaction falling within section 20(2)(c). Accordingly, it was determined that section 20 (2)(c) applied as there was a transfer of assets to an accountable person where the transfer of such assets constituted an undertaking or part of an undertaking capable of being operated on an independent basis and which was so operated. Accordingly, the deeming provision in section 20(2)(c) VATCA 2010 applied to the transaction, deeming it not to be a supply of goods. On this basis, the Commissioner determined that the Appellant was not entitled to VAT input recovery in relation to the transaction and that the assessment raised by Revenue should stand.

VAT

Determination 03TACD2020 related to a claim for a refund of VAT. The Revenue allowed a refund of VAT for the taxable period November-December 2009 as it was within the 4-year period after the end of the taxable period to which it related. However, the Revenue disallowed

30

a claim for a VAT refund in respect of the period January-February to September-October 2009 on the basis the claim was made outside the 4-year statutory time limit.

This issue in this appeal was whether, having regard to the statutory scheme setting out the rules for apportionment on dual use input together with the refund provisions in relation to the recovery of VAT, the Appellant was entitled to recovery of VAT claimed in respect of the periods January-February 2009 to September-October 2009 inclusive.

The Appellant was a subsidiary of a financial services and technology service provider. It provided services to customers, some of whom were based in the European Union and some of whom were located outside the EU.

Prior to 2013, the Appellant proceeded on the basis that its activities were VAT exempt and it therefore had no entitlement to VAT recovery. The Appellant filed its VAT return up to the end of 2013 on the basis of its understanding that it was providing services which were exempt from VAT in accordance with Schedule 1, paragraphs 6 and 7 of VATCA 2010 and in relation to which there was no entitlement to VAT recovery of input credits.

In 2013, following a review of its activities by the agent for the Appellant, the Appellant took the view that it carried out activities that fell within the definition of ‘qualifying activities’ for the purposes of section 59(1) of VATCA 2010, allowing for a deduction of VAT pursuant to section 59(2).

In December 2013, the Appellant filed an amended VAT return (titled ‘Supplementary VAT3 Return’) for the period November-December 2009 showing a VAT refund.

The Commissioner determined that a taxpayer has a right to deduct from the moment VAT becomes chargeable in accordance with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC and not otherwise. It is in light of this right to deduct that time limits must be read and interpreted.

The Commissioner found that there was no basis for characterising the amended VAT return in respect of the taxable period November-December 2009 as a return in relation to the review of apportionment of dual-use inputs in accordance with section 61 of VATCA 2010 and Regulation 17 of S.I. 639/2010.

The Commissioner determined that the amended November-December 2009 return filed on 30 December 2013 did not constitute an effective means of claiming a repayment of VAT for taxable periods other than November-December 2009 and that the amended November-December 2009 VAT return did not constitute a valid claim in respect of input credits applicable to prior taxable periods.

31

The Commissioner accordingly determined that the Respondent was correct to refuse the Appellant’s claim for a refund of VAT in respect of the taxable periods January-February to September-October 2009 on the basis that the claim made on 30 December 2013 was not made within 4 years after the end of the taxable periods to which it related.

VAT

Determination 16TAC2020 involved four consolidated appeals initiated by a telecommunications company against determinations and assessments made by the Respondents in relation to non-EU Roaming Charges, Cancellation Charges, Bill Pay Broadband and an out of time claim.

The Non-EU Roaming Issue related to whether VATCA 2010 provides for a refund of VAT where ‘telephone cards’ are used outside of the EU by ‘bill-pay’ customers. The Commissioner determined that it was not possible to distinguish for VAT purposes between ‘prepay’ and ‘bill-pay in-bundle’ options for non-EU roaming telecommunication services. Therefore, as the Appellant was entitled to a reduction in tax payable in respect of a “telephone card” for its ‘prepay’ customers, a tax reduction also applied to the VAT charged to its ‘bill-pay in-bundle’ customers in respect of the said roaming services.

As a consequence of the Commissioner’s above finding, it was not possible to apply conflicting rules to the place of supply of telecommunications services simply by reference to the means by which those services are billed. Therefore, identical telecommunications services which were used and enjoyed by ‘in-bundle’ and ‘out-of-bundle’ customers outside the EU could not be treated differently irrespective of the timing of billing or payment for those services. Consequently, the Appellant was also entitled to a reduction in tax payable in respect of the ‘bill-pay out-of-bundle’ option for non-EU roaming telecommunication services to its customers where those services were used outside the Community.

The cancellation charges issue related to the VAT treatment of cancellation fees charged by the Appellant to its customers where the customer terminated a fixed term contract prior to the end of contract date. As the relevant EU caselaw (and in particular the MEO judgment) was binding on the Commissioner, he concluded that where a customer enters into an agreement for telecommunication services as governed by the price plan for the commitment period, a charge to VAT arises with reference to the agreed contractual right to use those services for that period irrespective of non-usage of those services.

32

The Bill Pay Broadband issue involved the VAT treatment of customers who did not exhaust their entire data allowance in any given month, and whether the amount of consideration was proportionate to the unused data. As with the above cancellation charges issue, the Commissioner concluded that a charge to VAT arises with reference to the agreed contractual right to use that amount of data irrespective of whether the customer uses those services. The out of time issue related to whether the limitation periods for a reclaim of VAT were outside the time-limit provided for in section 99 of VATCA 2010. The issue for determination was whether section 99 breached the EU law principle of equivalence. The Commissioner held that stamp duty could be regarded as a “true comparator” with VAT in relation to the time limit for claims for the repayment of taxes. He concluded that the principle of equivalence had not been breached by Revenue in refusing to entertain a claim for a repayment of VAT on the basis that the claim was made outside of the four-year time limit provided for in Section 99(4) VATCA.

Excise duty and VAT

Determination 41TACD2019 was concerned with the application of the standard rate of VAT, as opposed to the reduced rate, to the supply of a large proportion of mineral oil where the Appellant failed to comply with Regulations pertaining to the holding and use of ‘Marked Mineral Oil’. A substantial amount of the VAT in dispute related to the disallowance of VAT input credits on the basis that the Respondent was not satisfied that the transaction occurred as documented.

In the course of the appeal, the Appellant failed to provide the requisite information and evidence which would have allowed the Commissioner to conclude that the transactions actually took place. The Commissioner also concluded that, based on the evidence and submissions made at the hearing, numerous contraventions of the Mineral Oil Regulations occurred and the Appellant had failed to show how its supplies fell within the exception to the standard rate that is provided for in the VAT Act. As a result, the Commissioner determined that the standard rate of VAT at 23% should apply to the supplies and the VAT input credit was denied on the purchases where the evidence furnished was insufficient to allow the Commissioner to conclude as a material fact that the purchases actually took place.

Contraventions of the Mineral Oil Tax Regulations 2012 and the requirements of section 99(10) of the Finance Act 2001 were considered in some detail in determinations 41TACD2019 and 59TACD2019. Detailed evidence was heard regarding the contraventions of the Regulations in

33

both these appeals, and the interpretation of the anti-avoidance provision contained in section 99(10) was considered at length. As excise duty on mineral oils is covered by an EU Directive, the application of EU Law was also examined.

Where the requirements of section 99(10) and the Mineral Oil Regulations 2012 are not met, the mineral oil supplies are deemed to have been supplied as road diesel and the supply is liable to duty at the standard rate, as opposed to the reduced rate. The compliance obligations for traders in this sector are detailed and specific. A considerable amount of EU case law was relied upon by both sides and considered in the determination. The Commissioner noted that in tax appeals the burden of proof rests with the Appellant to show that, on the balance of probabilities, the assessments made by Revenue are incorrect. In cases involving reliefs or exemptions, it is incumbent on the Appellant to demonstrate that it falls within the relief and has complied with the Regulations and conditions pertaining to that exemption. In both these appeals, the Commissioner found that the Appellants had failed to discharge the burden of proof and the Excise Duty assessments were upheld.

Determination 68TACD2020 concerned an appeal against the denial of VAT input credits by the Respondent on the basis that the Appellant knew or should have known that he was participating in a transaction connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT.

The legal tests arising from EU jurisprudence were considered in detail. In arriving at a decision and based on the evidence submitted during the appeal, the Commissioner attached weight to objective factors that impinged upon the question of whether the Appellant knew or ought to have known that it was participating in a transaction connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT. The cumulative effect of each objective factor led to the Commissioner’s conclusion that the only reasonable explanation for the purchases was that the purchases were connected to the fraudulent evasion of VAT.

Other tax heads and determinations

Determinations have also issued in relation to the following:

Directors’ emolumentsSection 997A(3) of TCA 1997 provides that a credit in relation to tax deducted from emoluments paid by a company to a proprietary director shall not be given unless there is

34

documentary evidence to show that the tax deducted has been remitted to Revenue. This section was considered in determination 13TACD2019. The Appellant argued that there was an entitlement to claim a credit for the tax deducted from the Appellant’s emoluments by the Company notwithstanding that such taxes were not remitted to the Respondent. The Commissioner found that this argument failed to recognise that companies, as inanimate bodies, can only act through the actions of their directors and in accordance with their contractual and fiduciary obligations and powers vested in the board of directors in accordance with the Articles of Association. The Commissioner further found that the demonstrable effect of section 997A is to deny persons in positions of control and influence over a company’s business activities from claiming a credit for unpaid taxes that ought to have been deducted and remitted by such companies to the Revenue Commissioners.

Trade Losses – s.662 TCA restriction of relief for losses in farming or market gardeningDetermination 33TACD2019 considered the refusal by Revenue to allow the Appellant’s claim for trade losses against the Appellant’s PAYE income for the years under appeal. The claim was disallowed on the basis that the rules set out in section 662 of TCA 1997 precluded the Appellant from claiming relief for losses under section 381 TCA.

The Appellant was a shop assistant who also carried on the trade of farming. He began farming alongside his father in 1998 and in 2001 he inherited 26 acres of land from his father which he continued to farm. The Appellant gave evidence that the lands were in very poor condition when he inherited them and that he had done what he could over the years to improve the lands and to build up the farm trade to a point where it would become profitable and produce for him a return on the money and time he had invested.

The Commissioner found in relation to the requirements of section 662 that during the years under appeal, and in the years preceding that, the Appellant’s time, work and financial investments were all intended to improve the farm and develop the farm trade to a point where it became profitable. The Commissioner further found that it was always the Appellant’s wish and intention that his farming trade would ultimately become profitable, and that he carried on the trade of farming on a commercial basis and therefore found that the Appellant satisfied the requirements of section 662(2)(a) for the years under appeal.

Notwithstanding the Appellant being prima facie eligible for relief by reason of his having met the criteria in section 662(2)(a), section 662(2)(b) limited the entitlement to claim losses as a relief when a loss has been incurred in carrying on the trade during each of the prior three years.

35

The Appellant’s farm trade made a loss during every year from 2007 to 2014 inclusive.Section 662(2)(d) contains a saving provision, and states in essence that section 662(2) shall not limit relief where a claimant shows that his activities in the year following three years of losses are of such a nature and carried on in such a way as would justify a reasonable expectation of profits in the future if those activities had been undertaken by a competent farmer or market gardener, and that if the farmer or market gardener had undertaken those activities at the beginning of the loss-making period, he could not reasonably have expected the activities to become profitable until after the end of the year following the prior period of loss.

The Commissioner found on the evidence that the Appellant met the criteria detailed in section 662(2)(d) and accordingly the limitation on relief contained in section 662(2)(b) did not apply to the Appellant.

Employee Tax CreditsIn Determinations 30TACD2019 and 31TACD2019, the Appellant was a person entitled to a contributory pension pursuant to section 108 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005, having satisfied the conditions set forth in section 109 of that Act and had claimed and been granted that pension for the years under appeal. The amount of the pension had been increased pursuant to section 112(1) of the 2005 Act because the Appellant’s spouse was a “qualified adult” within the meaning of the Act.

The matter to be determined was whether a claim for the employee tax credit under section 472 TCA 1997 should be allowable on the increased pension of the State contributory pension paid in respect of a dependent spouse.

The Commissioner found in both cases that the Appellant was entitled pursuant to section 472(4)(b) of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997, as amended, to the employee tax credit with reference to that income.

‘No Loss to Revenue’ Concession and Badges of TradeDetermination 24TACD2019 considered whether there was a general failure to operate the PAYE Regulations in respect of payments to certain employees. The Appellant contended that the payments would not have given rise to PAYE if the Regulations had been operated correctly. The Appellant sought to avail of the ‘no loss to Revenue’ concession provided in the Code of Practice for Revenue Audit and Compliance Interventions. The Commissioner found that the TAC had no jurisdiction with respect to the application of this concession.

This appeal also considered whether the Appellant had been carrying on a commercial trade of car remodelling/car dealing. The ‘six badges of trade’ were considered in some detail and,

36

based on the evidence and circumstances pertaining to the ‘six badges’ in this appeal, the Commissioner determined that the Appellant was not carrying on a commercial trade.

Tax rate applicable to Taxable Income which include Relevant Interest - S.261(c)(i)(II) TCA 1997Determination 06TACD2020 concerned the application of section 261(c)(i)(II) of TCA 1997 and how this section impacts on the application of the reduced income tax rate and standard rate cut off point. A large portion of the Appellant’s income was deposit interest subject to DIRT. The Appellant also had significant allowable medical expense deductions relating to nursing home costs in the relevant years. The Respondent argued that the application of section 261(c)(i)(II) meant that the Appellant’s taxable income, after deductions, was subject to tax at the applicable DIRT rate, and that the 20% rate and standard rate cut off point rules did not apply.

The Commissioner determined that the meaning and interpretation of section 261(c)(i)(II) was ambiguous. The Commissioner determined that the rules pertaining to the correct order of relief for deductions and the standard rate cut off point rules were not superseded by section 261(c)(i)(II).

Burden of Proof in respect of claiming Medical Expense relief under S.469 TCA 1997.Determination 54TACD2019 concerned the evidence required in order to substantiate a relief deduction for nursing home fees under section 469 of TCA 1997. In this appeal, the Respondent audited the Appellant’s relief claim and withdrew relief for costs which the Appellant could not substantiate with evidence that they had defrayed the costs.

In determining the appeal, the Commissioner reiterated that in taxation appeals considering an entitlement to reliefs, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to demonstrate that they are so entitled.

Mandatory Electronic Filing – S.917EA (4) TAC 1997Determination 37TACD2019 considered the denial of an exclusion request made by the Appellant from their obligation to comply with the mandatory electronic filing regulations.

The Commissioner found that the Appellant fell clearly within the scope of the mandatory obligations and had failed to discharge the burden of proof that they could not reasonably be expected to have the capacity to make electronic returns or that they were prevented from doing so by reason of age or infirmity.

Electronic VAT Reclaims – Section 101 VATCA 2010 – Intra-Community refunds of taxIn determination 46TACD2019,the Appellant was a taxable person in another EU member

37

state. The determination concerned the approval and payment process in force in Ireland when claiming a refund through the EU’s EVR system. Arguments were heard from both sides in relation to the correct interpretation of Irish VAT legislation, the EU Directive and recommended EU processes. The Appellant attached significant weight to the fact that the EU state where it was resident applied less onerous approval methods when processing refunds. The Commissioner found that the Irish VAT legislation provisions applicable in this appeal in respect of the information and documents requested to validate a refund claim, were provided for in the Directive and that the Tax Appeals Commission did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the fairness of the application of the Irish VAT regulations. The Commissioner determined that the onus was on the taxpayer to establish clear entitlement to the VAT refund in accordance with the Irish VAT legislation.

Tax status of unsolicited monetary literary award The issue in determination 04TACD2020 was whether the prize monies received from an international literary award should form part of the profits of a professional writer. The Appellant argued that a previous UK Special Commissioners decision to not tax a similar unsolicited award should also apply in Ireland and that the prize monies should not form part of the writer’s taxable profits. The Commissioner considered relevant Irish legal precedents and noted that there were divergences between UK and Irish case law in the important characteristics used to establish whether the prize was taxable under Case II or not. The Commissioner accepted that the Appellant’s arguments would be compelling in a UK context but emphasised that there were differences in Irish jurisprudence. He concluded that the Appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had not shown that the prize money should not form part of the writer’s taxable profits.

Tax relief on once off pension contribution In determination 38TACD2019 the Appellant paid a pension contribution before the relevant filing date for his income tax return, ten months after the year end. However, the Appellant did not file his income tax return on time and the Respondent refused to grant tax relief in the previous year as the election to back date the contribution had not been made on time. The legislation provided in section 787(15) of TCA 1997 that relief shall not be given “except on a claim made to and allowed by the inspector.” The Commissioner found that the requirement in the legislation to notify the Inspector on or before the filing date was unambiguous and that the Appellant had failed to provide evidence that he had met these requirements.

38

Corporation Tax Deductibility of Foreign Withholding Tax on DividendsDetermination 08TACD2019 considered whether a deduction could be claimed under section 81(2) of TCA 1997 for foreign withholding tax incurred in respect of dividends received. The Appellant’s Irish business was that of market making and providing liquidity in complex financial products. In its capacity as a market maker in equity options on multiple European exchanges, the Appellant was obliged to provide liquidity to the market by buying and selling options.

Risks could be hedged by offsetting stock positions in correlated positions. In the normal course of its trade, the Appellant would regularly hold stock positions over dividend record dates and would therefore receive dividends. This was an unavoidable consequence of its trading activities.

The issue under appeal was whether tax withheld on foreign dividends derived in the course of its trade was a deductible expense in accordance with section 81 to the extent that the withholding tax could not be offset as a credit against the Appellant’s tax liability. The Appellant was precluded from claiming an exemption from corporation tax under section 21B(4)(c) TCA 1997 and the withholding taxes were also denied a credit from double taxation relief provisions of section 35 and Schedule 24. The Appellant was therefore taxed on dividend income without a corresponding entitlement to a credit or a deduction for the foreign tax withheld on that income.

The Appellant argued that, although taxes are generally not deductible on these grounds, in certain circumstances they may be deductible. Revenue did not agree and argued that foreign withholding taxes on dividends are inherently taxes on income.

On consideration of the facts, the Commissioner was satisfied that any withholding tax suffered on a dividend that could not be reclaimed under a relevant double taxation agreement (‘DTA’) constituted a final cost of entering the trade, similar to a “cost of sale” in accounting terms, and impacted the final net profit or loss realised on the overall trade.

The Commissioner noted that there is no principle of tax law that excludes taxation as a deduction against profits where that taxation is not based on the underlying profits. Furthermore, the Commissioner referred to the deductibility of Irish and foreign stamp duty, Irish and foreign irrecoverable VAT, foreign Financial Transaction Tax and employer’s PRSI. The Commissioner determined that this case should be distinguished from determination 02TACD2018, which considered similar issues in the context of foreign withholding taxes incurred on royalty income. In the present case, the Commissioner noted that royalty income

39

withholding tax differs from dividend withholding tax because royalty income arises from a licensing right and is income that is earned. The Commissioner concluded that, in contrast, in the instant appeal the dividends were not earned and merely flowed from the trade of buying and selling securities. The Commissioner concluded that any dividend withholding tax suffered by the Appellant was tax incurred in making the overall trade rather than in earning dividend income. The taxes suffered were in effect the price of carrying out the particular trade the Appellant conducted, as the primary objective of the Appellant was to derive a profit from its aggregated trade of its share acquisition and its related hedging strategy. Hence, such taxes were disbursements of the business laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the trade.

The Tax Appeals Commission has been requested to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court in respect of this determination.

Status of US LLC for Purposes of Irish Group ReliefDetermination 17TACD2019 concerned the entitlement of the Appellants to group relief pursuant to section 411 of TCA 1997.

The appeal related to a Delaware LLC that controlled the capital of a number of companies, including three Irish-resident companies, that made various group relief claims under section 411 in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Both the surrendering company and the claimant companies were Irish-resident companies while the LLC was not tax resident in Ireland.

For corporation tax loss purposes, section 411 defines a group of companies as a parent company and its 75% subsidiary companies. Prior to the Finance Act 2012, references to a “company” in section 411 applied only to a company that was tax resident in an EU or EEA Member State. The Finance Act 2012, which took effect from 1 January 2012, amended section 411 to include companies that are resident in a territory with which Ireland has a DTA for the purposes of determining whether a group exists.

The LLC did not elect to be treated as a corporation for US federal income tax purposes and thus was treated under the default rules as disregarded. Consequently, its income was taxed as that of its members, being five individual owners who were tax resident in the US.

Revenue refused the group relief claims on the grounds that the LLC was not a “company” and in particular was not a company for Irish tax purposes. Furthermore, they argued that the

40

LLC was transparent for US tax purposes and pursuant to the default US tax treatment, it was to be treated as an entity disregarded from its owner. Revenue also challenged the entitlement to group relief on the basis that the LLC was not resident in the US for the purpose of a tax equivalent to Irish corporation tax.

The Commissioner considered caselaw discussing how the Irish Revenue should treat a foreign entity for Irish tax law purposes. In this regard, he heard evidence from US legal and tax expert witnesses and then considered whether the LLC was sufficiently analogous to an Irish company in terms of traits and characteristics to be treated as a body corporate for Irish corporation tax purposes. He determined this to be the case. The Commissioner further determined that on a literal interpretation of Article 4 of the DTA, the LLC was not liable to tax in the US in respect of the years under appeal. However, the Appeal Commissioner found that, in consideration of the technical nuances of Irish group relief and the apparent disconnect with the US tax code, a purposive interpretation of international treaties should be adopted. Accordingly, the Commissioner determined that LLC should be considered as liable to tax in the US and this tax corresponded to corporation tax in the State by virtue of all of its income being fully and comprehensively taxed to Federal Income Tax under the US Tax Code, albeit at the member level.

In light of the above, the Appeal Commissioner determined that the LLC was a body corporate, and that the Appellants were entitled to avail of group relief pursuant to Section 411 TCA 1997.

Dividend Withholding TaxDetermination 16TACD2019 considered as a preliminary issue the question of whether Revenue’s right to make or amend an assessment should be restricted to four years under the provisions of section 955(3) of TCA 1997. Revenue had issued Notices of Assessment to dividend withholding tax (DWT) in 2018 in respect of distributions made in the years 1999 to 2010. The Appellant had failed to file DWT returns in respect of the distributions but had disclosed details of them, and the fact that no DWT had been deducted, on its corporation tax returns (Forms CT1) filed for the relevant years.

The Appellant maintained that it was not obliged to withhold DWT on the basis that the distributions were made out of disregarded income within the meaning of section 141(5) of TCA 1997 (the substantive issue).

The Commissioner decided to first hear the preliminary issue as it could potentially be dispositive of the substantive issue. The Commissioner then determined that section 955(3)

41

provides protection only where the taxpayer’s statutory obligations have been fully met. The Commissioner determined that, as the taxpayer had failed to file a DWT return, it had not made a full and material disclosure of material facts on the relevant DWT return and therefore could not avail of the out of time restriction afforded by section 955(3). It is expected that the substantive issue will be heard in 2020.

Capital Gains TaxDetermination 28TACD2019 considered whether a refund should issue in respect of CGT paid in error in respect of shares held by a milk supplier in Newmarket Cooperative Creameries Limited (NCC). The Appellant asserted that the shares constituted a “chargeable business asset”, as defined in section 598(1) of TCA 1997, and were used by him in his farming activities and that he should accordingly be entitled to CGT retirement relief.

The Respondent refuted the Appellant’s assertion and argued that the shares were held as an investment and therefore were “excluded assets” for CGT retirement relief purposes.

The Commissioner found that the purchase of milk by NCC was dictated by the milk quota system and that any shareholding in NCC had no impact on this. There was no evidence that the shares constituted a licence or that the shares by the Appellant were used for the purposes of farming. “Use” is an active word, and the holding of the shares was merely a passive activity. The shares were not an asset and were simply a bundle of rights.

After detailed consideration of the principles of statutory interpretation as applied for tax purposes, and in particular the distinction in the legislative definitions of “qualifying assets” and “chargeable assets”, the Commissioner determined that the Appellant was not entitled to claim retirement relief on the disposal of his shares in NCC.

Stamp DutyDetermination 67TACD2020 involved a dispute in relation to the availability of sub-sale relief in accordance with section 46 of the Stamp Duty Consolidation Act 1999, as amended (‘SDCA’). There was some complexity to the background in relation to the transactions which is set out in detail in the determination.

The Commissioner determined that:

• the operation of section 46(1) SDCA does not accommodate the insertion of the name of the purchaser under the original contract into the sub-sale contract in circumstances

42

where that purchaser no longer has capacity as vendor in respect of the sub-sale contract.

• that the joinder of a person in a contract for sub-sale in circumstances where that person’s involvement is unnecessary or gratuitous, does not succeed in enabling a claim for sub-sale relief in accordance with section 46(1) SDCA 1999.

• that the conditions necessary to avail of sub-sale relief in accordance with section 46 of SDCA were not met and that the Appellant was thereby unable to avail of sub-sale relief.

The Commissioner determined that the assessment to stamp duty would therefore stand.

Income Tax Determinations 28TACD2020 to 59TACD2020 involved 32 individual Appellants. The appeals involved questions as to the deductibility of certain tax losses on behalf of the Appellants. The Appellants claimed that these losses were allowable Case I trading losses. The Respondent refused the losses on the grounds that they were not allowable trading losses. The Appellants duly appealed. The losses were generated through complex transactions to acquire dividends from a particular British Virgin Island company, financed by a loan from a British Virgin Island lender. The Commissioner found that the transactions were carried out in order to generate a tax advantage for the participants (the Appellants), in the form of tax losses.

The Commissioner determined that:

• the object and purpose of each dividend purchase transaction was to convert a loss-making transaction into a valuable transaction from a tax perspective for each of the Appellants by means of the generation of tax losses which were utilised by the Appellants to reduce taxable income.

• the Appellants were not carrying on a trade in financial instruments and securities. • section 812 TCA 1997 did not apply to deem a dividend to be the income of ‘the owner’

of the underlying securities where that owner is established outside the State and is neither within the jurisdiction of the Oireachtas nor within the charge to Irish tax and that based on the evidence and submissions in the appeal, there was no basis upon which to take the view that the Appellants were not subject to income tax on their foreign dividend income in accordance with section 18 TCA 1997.

43

• the Appellants fell squarely within the charge to tax in section 18 TCA 1997 in respect of their foreign dividend income.

• the expressions of doubt filed by certain Appellants failed to specify the doubt as required by section 955(4)(a). In addition, in accordance with s.955(4)(b) TCA 1997, the Commissioner determined that these expressions of doubt were not genuine and that the Appellants were acting with a view to the avoidance of tax.

The Commissioner upheld the amended Schedule D assessments raised by the Respondent in respect of the tax years of assessment 2009 and/or 2010.

Other matters determined by the TAC

The TAC issued determinations during 2019 in respect of other tax matters not mentioned above, namely:

• Determination 05TACD2020 considered the entitlement of the Appellant to the tax relief commonly known as the Artist’s Exemption.

• Determination 21TACD2019 considered the entitlement of the Appellant to the tax relief commonly known as the Help to Buy Scheme.

• Determination 55TACD2019 concerned an appeal against the refusal to grant relief for interest paid on a home loan in accordance with section 244 of TCA 1997, a relief commonly known as mortgage interest relief.

• Determination 50TACD2019 concerned the matter of whether a vehicle should be considered a ‘new means of transport’ in accordance with section 1 of VATCA 2010 and liable to VAT on importation.

• Determination 13TACD2020 concerned an appeal against the refusal to grant the Appellant an exemption from income tax pursuant to section 192A of TCA 1997 which is an exemption in respect of certain payments under employment law.

44

On 6 June 2018, the Minister for Finance, Mr. Paschal Donohoe TD, commissioned an independent review of the workload and operations of the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) in the context of requests made to his Department by the TAC seeking increased staff and budget resources. The Minister appointed Ms. Niamh O’ Donoghue, former Secretary General of the Department of Social Protection, to carry out this review.

In the course of her review, Ms. O’Donoghue consulted with the TAC, the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Finance, the Law Society, representatives of the Bar of Ireland, accountancy professional bodies and practitioners from the private sector.

Her report (‘the O’Donoghue Report’), which was published on 9 October 2018, made a number of recommendations in relation to staffing, resources and corporate governance. The TAC welcomed the findings of the Report and has worked in consultation with the Department of Finance and other bodies to implement the recommendations therein.

During 2019, with the support of the Minister and the Department of Finance, significant progress was made towards implementation of the Report’s recommendations.

Progress towards implementation

Budget The O’Donoghue Report recognised that a significant increase in the budget allocated to the TAC in 2017 was necessary to enable the implementation of its recommendations. As a result, the budget for 2019 was increased to €3.2million to reflect the projected cost of implementation during 2019. As discussed further in chapter 16, the TAC spent some €1.7million during 2019. The shortfall in spending, when compared with the budget allocation, was primarily a result of the time necessary to conduct recruitment processes and secure the additional staff recommended by the Report. By the close of 2019, the Commission had a staff of 28, effectively double the number of staff on hand at the close of 2018.

Staff and Commissioner resources A permanent Chief Operations Officer (COO) at Principal Officer Grade was recruited and commenced work with the TAC in February 2019. Additional staff were appointed during the year at Assistant Principal Officer, Higher Executive Officer, Executive Officer and Clerical Officer grades, allowing the structures in the TAC to be more closely aligned with the recommendations in the O’Donoghue Report. During September and December 2019, two additional full-time and one part-time temporary Appeal Commissioners were appointed to the TAC.

Review of the Workload and Operations of the Tax Appeals Commission

45

A full time IT manager, tasked with developing an IT strategy and improving the IT operations within the TAC, was employed during the latter part of 2019. The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer has agreed to work with the TAC in 2020 to provide assistance with connecting the TAC to government networks and providing infrastructure and technical support.

A key recommendation of the O’Donoghue Report was the appointment of a Chairperson of the Tax Appeals Commission. The Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act 2019, which amended the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015, contains provisions for the establishment of the position of Chairperson of the Tax Appeals Commission. The Chairperson will have responsibility for the leadership, governance and strategic direction of the Tax Appeals Commission. A recruitment process is presently underway and an appointment is anticipated in Q2 2020.

Case ManagementThe members of the Tax Appeals Commission are independent in the performance of their functions with regard to their individual caseloads awaiting further hearing and/or determination. Work has continued during the year to reduce each respective case load. Case Management Conferences (CMCs) have been used to progress appeals where appropriate and the new Temporary Appeal Commissioners have started work on hearings and determinations including section 949U determinations. The optimisation of the contribution of case managers by Appeal Commissioners in accordance with the provisions of the 2015 Act is continuing and a training and development programme for case managers, which was established in 2019, commenced in Q1 2020. In 2019, the administration team conducted a review of all case files, which was completed in Q1 2020.

Corporate supports and OperationsThe TAC has made significant progress towards improving provision for corporate supports during 2019. The O’Donoghue Report made a number of recommendations for the long and short-term provision of these functions. An internal review of corporate supports required by the TAC was carried out and our recommendation has been forwarded to the Department of Finance with a view to agreeing a sustainable corporate supports structure for the organisation during the coming year.

46

Statistics

Number of Appeals per Year Received in the TAC 48Appeals Received in 2019 50Appeals Closed in 2019 51Appeals - Main Tax Type 52Multiple Tax Types 55Appeals Listed for Hearing in 2019 56Determinations 58Case Management Conferences in 2019 61Progress Made on all Appeals in 2019 64

Note 1: Some of the tables included in the following pages display the “quantum in dispute” for appeals received by the Tax Appeals Commission. This quantum figure should be viewed as an estimate on the following basis:

• the original quantum of tax under appeal may be modified post filing of the notice of appeal (i.e. where an aspect of the appeal is settled or withdrawn),

• The parties may disagree in relation to the precise quantum of tax in dispute, or

• the monetary value of an appeal is not always calculable (e.g. in appeals where the rate of tax is in dispute, in appeals in relation to the refusal of Tax Clearance Certificates, or where the quantum in dispute represents a refusal of loss or deductions).

Note 2: It is important to note that statistics in relation to appeals are continually evolving and are updated on a daily basis in line with correspondence and notifications received. As at Q1 of 2020, this report presents as accurate a picture as possible in relation to statistics in respect of the calendar year, 2019.

47

Number of Appeals per Year Received in the TAC

The Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) was established on 21 March 2016. The system of characterisation of appeals reflected the appeals on hand prior to the establishment of the TAC (‘pre-establishment appeals’), appeals received post establishment of the TAC (‘current appeals’) and aged appeals transferred from the Revenue Commissioners (‘legacy appeals’). The appeal groups are described accordingly.

The following table provides an outline of the number of appeals received and closed since the TAC was established in 2016:

Year Total Legacy Pre-Est’t Current

2016 2017 2018 2019

2016

Appeals received in 2016* 2,357 1,159 297 901

Closed in 2016 (206) (1) (9) (196)

Balance (31/12/16)** 2,151 1,158 288 705

2017

Appeals received in 2017 1,747 1,747

Closed in 2017 (690) (175) (33) (223) (259)

Balance (31/12/17)** 3,208 983 255 482 1,488

2018

Appeals received in 2018 1,689 1,689

Closed in 2018 (1,438) (252) (85) (204) (406) (491)

Balance (31/12/18)** 3,459 731 170 278 1,082 1,198

2019

Appeals received in 2019 1,495 1,495

Closed in 2019 (1,584) (205) (74) (86) (204) (357) (658)

Balance (31/12/19) 3,370 526 96 192 878 841 837

Summary

Appeals received 7,288 1,159 297 901 1,747 1,689 1,495

Appeals Closed (3,918) (633) (201) (709) (869) (848) (658)

Balance (31/12/19) 3,370 526 96 192 878 841 837

48

*As a result of the review of the legacy files by TAC in 2017, the TAC reduced the original number of legacy appeals received from 2,758 to 1,159 by grouping tax years of assessments relating to the same appellants and by grouping related issues.

In many instances, an appellant will appeal the same issue over multiple tax years of assessment and in such instances, these appeals are grouped as one appeal. In appeals where a taxpayer has appealed to the Revenue Commissioners prior to the establishment of the TAC (a ‘legacy appeal’) and subsequently appeals a post-establishment tax year of assessment, these appeals may be grouped as one appeal. For administrative purposes, appeals are grouped if appropriate however, not all related appeals are suitable for grouping.

**A review of all appeals opened and closed on the Case Management System from 21 March 2016 took place in 2019. Each individual appeal was reviewed separately. Any inconsistencies or duplications were analysed and amended accordingly, resulting in the above figures differing slightly to the Annual Report 2018 figure.

Of general note in relation to all appeals:

• Over 50% of appeals (open and closed) in 2019 are, or were, managed by an agent for the appellant.

• Approximately one quarter of the appeals have multiple tax years of assessment or periods of assessment in dispute;

• Over 700 appeals currently on hand are identified as part of groups of appeals, where a similar issue(s) are under appeal.

49

Appeals Received in 2019

The TAC received 1,495 appeals in 2019, which was 194 less than the number received in 2018. All appeals received have been reviewed and are being processed through the stages. An outline of appeals received and the quantum of tax under appeal in 2019 is broken down as follows:

2019Month

No. of Appeals

Received

Quantum*€000

Jan 162 27,742

Feb 114 5,582

Mar 117 8,325

Apr 101 6,582

May 116 16,746

Jun 97 13,258

Jul 128 87,348

Aug 130 3,263

Sep 109 6,825

Oct 113 4,934

Nov 143 14,522

Dec** 165 183,798

TOTAL 1,495 378,925

Tax type of Appeals

Received***

No. of Appeals

Received

% of Total Quantum*€000

IT 625 42 43,759

VAT 311 21 30,074

VRT 184 12 542

CT 90 6 263,445

Other**** 153 10 16,839

CGT 81 6 10,558

CAT 51 3 13,708

TOTAL 1,495 100 378,925

* See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figure is calculated.

** Seven appeals received in the final two weeks of December 2019 amounted to approximately €170 million. Had these appeals been omitted from the annual total, the quantum figure for appeals received in 2019 would have totalled €209 million.

*** For the purposes of tax head analysis an appeal containing more than one tax head has been counted as one appeal categorised under its primary tax head. An analysis of multiple tax types can be found later in this chapter.

****Other includes C&E, DIRT, DWT, LPT, RCT and Stamp Duty.

50

2019Month

No. of Appeals

Closed

Quantum*€000

Jan 91 206,647Feb 59 121,786Mar 107 51,709Apr 92 23,450May 120 45,157Jun 149 27,648Jul 153 16,289Aug 110 15,664Sep 174 11,893Oct 216 6,619Nov 176 87,095Dec 137 51,137TOTAL 1,584 665,094

Tax type of Appeals Closed**

No. of Appeals

Closed

% Quantum*€000

IT 777 49 117,638VAT 256 16 80,712VRT 175 11 409CT 78 5 362,686Other*** 116 8 18,746CGT 146 9 81,730CAT 36 2 3,173TOTAL 1,584 100 665,094

Category / Year Received

No. of Appeals Closed

Quantum*€000

Legacy 205 182,010Pre Est’t 74 55,6902016 86 20,6912017 204 330,5052018 357 54,5142019 658 21,684TOTAL 1,584 665,094

The Tax Appeals Commission closed 1,584 appeals in 2019, by determination, settlement, withdrawal, refusal, merging or dismissal of the appeal. With an increase in the number of staff and improved procedures, the number of appeals closed in 2019 was greater than the 1,438 appeals closed in 2018. 2019 is also the first year that the TAC closed more appeals than it received, resulting in a fall of 89 in the number of appeals on hand at year end. An outline of appeals closed in 2019 is as follows:

Appeals Closed in 2019

Reason for Appeal Closures No. of Appeals Closed Quantum* €000Determinations Issued**** 119 59,442Dismissed 95 12,645Merged / consolidated 4 800Refused 184 8,358Settled 730 351,253Withdrawn by Appellant 452 232,596TOTAL 1,584 665,094

* See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figure is calculated.

** For the purposes of tax head analysis an appeal containing more than one tax head has been counted as one appeal categorised under its primary tax head. An analysis of multiple tax types can be found later in this chapter.

*** Other includes C&E, DIRT, DWT, LPT, RCT and Stamp Duty.**** One determination issued in 2019 was related to 32 individual appeals. For

legislative purposes, 32 separate determinations were issued. 51

Appeals – Main Tax Types

Many appeals involve more than one tax head or more than one type of credit, deduction, relief or exemption. The table below contains information relating to the main tax types disputed across appeals opened and closed in 2019:

* For the purposes of tax head analysis an appeal containing more than one tax head has been counted as one appeal categorised under its primary tax head. An analysis of multiple tax types can be found later in this chapter.

** See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figure is calculated. *** Seven appeals received in the final two weeks of December 2019 amounted to

approximately €170 million. Had these appeals been omitted from the annual total, the quantum figure for appeals received in 2019 would have totalled €209 million.

**** Other includes RCT, LPT, C&E, DIRT, PSWT, Stamp Duty and DWT

Main Tax Type or Issue of Appeals Opened / Closed in 2019

Tax Type * No. of Appeals Received

Quantum**€000

No. of Appeals Closed

Quantum**€000

IT 625 43,760 777 117,638

VAT 311 30,074 256 80,712

VRT 184 542 175 409

CT*** 90 263,445 78 362,686

Other**** 153 16,838 116 18,746

CGT 81 10,558 146 81,730

CAT 51 13,708 36 3,173

TOTAL 1,495 378,925 1,584 665,094

During 2019, income tax remained the tax most frequently appealed, arising in 42% of appeals received. VAT, VRT, CT and CGT made up a further 45% of the appeals on hand.

There was a fall of 281 in the number of income tax appeals received by the TAC which led to an overall percentage drop from 54% to 42%. At the same time, the number of VAT appeals grew by 115, which increased the overall percentage for VAT from 12% to 21%. The volume of remaining tax heads of appeals received in 2019 is broadly similar to 2018.

In 2019, the TAC received 142 appeals which referenced either PAYE, PRSI or USC. The combined total of these accounted for 9% of all appeals received in 2019. Although some of these appeals relate to appealable matters, others were queries in relation to tax liabilities as opposed to appeals of tax assessments or determinations. Such queries are more appropriately addressed through the Revenue Commissioners’ customer service channels.

52

The following table outlines the top four tax types which were referenced in appeals from 21 March 2016. The increase in the number of appeals received post 2016 resulted in a consequent increase in the number of appeals under each of the four main tax heads and under all other tax heads.

* For the purposes of tax head analysis an appeal containing more than one tax head has been counted as one appeal categorised under its primary tax head. An analysis of multiple tax types can be found later in this chapter.

The following table provides an outline of the main tax types disputed across appeals opened and closed since the TAC was established in 2016:

Top Four Tax Types referenced in appeals from 2016*

No. of Appeals Received (By Year)

Total No. of Appeals Received

IT VAT VRT CT

2016 901 472 87 104 522017 1,747 1,116 141 129 1262018 1,689 906 196 205 1312019 1,495 625 311 184 90

Main Tax Type of Appeals Opened / Closed since 2016*

Total IT CT CGT VAT CAT VRT Other**2016

Appeals Received 2,357 1,495 139 226 174 57 112 154Appeals Closed (206) (102) (14) (7) (9) (6) (31) (37)Closing Balance 2,151 1,393 125 219 165 51 81 117

2017Appeals Received 1,747 1,116 126 97 141 35 129 103Appeals Closed (690) (409) (44) (72) (55) (11) (48) (51)Closing Balance 3,208 2,100 207 244 251 75 162 169

2018Appeals Received 1,689 906 131 99 196 40 205 112Appeals Closed (1,438) (823) (95) (93) (107) (34) (169) (117)Closing Balance 3,459 2,183 243 250 340 81 198 164

2019Appeals Received 1,495 625 90 81 311 51 184 153Appeals Closed (1,584) (777) (78) (146) (256) (36) (175) (116)Closing Balance 3,370 2,031 255 185 395 96 207 201

53

Main Tax Type of Appeals Opened / Closed since 2016 by Quantum*

Total IT CT CGT VAT CAT VRT Other**€m €m €m €m €m €m €m €m

2016Appeals Received 1,476.68 482.57 511.23 224.53 97.98 67.35 0.17 92.85Appeals Closed (10.99) (7.85) (0.13) (0.15) (0.27) (0.28) (0.06) (2.25)Closing Balance 1,465.69 474.72 511.10 224.38 97.71 67.07 0.11 90.60

2017Appeals Received 849.13 82.39 605.84 22.44 118.39 6.92 0.65 12.50Appeals Closed (240.63) (35.51) (147.60) (44.63) (9.89) (1.34) (0.13) (1.53)Closing Balance 2,074.19 521.60 969.34 202.19 206.21 72.65 0.63 101.57

2018Appeals Received 2,532.25 91.74 2,333.75 17.10 71.11 9.62 1.82 7.11Appeals Closed (569.01) (263.86) (188.55) (18.65) (23.04) (64.10) (0.37) (10.44)Closing Balance 4,037.43 349.48 3,114.54 200.64 254.28 18.17 2.08 98.24

2019***Appeals Received 378.93 43.76 263.45 10.56 30.07 13.71 0.54 16.84Appeals Closed (665.1) (117.64) (362.69) (81.73) (80.71) (3.17) (0.41) (18.75)Closing Balance 3,751.26 275.60 3,015.30 129.47 203.64 28.71 2.21 96.33

* For the purposes of tax head analysis an appeal containing more than one tax head has been counted as one appeal categorised under its primary tax head. An analysis of multiple tax types can be found later in this chapter.

** Other includes RCT, LPT, C&E, DIRT, PSWT, Stamp Duty and DWT

The following table provides an outline of the main tax types disputed across appeals opened and closed since the TAC was established in 2016:

* See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figure is estimated. For the purposes of tax head analysis an appeal containing more than one tax head has

been counted as one appeal categorised under its primary tax head. An analysis of multiple tax types can be found later in this chapter.

** Other includes RCT, LPT, C&E, DIRT, PSWT, Stamp Duty and DWT*** Seven appeals received in the final two weeks of December 2019 amounted to

approximately €170 million. Had these appeals been omitted from the annual total, the quantum figure for appeals received in 2019 would have totalled €209 million.

54

Multiple Tax Types

The table below indicates the total number of appeals processed by the TAC across four categories of appeal (2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 appeals) in which more than one tax type was being appealed.

In 2018, 6.6% of all appeals were in relation to multiple tax heads. The percentage for multiple tax head appeals reduced to 5.5% in 2019. The following table outlines the main multiple tax types which were referenced in appeals in 2019.

* See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figure is calculated.

Number of Appeals with Multiple Tax Types since 21 March 2016

No. of Tax Types

2019 2018 2017 2016

2 72 79 150 58

3 10 24 35 13

4 9 14 2

5 5 1

TOTAL 82 112 204 74

Summary of main Multiple Tax Types referenced in appeals received in 2019

Tax Types Appeals received

with 2 Tax Types

Appeals received

with 3 Tax Types

Quantum€000*

IT (incl. PAYE/PRSI/USC) 32 7 3,844

IT / VAT 16 3,812

IT / LPT 2 8

IT / CAT 6 3,764

Other 16 3 782

TOTAL 72 10 12,210

55

Appeals Listed for Hearing in 2019

During 2019, 224 hearings affecting 624 appeals with a total quantum of €851m, were scheduled for hearing over 377 days. In 2018, 167 hearings were scheduled in relation to 248 individuals appeals with a quantum of €58m. The duration of the hearings ranged from a half day to 3 weeks.

The following provides information on the outcome of the hearings scheduled:

Outcome* 2019 Quantum€000**

2018 Quantum€000**

Scheduled but deferred or withdrawn prior to hearing:Settled / Withdrawn prior to hearing 25 348,831 17 12,250Adjourned / Deferred prior to hearing 127 350,456 90 35,468

Subtotal 152 699,287 107 47,718Proceeded:

S949AA – Withdrawn for non-attendance 4 65 5 133Settled after hearing 9 14,820Hearing commenced and adjourned 30 38,427 14 4,412Hearing concluded for determination 29 98,753 41 5,452

Subtotal 72 152,065 60 9,997TOTAL 224 851,352 167 57,715

* It is possible that the status of an appeal cited above may have changed e.g. appeals recorded above as ‘concluded for determination’ may be determined by the publication date of this report. Similarly, some hearings adjourned may have settled or may have become ‘concluded for determination’.

** See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figure is calculated.

Hearings can be adjourned for a number of reasons, e.g. to allow for submission of further evidence or to continue the hearing on a subsequent hearing date if it does not conclude on the initial hearing date. Also, depending on the circumstances, hearings may be adjourned to await the outcome of Court proceedings which have to be taken into account by a Commissioner.

Although 224 hearings were scheduled in 2019, 127 hearings were adjourned before a hearing could take place, despite parties being issued calendars of availability in advance. This represented an increase in hearings being adjourned compared to 2018. Due to the increase in adjournments, the TAC reviewed its procedures for scheduling hearings and took the following steps;

56

• The TAC now issues hearing notices 3 to 6 months in advance so that, should an adjournment take place, there will be time to schedule another appeal in place of the adjourned appeal.

• The TAC increased the number of appeals scheduled for hearing in anticipation of the fact that adjournments will arise in relation to some of those appeals.

At the end of 2019, a further 112 hearings had been scheduled for 2020. These appeals relate to 208 individual appeals with a total quantum of €181m and are estimated to take 200 days to hear. Further hearings will be scheduled as the year progresses.

The following provides information in relation to the quantum of tax at issue, in respect of appeals scheduled for hearing in 2019;

Outcome* Category / Year opened Total 2019

Quantum**2019€000

Legacy Pre- Est’t

2016 2017 2018

Scheduled but deferred before hearing:Settled / Withdrawn prior to hearing

13 3 4 5 25 348,831

Adjourned prior to hearing- By Appellant 35 8 15 16 1 75 270,777- By Revenue 24 4 7 11 2 48 76,625- By the TAC 3 1 4 3,054

Subtotal 72 15 29 33 3 152 699,287Proceeded:**Determined 2 2 9Settled after hearing 5 1 3 9 14,820S949AA – Withdrawn for non-attendance

1 1 2 4 65

Hearing commenced and adjourned

20 3 1 3 3 30 38,427

Hearing concluded and awaiting determination

11 3 2 5 6 27 98,744

Subtotal 37 8 8 10 9 72 152,065Total 109 23 37 43 12 224 851,352

* It is possible that the status of an appeal cited above may have changed e.g. appeals recorded above as ‘concluded for determination’ may be determined by the publication date of this report.

** See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figure is calculated.

57

Determinations

Number of determinations issued in 2019

No. of Appeals Determined Total No. of Appeals affected

2019 2018 2017 2019 2018 2017

Determinations issued without the need for a hearing (s. 949U)

48 17 8 49 17 8

Determinations issued relating to appeals heard in 2019

16 21

Determinations issued relating to appeals heard in 2018

3 18 4 18

Determinations issued relating to appeals heard in 2017*

41 3 11 42 5 13

Determinations issued relating to appeals heard in 2016

3 4 15 3 4 19

TOTAL 111 42 34 119 44 40

Part 40A, Chapter 5 of Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 contains provisions for the notification and publication of determinations by the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC). Section 949AO requires the Appeal Commissioners to publish a report of each of their determinations on the TAC website not later than 90 days after the parties have been notified of same. Details of all determinations issued in 2019 and the relevant publication period are set out below.

* One determination issued in 2019 was related to 32 individual appeals. In accordance with the legislation, 32 separate determinations were issued.

A total of 71 determinations issued in 2019 were published on the TAC website prior to year-end. 40 determinations were published on the website in early 2020. However, the remaining 8 determinations disposed of an additional 5 appeals on 5 separate occasions and a single determination disposed of 3 separate appeals at once.

The above table does not reflect the complexity of each appeal or the time required to hear and determine same. To increase efficiencies and maximise the use of TAC resources, Case Management Conferences are scheduled where it appears that they may assist in progressing an appeal. Where appropriate, parties are encouraged to avail of the section 949U facility for a determination without a hearing.

58

The following table provides information on the quantum of tax in dispute in relation to determinations issued in 2019 and the category/ year in which the TAC received the appeal:

Category / Year received Total 2019

Quantum*2019€000

Legacy Pre- Est’t

2016 2017 2018 2019

Determinations issued without the need for a hearing (s. 949U)

1 7 14 19 8 49 430

Determinations issued relating to appeals heard in 2019

12 2 2 5 21 40,226

Determinations issued relating to appeals heard in 2018

2 1 1 4 757

Determinations issued relating to appeals heard in 2017**

39 2 1 42 17,906

Determinations issued relating to appeals heard in 2016

3 3 123

TOTAL 14 45 9 18 25 8 119 59,442

* See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figures is calculated. ** One determination issued in 2019 was related to 32 individual appeals. For legislative

purposes, 32 separate determinations were issued.

59

Summary of Determinations issued in 2019 by tax type

2019 2018Tax Type* No. of Appeals

DeterminedQuantum**

€000No. of Appeals

DeterminedQuantum**

€000IT 67 14,670 26 1,220VAT 10 21,493 5 1,855VRT 30 138 10 21CT 4 6,562 1 188Other*** 6 16,521CGT 1 21CAT 1 37 2 237

TOTAL 119 59,442 44 3,521

* For the purposes of tax head analysis an appeal containing more than one tax head has been counted as one appeal categorised under its primary tax head. An analysis of multiple tax types can be found later in this chapter.

** See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figure is calculated. *** Other includes RCT, LPT, C&E, DIRT, PSWT, Stamp Duty and DWT

The following table outlines the total number of appeals closed in 2019:

* See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figure is calculated.** One determination issued in 2019 was related to 32 individual appeals. In accordance with

the legislation, 32 separate determinations were issued.

Reason for Appeal Closures No. of Appeals Closed

Quantum*€000

Determinations Issued** 119 59,442

Dismissed 95 12,645

Merged / consolidated 4 800

Refused 184 8,358

Settled 730 351,253

Withdrawn by Appellant 452 232,596

TOTAL 1,584 665,094

60

Case Management Conferences in 2019

During 2019, 39 Case Management Conferences (CMCs), affecting 65 appeals, were scheduled by the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC). 23 of these CMCs related to 47 individual appeals. The duration of the CMCs ranged from less than an hour to two days; most concluded within a day. CMCs were found to be particularly beneficial in progressing older appeals or appeals in which an impasse had arisen.

Matters dealt with at CMC may include the following:

• clarifying the issues between the parties and identifying areas where agreement might be reached;

• identifying any additional written materials that are to be provided by either party in advance of the hearing;

• identifying the time required by both parties to prepare additional written materials which will be required for the hearing;

• identifying whether it would be useful in advance of the hearing to have a jointly agreed description of the facts in writing or other jointly agreed approaches to the collation of written evidence or legal arguments to be heard at the hearing;

• confirming that all directions issued by the Appeal Commissioners in the appeal have been complied with;

• identifying whether, in addition to the provision of written materials, any other steps are required to be taken in advance of the hearing;

• clarifying the estimated time required for the hearing;• agreeing a suitable time and date for the hearing which is convenient for all parties;• dealing with preliminary issues.

61

Although 39 CMCs were scheduled in 2019, 14 were adjourned or deferred before a CMC could take place. Due to the increase in adjournments, the TAC reviewed its procedures for scheduling CMCs and took the following steps;

• The TAC now issues CMC notices 3 to 6 months in advance so that, should an adjournment take place, there will be sufficient time to schedule another CMC or appeal hearing in place of the adjourned CMC.

• The TAC increased the number of CMCs scheduled for hearing in anticipation of the fact that adjournments will arise in relation to some of those CMCs

No. of CMCs held Total No. of Appeals affected

Outcome 2019 2018 2019 2018

Scheduled but deferred before CMC:Settled / Withdrawn prior to CMC 2 13 2 28

Adjourned prior to CMC 14 36 16 186

Subtotal 16 49 18 214

Proceeded:

Settled / Withdrawn after CMC 1 10 1 28

Dismissed 17 18

Awaiting determination without a need to proceed to hearing

1 3 4 4

CMC to be re-scheduled 2 28 2 114

Hearing to be scheduled 5 39 22 195

Proceeding 14 13 18 27

Subtotal 23 110 47 386

TOTAL 39 159 65 600

The following provides information on the outcome of the CMCs scheduled in 2019:

62

Outcome* Category / Year received Total for

2019

Quantum**2019€000

Legacy Pre- Est’t

2016 2017 2018

Scheduled but deferred before CMC:Settled / Withdrawn prior to CMC

1 1 2 19,130

Adjourned prior to hearing 3 4 6 1 14 49,770Subtotal 3 5 6 2 16 68,900

Proceeded:Settled / Withdrawn after CMC

1 1 190

Awaiting determination without a need to proceed to hearing

1 1 20,568

CMC to be re-scheduled 2 2Hearing to be scheduled 3 2 5 46,289Proceeding 2 2 1 3 6 14 12,061

Subtotal 7 4 3 3 6 23 79,108

TOTAL 10 9 9 5 6 39 148,008

The following table provides information on category/ year in which the TAC scheduled a CMC in 2019:

* It is possible that the status of an appeal cited above may have changed e.g. appeals recorded above as ‘concluded for determination’ may be determined by the publication date of this report.

** See Note 1 on page 47 which sets out how the ‘quantum in dispute’ figure is calculated.

63

In addition to closing 1,584 appeals in 2019, the TAC also:

• Issued 552 requests for a Statement of Case from Appellants in relation to 484 individual appeals and 528 requests from the Revenue Commissioners, relating to 480 individual appeals;

• Issued 39 requests seeking an Outline of Arguments from the Appellant in relation to 35 individual appeals and 38 requests from Revenue, relating to 35 individual appeals;

• Granted 349 requests (made by the Revenue Commissioners or by Appellants) for an extension of time to comply with a TAC direction, in relation to 228 appeals;

• Granted a request for a stay in proceedings on 39 occasions, regarding 36 appeals; • Held 39 Case Management Conferences in relation to 65 appeals;• Listed 224 hearings in relation to 624 appeals;• Issued 111 determinations in relation to 119 appeals.

The following table outlines the position at year-end:

* A review of all appeals opened and closed on the CMS system from 21 March 2016 took place in 2019. Each individual appeal was reviewed separately. Any inconsistencies or duplications were analysed and amended accordingly, resulting in the above figures differing slightly to the Annual Report 2018 figure.

Progress Made on Appeals in 2019

Category No. of Appeals on Hand Difference

End 2018* End 2019

Legacy 731 526 (205)Pre-Establishment 170 96 (74)2016 278 192 (86)2017 1,082 878 (204)2018 1,198 841 (357)2019 837 837TOTAL 3,459 3,370 (89)

Correspondence issued by the TAC in progressing appeals in 2019

Appellant Revenue Total

No. of Extensions Granted 180 169 349No. of Requests for Additional Information 259 87 346No. of Hold/Stay Requests Granted 22 17 39No. of Statements of Case Requested 552 528 1,080No. of Outlines of Arguments Requested 39 38 77

64

Governance and Administration

The Governance structure of the Tax Appeals Commission will change in 2020 with the appointment of a Chairperson in accordance with the Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act 2019. Recruitment for this role commenced in January 2020.

The Tax Appeals Commission is presently comprised of two permanent Appeal Commissioners. Their primary functions are prescribed by section 6 of the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015. In addition to their work in relation to the processing, adjudication and determination of appeals, the Appeal Commissioners are responsible for the proper, efficient and effective operation of the Tax Appeals Commission.

Under the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act 2015, the Appeal Commissioners hold office for a period of seven years and are accountable to the Minister for Finance and, through the Minister, to the Oireachtas in relation to the performance of their functions. In this regard, they must submit an annual report to the Minister on or before 31 March each year in respect of the preceding year; this report is submitted in discharge of that duty. The Appeal Commissioners are also accountable in respect of any other reports requested by the Minister pursuant to section 21 of the 2015 Act.

The Tax Appeals Commission is a Civil Service body under the aegis of the Department of Finance and, as such, is guided by the Civil Service Code of Standards and Behaviour in its management and operations. The Commission’s Code of Governance, which is based on the Code of Standards, will be updated on the appointment of the Chairperson, in line with the O’Donoghue Report.

Case Management SystemIn September 2019, the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) appointed a new IT manager with responsibility for maintaining and improving the current case management system (CMS). In Q4 2019, the Commission began a project to assess the feasibility of developing a new case management system that can help support the TAC in the achievement of its strategic goals, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the O’Donoghue Report.

In 2019, the case management system in use within the TAC was maintained and improved in the following key areas.

• Reporting: Improved statistics, delivery time, ease of use and delivery of reports. • Process improvements: Increased automation of case management. • Security.

65

Reporting was a key area of focus in 2019, as the delivery of more accurate reporting will allow for improved productivity, analysis and decision-making, and organisational communication. Reports generated are used to monitor and improve delivery within the TAC and generate information required to report to other government bodies, e.g. the Department of Finance or members of the Oireachtas.

The development of the TAC’s case management system aims to improve delivery of services to stakeholders, to automate more steps in the appeals process, to provide more up to date information, to produce reliable and timely statistics to facilitate management of the appeals process, and to facilitate reporting to external stakeholders.

The Tax Appeals Commission also plans a number of other improvements in the area of IT in 2020, namely Infrastructure, Network, Telephony, Security and Hardware.

Case Management and SchedulingIn September 2019, two additional Temporary Appeal Commissioners were appointed to the Tax Appeals Commission (one on a part-time basis). A further Temporary Appeal Commissioner took up office in December 2019. This has allowed for the scheduling of additional hearings and the progression of determinations under the section 949U procedure (adjudication without a hearing).

During 2019, 224 hearings in relation to 624 appeals with a total quantum of €851 million were scheduled for hearing over 377 days. In 2018, 167 hearings in relation to 248 appeals with a total quantum of €58 million were scheduled for hearing over 202 days. While there was a lack of availability of hearing rooms in 2018, the number of complex hearings scheduled in 2019 was greater, as was the aggregate quantum of monies under appeal in respect of the 2019 appeals. The duration of the hearings ranged from a half day to three weeks.

There were 39 Case Management Conferences (CMCs) held in relation to 65 appeals in 2019 with a quantum of €148 million. In comparison, there were 159 CMCs scheduled in 2018. CMCs were found to be beneficial in progressing older appeals or appeals in which an impasse had arisen. This resulted in a large number of legacy appeals scheduled in 2018. There was not the same necessity to schedule CMCs in 2019.

As of the close of 2019, a further 110 hearings in relation to 188 individual appeals with a quantum of €188 million have been scheduled for hearing in 2020. The scheduling unit has also created space in the schedule post hearing, to allow the Commissioners to draft their written determinations. If a scheduled appeal is settled prior to hearing or adjourned, contingency planning by the scheduling unit provides for other appeals to be scheduled at short notice.

66

Code of Governance and Statement of Strategy A three-year Statement of Strategy was published by the Tax Appeals Commission in 2017 and covers the period 2017-2020. A review of the Statement of Strategy will be carried out in conjunction with the revision of the Code of Governance following the appointment of a Chairperson.

Risk Management and Internal Audit Risk Management

During 2019, the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) established an Audit & Risk Committee (ARC). The process was co-ordinated by the Tax Appeals Commission’s Chief Operations Officer. The Committee held its first meeting in October 2019.

A draft corporate risk register was prepared in advance of the December ARC meeting. The operational and strategic risks were identified and evaluated in light of the Tax Appeals Commission’s objectives as set out in the Statement of Strategy 2017–2020.

The risk register identifies the key risks facing the Tax Appeals Commission. These risks have been evaluated and graded according to their likelihood and impact. The risk register details the actions required to mitigate risks.

Following review by the Tax Appeals Commission, the draft risk register was presented to the ARC. The ARC reviewed the risk register in December 2019 and provided feedback to the Commission.

The Tax Appeals Commission is in the process of formulating and finalising a Risk Management Policy and System. When finalised, this will be implemented to actively monitor and update the TAC’s risk register to ensure appropriate actions are taken to mitigate risks that could impact on the achievement of the TAC’s objectives.

In 2019 a Data Protection Officer was registered with the Data Protection Commission in compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The Data Protection Officer underwent additional training. Support on documenting data protection policies and procedures, including a Data Protection Policy, was provided by a secondee from the Department of Finance. All staff at the Tax Appeals Commission attended GDPR training and have been briefed on the policy procedures.

Internal AuditDuring 2019 the internal auditors issued reports in respect of the following:

67

• Review of Records management and Freedom of Information systems, policies and procedures.

• Review of the Effectiveness of Internal Controls.

In September 2019, a tender process was carried out for internal audit services through the Office of Government Procurement (OGP). The contract was awarded and the Internal Auditors will present their 3-year plan to the Tax Appeals Commission and the ARC in early 2020.

Comptroller & Auditor GeneralHaving conducted an interim and final audit in respect of the year ended 31 December 2018, the Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General issued their opinion on the Appropriation Account, the Statement of Internal Financial Control, and other matters on 23 September 2019.

The C&AG agreed that the Appropriation Accounts prepared by the Commission properly presents the Receipts and Expenditure of Vote 10 - Tax Appeals Commission for year ended 31 December 2018. The C&AG expressed the opinion that they had obtained sufficient and appropriate evidence in carrying out their audit. In respect of the Statement of Internal Financial Controls the C&AG has responsibility to report in relation to the information contained in that statement by exception only. For the year ended 31 December 2018 the C&AG stated that there was ‘nothing to report in that regard’.

The interim C&AG audit in respect of the year ended 31 December 2019 took place in January/February 2020 and the final C&AG audit will take place after 31 March 2020.

HR Function The HR Officer has responsibility for the delivery of the HR role in the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC). This is done in conjunction with services provided by the Revenue Commissioners under a Service Level Agreement (‘SLA’). The SLA provides that Revenue will give administrative support to the implementation of the HR function in the Tax Appeals Commission.

In 2019, the HR Officer supported staff in implementing the PMDS process and meeting their learning and development requirements. Areas where training was provided included IT, risk management, GDPR, HR, interviewing, communications, project management and induction. The Case Managers in the TAC also provided in-house training modules on specific areas of tax. The Department of Finance further supported the TAC in the development and progression of its training objectives by facilitating the attendance of TAC staff on its Diploma in Taxation Policy and Practice Course.

68

In March 2019, the TAC introduced a manual time and attendance system for grades at Higher Executive Officer and below. This system supports the Commission’s compliance with the Organisation of Working Time Act. A contract is now in place for the installation of an electronic system in early 2020.

In 2019, the Commission continued to be unable to access the HR Shared Services platform. However, a communication link exists between HR Shared Services and the Tax Appeals Commission with records being updated manually. The Tax Appeals Commission’s payroll is managed by the Payroll Shared Services Centre.

RecruitmentIn 2019, the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) sought to increase its staff complement through recruitment in accordance with the recommendations contained in the O’Donoghue Report. The Minister for Finance, Mr. Pascal Donohoe TD, approved the appointment of three Temporary Appeal Commissioners. Following his approval, two full-time and one part-time Temporary Appeal Commissioners were appointed to the TAC in Q3 and Q4 of 2019.

A permanent Chief Operations Officer at Principal Officer level commenced work at the TAC in February 2019. This followed 2 seconded Principal Officers from the Department of Finance who filled the role on a fixed-term basis.

In 2019, the TAC also increased its staff complement through recruitment from the Public Appointment Service panels. Three Assistant Principal Officers, one of whom was an ICT Manager, were appointed from the Public Appointment Service (PAS) panels. A Higher Executive Officer, four Executive Officers and four Clerical Officers were also recruited through PAS.

Two internal competitions for promotion were held in the TAC in 2019. One was for promotion from Clerical Officer to Executive Officer and one appointment was made from this competition. Another competition was held for promotion from Executive Officer to Higher Executive Officer and two appointments were made from this panel. These two competitions were held in accordance with the Office of the Commission of Public Service Appointments (CPSA) guidelines.

The Finance (Tax Appeals and Prospectus Regulation) Act 2019 which was signed into law in December 2019 provides for the appointment of a Chairperson to the TAC. The recruitment process for a Chairperson began in January 2020. The TAC expects to reach its full staff complement in 2020.

69

Section 21 ReportsThe Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) submitted its Annual Report for 2018 to the Minister for Finance in March 2019, in compliance with section 21(1) of the Finance (Tax Appeals) Act, 2015.

During 2019, the TAC did not make any report to the Minister for Finance pursuant to section 21(5) of the 2015 Act, nor did the Minister request the submission of any report pursuant to section 21(6) of the Act.

Engagement with 3rd PartiesThe Tax Appeals Commission had significant interaction with 3rd parties during 2019, including:

• The Office of the Revenue Commissioners;• The Office of Public Works;• The Office of Government Procurement;• The Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General;• The Public Appointments Service;• The Irish Tax Institute;• The UK Tax Tribunal;• The Japanese National Tax Agency;• The International Association of Tax Judges;• The National Archives.

These working relationships have been productive and have been pursued in order to provide the Commission with a stronger base from which to improve its operations in 2020. We will continue to work with these bodies to progress mutually beneficial outcomes.

ProcurementThe Tax Appeals Commission conducted several procurement exercises during 2019. These included the procurement of:

• Legal services;• Internal Audit services; • Time and Attendance System; • ICT Software/Hardware;• Design and Print of Annual Report.

70

All requests for tender were conducted via the Government’s Procurement Framework, thee-tenders system, or in compliance with procurement guidelines where the estimated value of the tender was below advised thresholds.

Review of the Workload and Operations of the Tax Appeals CommissionA report on the workload and operations of the Tax Appeals Commission by Niamh O’Donoghue, former Secretary General of the Department of Social Protection, was published in October 2018. The Report made a number of recommendations in relation to the staffing, resources, governance and operations. The report was welcomed by the Tax Appeals Commission and significant progress was made during 2019 to implement its recommendations with the support of the Minister and the Department of Finance.

In accordance with the Report’s recommendations, improvements have been made in the areas of governance, organisational structure, case management, corporate supports and operations. In 2020, the Tax Appeals Commission will continue to work towards completion of the improvements recommended in the Report, particularly in the areas of IT and process improvement.

71

Funding and Expenditure

The Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) is funded through Vote 10 of the Estimates as approved by Dáil Éireann. The allocations to the TAC have increased significantly over recent years to cater for the increased expenditure required for additional resources, including staff and IT systems, which arose from the reform of the tax appeals system. The allocations (“Estimates”) to the Commission in 2017, 2018 and 2019 were €1.605 million, €1.626 million and €3.208 million respectively.

The below table sets out an analysis of the TAC’s administration expenditure in 2019.

In accordance with the provisions of the Comptroller & Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993, the Commission’s Accounting Officer is responsible for the production and submission to the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Appropriation Account for Vote 10 by 31st March each year. This has been done in respect of 2019 and it is anticipated that the audited accounts of the Commission will be published by the Comptroller and Auditor General later in the year as part of his 2019 annual report on the accounts of the public services.

Expenditure Item 2019 Estimate Provision

2019 Outturn

2018 Outturn

2017 Outturn

€,000 €,000 €,000 €,000

Salaries, wages and allowances 2,508 1,407 1,148 753

Travel and subsistence 40 2 4 1

Training and development and incidental expenses 100 73 98 91

Postal and telecommunications services 20 13 8 9

Office equipment and external IT services 420 162 117 252

Office premises expenses 50 23 4 16

Consultancy and other services 70 93 48 0

Total Expenditure 3,208 1,773 1,426 1,122

72

Appendix - Customer Service Charter

The Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) is committed to providing a high standard of service in accordance with the principles, practices and procedures set out in the Corporate Governance Standard for the Civil Service and specifically, the Code of Practice for the Governance of State Bodies. The TAC operates in accordance with the principles of Quality Customer Service approved by Government.

This office provides an independent appeals process in relation to the hearing and adjudication of tax disputes, such that we hear and determine appeals against decisions and determinations of the Revenue Commissioners, concerning taxes and duties.

This Charter sets out the standards we aim to meet in carrying out our statutory functions. We will measure and evaluate our performance against these standards and report on our findings in our Annual Report each year.

Contact by TelephoneIf you contact the TAC by telephone, we will try to:

• answer your call as promptly as possible;• give you our name and area of work when we answer the call;• be courteous and helpful at all times;• answer your query in full or, if we can’t do so immediately, take your details and call

back as soon as possible;• respond to all voicemail messages, promptly.

Written CorrespondenceIf you send us a letter, fax or email, we will try to:

• ensure you receive a full reply, within 20 working days;• include a contact name, reference number (where appropriate) and other contact

details (phone, fax, email);• write to you in simple and clear language and avoid using technical terms, unless

absolutely necessary.

Complaints to the TACIf you complain to the TAC, about our actions, we will try to:

• acknowledge your complaint within 7 days;• tell you how long it may take us to examine the complaint;

73

• keep you advised of progress with our examination;• inform you as promptly as possible and as clearly as possible, of the outcome of our

examination.

Visitors to the TACIf you attend at the TAC in person, we will:

• treat you with courtesy, respect your privacy insofar as possible and be fair in our dealings with you;

• meet you at the agreed time, if you have an appointment;• endeavor to provide appropriate facilities for a hearing, or meeting, as the case may

be;• keep our public offices clean and tidy, ensuring that they meet health and safety

standards.

Equality/Diversity• we are committed to providing a quality service that upholds the rights of an individual

to equal treatment in accordance with equality legislation;• we will aim to ensure that our services and facilities are accessible to all, including

those with special needs.

Service through IrishIf requested by an individual who has interaction with the TAC, we will endeavor to liaise with the person in Irish; or if we are unable, we endeavor to secure the services of an interpreter.

Review ProcedureThe TAC’s policies and procedures are kept under review by management within the organisation and are subject to external audit by the C&AG.

74

75

76

www.taxappeals.ie

Tuarascáil Bhliantúil2019

www.taxappeals.ie

Clár Ábhair

Réamhrá 3

Gluais 4

Athchóiriú ar an gCóras Achomhairc Chánach 9

Bunús Reachtúil an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach 11

Feidhmeanna an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach 12

An Eagraíocht 13

Aschuir is Tábhachtaí agus Gníomhaíochtaí Seirbhíse Poiblí 14

Achomhairc Reatha 16

Achomhairc Iarmharacha 18

Achomhairc roimh Bhunú 19

Cásanna Sonraithe 20

Forléargas ar Shocruithe 21

Athbhreithniú ar Ualach Oibre agus ar Oibríochtaí an TAC 45

Staidreamh 47

Rialachas agus Riarachán 65

Maoiniú agus Caiteachas 72

Aguisín – Cairt Seirbhíse do Chustaiméirí 73

1

2

Réamhrá

I gcomhréir le halt 21 den Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015, tá áthas orainn an ceathrú tuarascáil bhliantúil seo de chuid an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach a chur i láthair.

Ba bhliain shuntasach í 2019 don Choimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach (TAC) ina ndearna an Coimisiún leasuithe suntasacha maidir le soláthar a chuid seirbhísí dá pháirtithe leasmhara. Tá mionsonraí iomlána na hoibre ag an TAC leagtha amach i gcaibidil an Staidrimh sa tuarascáil seo, ach is fiú aird a tharraingt ar roinnt pointí faoi leith:

• Dhún an TAC 1,584 achomharc le linn 2019; bhí candam airgid timpeall €665m i gceist sna hachomhairc a dúnadh.

• Rinne an TAC 111 socrú in 2019 agus glanadh candam timpeall €60m.

• Chuir an TAC 224 éisteacht ar an sceideal do 2019 agus tá 112 breise ar an sceideal do 2020 agus candam iomlán €181m i gceist. Cuirfear éisteachtaí breise ar an sceideal in imeacht na bliana.

Ní bheadh aon chuid de seo indéanta gan tiomantas agus gan dícheall fhoireann an Choimisiúin le linn 2019. Tá an t-ádh orainn go bhfuil scoth foirne againn agus is mór againn a dtacaíocht agus a gcúnamh le linn na bliana seo caite.

Chomh maith leis sin, earcaíodh baill thábhachtacha foirne agus thosaigh siad ar obair sa Choimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach in 2019. Orthu sin bhí triúr Coimisinéirí Achomhairc Sealadacha a cheap an tAire Airgeadais, Paschal Donohoe T.D. Thosaigh na Coimisinéirí Paul Cummins agus Fiona McLafferty i Meán Fómhair agus thosaigh an Coimisinéir Charles Phelan i mí na Nollag. Ar thaobh an riaracháin, thosaigh Príomh-Oifigeach nua Oibríochtaí, Sinead Boyle, i mí Feabhra agus chuir feachtas earcaíochta 11 duine breise d’fhoireann sa riarachán achomharc, TEF agus Airgeadais. Ar 31 Nollaig 2019 bhí 28 d’fhoireann againn agus 4.5 folúntas fágtha.

Le linn 2019 rinneamar dul chun cinn suntasach ar ár gclár trí bliana leis an eagraíocht a chlaochlú

chun teacht leis na moltaí a rinneadh i dTuairisc O’Donoghue. Bhí áthas orainn ár gCoiste Iniúchta agus Riosca a cheapadh in 2019. Tháinig an Coiste le chéile faoi dhó, agus tá clár iomlán aige do 2020, ag obair i gcomhar lena n-iniúchóirí inmheánacha. Anuas air sin, thosaíomar ar obair ar thionscnaimh shuntasacha TEG a bheidh tábhachtach má tá an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach chun feabhas a chur ar phróiseáil na n-achomharc sna blianta romhainn.

Le linn 2019 chomh maith tháinig feidhm leis an Acht Airgeadais (Rialachán Achomhairc Chánach agus Réamh-Eolaire). I ngeall ar na leasuithe san Acht seo beidh ar chumas an Aire Airgeadais Cathaoirleach a cheapadh don Choimisiún. Is ceapachán suntasach é sin a dhéanfar in 2020.

Is eol go maith dúinn go bhfuil méid mór oibre fós le déanamh in 2020 agus sna blianta amach romhainn agus ainneoin go dtuigimid méid mór na hoibre atá fós le déanamh, is mór an t-áthas atá orainn go bhfuil na hacmhainní agus na tacaíochtaí againn anois a chuirfidh ar chumas an Choimisiúin teacht lena oibleagáidí agus na dúshláin a bhí roimhe a shárú. Is fearr i bhfad cás an Choimisiúin anois ná an tráth seo bliain ó shin; dar linn go bhfuil feabhsuithe móra déanta cheana agus tá súil againn go leanfar díobh sin in 2020 agus amach ina dhiaidh. Táimid ag súil leis na feabhsuithe sin a chur ar fáil dár bpáirtithe leasmhara.

Mark O’Mahony, Coimisinéir Achomhairc

Lorna Gallagher, Coimisinéir Achomhairc

3

Gluais

Achomhairc ar athlá roimh éisteacht Achomhairc a fuair dáta éisteachta ach a cuireadh ar athlá, ar iarratas ó na páirtithe, roimh thús na héisteachta.

Coimisinéir um Achomhairc Comhalta den Choimisiún um Achomhairc a cheap an tAire Airgeadais de bhun alt 8 den Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015.

Achomhairc a dúnadh Achomhairc a críochnaíodh nach n-éilíonn tuilleadh gníomhaíochta ón TAC.

Achomhairc idir lámha Achomhairc bheo ghníomhacha a éilíonn tuilleadh gníomhaíochta.

Achomhairc a glanadh Achomhairc a glanadh tar éis comhaontaithe ag an dá pháirtí.

Achomhairc a glanadh roimh Achomhairc a glanadh idir na páirtithe tar éis guréisteacht sceidealaíodh an éisteacht, ach roimh thosú di.

Achomhairc a aistarraingíodh Achomhairc inar thug an tAchomharcóir le fios don TAC nach mian leis/léi go rachadh a (h)achomharc ar aghaidh.

Achomhairc a díbheadh Achomhairc a díbheadh de bhun alt 949AV TCA 1997 ó tharla teip ag an Achomharcóir treoir amháin ar a laghad ó na Coimisinéirí um Achomhairc a chomhlíonadh.

Achomhairc a diúltaíodh Achomhairc a dhiúltaigh na Coimisinéirí um Achomhairc de réir alt 949N TCA 1997.

Achomhairc a socraíodh Achomhairc a shocraigh an Coimisinéir um Achomhairc gur tugadh an socrú sin do na páirtithe.

A.P. Príomh-Oifigeach Cúnta

ARCC Oifig an Ard-Reachtaire Cuntais agus Ciste

4

CBC Comhdháil Bainistithe Cásanna

Córas Bainistithe Cásanna Bunachar ina bhfuil mionsonraí gach achomhairc idir bheo agus dhúnta.

C.O. Oifigeach Cléireachais

E.O. Feidhmeannach

FLAC Ionad Comhairle Dlí

FSS Seirbhísí Comónta Airgeadais

GDPR Rialachán Ginearálta maidir le Cosaint Sonraí

Tús leis an éisteacht ach curtha Achomhairc ar tosaíodh ar an éisteacht ach cuireadh sinar athlá ar athlá ar fháth amháin ar a laghad díobh seo: éisteacht

bhreise a dhéanamh, breis eolais a lorg, breis cáipéisíochta a lorg, tuilleadh ionchur, agus/nó finnéithe freastal.

H.E.O. Ard-Oifigeach Feidhmiúcháin

AD Acmhainní Daonna

TFC Teicneolaíocht Faisnéise agus Cumarsáide

Achomhairc ina bhfuil Grúpa achomharc ina bhfuil pointí comónta dlí agus/nóceannródaíocht fíricí. I gcásanna áirithe, beidh cás trialach ón ngrúpa (an

t-achomharc ‘ceannródaíoch’) agus is dócha go mbeidh a shocrú sin infheidhme ar na hachomhairc eile sa ghrúpa.

Achomhairc Iarmharacha Achomhairc a cuireadh isteach chuig Ioncam roimh bhunú an TAC. Aistríodh na hachomhairc iarmharacha seo chuig an TAC sa dara leath de 2016.

5

Fógra achomhairc An doiciméad is túisce a thugann fógra faoi mhian an cháiníocóra achomharc a dhéanamh. Deir alt 949I TCA 1997 gur gá gach iarratas ar achomharc ag an TAC a dhéanamh trí Fhógra Achomhairc a chur isteach.

Oifig na gCoimisinéirí um An foras ar a dtiteann sé moltóireacht a dhéanamh arAchomhairc achomhairc chánach roimh bhunú an TAC. Níorbh ann

d’Oifig na gCoimisinéirí um Achomhairc tar éis 21 Márta 2016.

OPW Oifig na nOibreacha Poiblí

Imlíne Argóintí Imlíne scríofa de na hargóintí ar a mbeidh páirtí ag brath le linn éisteacht an achomhairc, arna thabhairt don TAC de réir alt 949S TCA 1997.

PAS An tSeirbhís um Cheapacháin Phoiblí

P.O. Príomh-Oifigeach

Achomhairc roimh bhunú Achomhairc a bhí idir lámha in Oifig na gCoimisinéirí um Achomhairc roimh 21 Márta 2016.

PSSC Ionad Seirbhíse Comónta Pá-rolla

Candam Suim na cánach atá faoi dhíospóid idir na páirtithe, arb ionann é agus an difear idir measúnú Ioncaim agus an tsuim dar leis an Achomharcóir atá dlite.

Ioncam Oifig na gCoimisinéirí Ioncaim

SLA Comhaontú Leibhéal Seirbhíse

Ráiteas Cáis Achoimre scríofa ar na fíricí agus an fhianaise is rún le páirtí a chur faoi bhráid éisteacht an achomhairc, arna thabhairt ag páirtí don TAC de bhun 949Q TCA 1997.

TAC Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach

6

TÉARMAÍ A BHAINEANN LE CÁIN

AVC Ranníocaíocht Dheonach Bhreise

BIK Sochar Comhchineáil

CAT Cáin Fháltas Caipitiúil

CATCA 2003 An tAcht Comhdhlúite Cánach Fáltas Caipitiúil 2003

CGT Cáin Ghnóthachan Caipitiúil

CT Cáin Chorparáide

DIRT Cáin Choinneála ar Ús Taisce

DWT Cáin Iarchoimeádta Díbhinne

EII Dreasacht Fostaíochta agus Infheistíochta

HRI Dreasacht Athchóirithe Tí

IT Cáin Ioncaim

LPT Cáin Réadmhaoine Áitiúil

OMSP Praghas Díola Margaidh Oscailte

ÍMAT Íoc Mar a Thuillir

PREM ÍMAT & ÁSPC arna n-íoc ag an bhFostóir

ÁSPC Árachas Sóisialach Pá-Choibhneasa

PSWT Cáin Iarchoimeádta Seirbhísí Gairmiúla

RCT Cáin Chonarthaí Iomchuí

SPCCC Creidmheas Cánach Cúramóra Linbh do Dhuine Singil

7

SURE Athchistithe Tionscnaimh d’Fhiontraithe

TCA 1997 An tAcht Comhdhlúite Cánach 1997, mar a leasaíodh

TCC Deimhniú Imréitigh Cánach

MSU Muirear Sóisialta Uilíoch

VATCA 2010 An tAcht Comhdhlúite Cáin Breisluacha 2010, mar a leasaíodh

VRT Cáin Chláraithe Feithiclí

8

Athchóiriú ar an gCóras Achomhairc Chánach

Tar éis gealltanas a rinne an tAire Airgeadais, Michael Noonan T.D., i gCáinaisnéis 2014 chun athchóiriú a dhéanamh ar ról, ar fheidhm agus ar struchtúr Oifig na gCoimisinéirí Achomhairc (OAC), bunaíodh an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach (TAC) ar an 21 Márta 2016. Pléitear le rialachas, le hoibríochtaí agus le forbairtí an Choimisiúin Achomhairc Cánach, le linn 2016, 2017 agus 2018 i dTuarascálacha Bliantúla roimhe seo.

Ritheadh an tAcht Airgeadais (Rialachán Achomharc Cánach agus Réamheolaire) 2019 ar an 10 Nollaig 2019 agus bhí tosach feidhme ag forálacha áirithe de chuid an Achta sin le hOrdú Aire ar an 18 Nollaig 2019. De bhun thosach feidhme na bhforálacha sin is féidir leis an Aire Airgeadais Cathaoirleach ar an gCoimisiún Achomhairc Cánach a cheapadh.

Ní fada uainn anois ceapachán an Chathaoirligh ar an TAC agus beidh tionchar suntasach aige sin maidir le rialachas agus le hoibríochtaí an Choimisiúin Achomhairc Cánach.

An tAcht Airgeadais (Rialachán Achomharc Cánach agus Réamheolaire) 2019

I bhFo-Alt 4F den Acht Airgeadais (Rialachán Achomharc Cánach agus Réamheolaire) 2019 tugtar de dhualgas don Chathaoirleach bainistiú agus smacht ar riarachán agus ar ghnó an TAC agus aon fheidhmeanna eile a d’fhéadfaí a shannadh faoin Acht. Sainaithníonn an tAcht feidhmeanna mar a leanas don Chathaoirleach:

• a chinntiú go mbeidh córais iontaofa cuntasóireachta agus tuairiscithe airgeadais ag an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Cánach;

• a chinntiú go mbeidh córais chuí rialaithe socraithe chun oibleagáidí a chomhlíonadh maidir le bainistiú riosca, smacht airgeadais agus oibríochtaí, agus comhlíonadh an dlí;

• a chinntiú go gcomhlíontar oibleagáidí maidir leis an tSaoráil Faisnéise;• a chinntiú go gcomhlíontar oibleagáidí maidir leis an gcosaint sonraí; • a chinntiú go ndéantar feidhmeanna an TAC go héifeachtúil;• achomhairc a chur in ord tosaíochta le haird ar leas na córa agus oibriú éifeachtúil an

Achta agus Cuid 40A den Acht Comhdhlúite Cánacha 1997.

Déanann Fo-Alt 4F foráil go gcuirfidh an Cathaoirleach faoi deara córais agus gnáis éifeachtacha éifeachtúla a bhunú agus a chothabháil sa chaoi go ndéanfar próiseáil, moltóireachta agus socrú maidir le hachomhairc ar bhonn tráthúil éifeachtach. Déanann an reachtaíocht foráil gurb é an Cathaoirleach an t-Oifigeach Cuntais agus beidh sé/sí freagrach

9

don Aire Airgeadais as bainistíocht éifeachtach éifeachtúil an Choimisiúin agus as a c(h)uid feidhmeanna a chur de/di. Tugann an tAcht Airgeadais (Rialachán Achomharc Cánach agus Réamheolaire) 2019 feidhm do na hathruithe a leanas ar Chuid 40A den Acht Comhdhlúite Cánacha 1997, mar a leasaíodh; Tá Alt 949AP d’Acht 1997 leasaithe tríd an bhfo-alt seo a leanas a chur in ionad fho-alt (3):

‘(3) Déanfaidh an fógra dá dtagraítear i bhfo-alt (2) na nithe seo a leanas – ((a) luafar ann cén t-údar míshástachta leis an socrú atá ag an bpáirtí lena

mbaineann sé,(b) luafar ann cén t-údar a cheaptar atá an socrú míchruinn i dtaca le pointe dlí,(c) cuirfear é chuig na Coimisinéirí um Achomhairc tráth nach déanaí ná 21 lá tar éis

an dáta gur tugadh fógra faoina socrú faoi alt 949AJ (1), agus(d) cuirfear é chuig an bpáirtí eile tráth a bheidh sé á chur chuig na Coimisinéirí um

Achomhairc’ Tá Alt 949AQ d’Acht 1997 leasaithe tríd an bhfo-alt seo a leanas a chur in ionad fho-alt (7)

‘(7A) Cuirfidh an páirtí a iarrann an cás faoi deara na nithe seo a leanas – (a) cóip a réiteach de gach foilseán a shonraítear sa chás, agus(b) an chóip de na foilseáin a réitíodh ar an gcaoi sin a áireamh leis an gcás

sonraithe agus sin á chur chuig an Ard-Chúirt de réir fho-alt (7).

(7B) Sa chás nach bhfuil ag an té a shonraigh an cás seilbh ná smacht ná fáil, chun críche fo-alt (7A) a chomhlíonadh, ar chóip d’fhoilseán a shonraítear sa chás sonraithe, is féidir leis an bpáirtí a d’iarr an cás sonraithe a iarraidh ar na Coimisinéirí a chur faoi deara, tríd an bhfógra scríofa, go gcuirfeadh an páirtí eile cóip den fhoilseán ar fáil don pháirtí a d’iarr an cás sonraithe.

(7C) Sa chás go bhfaighidh na Coimisinéirí Achomhairc iarratas faoi fho-alt (7B) ón bpáirtí a iarrann an cás sonraithe, d’fhéadfadh na Coimisinéirí Achomhairc a chur faoi deara, tríd an bhfógra scríofa, go gcuirfeadh an páirtí eile cóip den fhoilseán ar fáil don pháirtí a d’iarr an cás sonraithe.

(7D) Sa chás go bhfaighidh páirtí fógra faoi fho-alt (7C) agus go bhfuil smacht nó fáil nó seilbh ag an bpáirtí sin ar an bhfoilseán lena mbaineann an fógra, cuirfidh an páirtí sin cóip den fhoilseán ar fáil tráth nach déanaí ná an t-am a shonraítear san fhógra.

10

Bunús Reachtúil an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach

Is comhlacht reachtúil neamhspleách é an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach (TAC) a bhfuil an dualgas air próiseas nua-aimseartha éifeachtúil a sholáthar i ndáil le héisteacht agus moltóireacht a dhéanamh ar dhíospóidí cánach, de réir fhorálacha na reachtaíochta ábhartha.

Is é an tAcht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015, an tAcht Airgeadais (Rialachán Achomharc Cánach agus Réamheolaire) 2019, an tAcht Comhdhlúite Cánacha 1997, mar a leasaíodh, agus reachtaíocht bhainteach, an reachtaíocht atá i gceist.

Rinneadh dlí den Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015 (‘an tAcht’) faoi lámh an Uachtaráin ar an 25 Nollaig 2015. Chuir an tAire Airgeadais a shíniú leis na horduithe cuí tosaigh feidhme, le feidhm a thabhairt do na forálacha reachtacha nua, ar an 26 Feabhra 2016. Ar an 21 Márta 2016, bunaíodh an TAC agus tháinig an réimeas nua i bhfeidhm le próiseáil a dhéanamh ar achomhairc chánach.

Déanann alt 10 den Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015 foráil shonrach go mbeidh an Coimisiún agus a chuid comhaltaí neamhspleách agus iad ag comhlíonadh a bhfeidhme. Lena chois sin, tá forálacha éagsúla in Acht 2015 a thugann de chumhacht do na Coimisinéirí bainistiú níos gníomhaí a dhéanamh ar chásanna ná mar ba ghnách roimhe, rud a dhaingníonn oibríocht neamhspleách an phróisis achomhairc.

Rinneadh forálacha an Achta Airgeadais (Rialachán Achomharc Cánach agus Réamheolaire) 2019, a leasaíonn Acht 2015 trí chead a thabhairt Cathaoirleach don TAC a earcú agus a dhéanann leasuithe teicniúla eile, a ghníomhú faoi ordú Aire dar dáta 18 Nollaig 2019. Déanfar na hailt eile a ghníomhú le hordú Aire tar éis go gceapfar Cathaoirleach.

Faoi 31 Nollaig 2019, bhí 28 d’fhoireann ag obair ag an gCoimisiún, lena n-áirítear beirt Choimisinéirí Achomhairc, ceathrar Coimisinéirí Sealadacha Achomhairc, triúr Bainisteoirí Cáis agus líon ball foirne riaracháin a thacaíonn le hobair na gCoimisinéirí. Tá Cathaoirleach á earcú faoi láthair.

Déanfaidh an TAC athbhreithniú ar a chuid próiseas reachtaíochta agus ar a sainordú reachtúil ar bhonn leanúnach d’fhonn a chuid próiseas a líomhadh le gurb éifeachtaí a chuid próiseas maidir le hachomhairc a reáchtáil go cuí.

11

Feidhmeanna an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach

Is é príomhról an TAC moltóireacht, éisteacht agus socrú a dhéanamh i ndáil le hachomhairc ar chinntí agus ar shocruithe a rinne na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim maidir le cáin agus dleacht. Tá na sainfheidhmeanna ag na Coimisinéirí um Achomhairc leagtha amach in alt 6 den Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015.

Tá ceangal ar na Coimisinéirí um Achomhairc, agus iad ag comhlíonadh a ndualgas, a chinntiú go bhfuil na cúrsaí faoina mbráid inrochtana, cothrom agus curtha de láimh chomh tapa agus is féidir.

Tá roinnt forálacha in Acht 2015 a bhfuil an cuspóir acu tacú agus slánú a dhéanamh ar neamhchlaontacht agus ar neamhspleáchas na gCoimisinéirí agus iad ag comhlíonadh a bhfeidhme, mar atá, alt 3 a bhunaíonn an Coimisiún mar chomhlacht corparáideach, alt 6 a bhunaíonn feidhmeanna na gCoimisinéirí um Achomhairc agus alt 10 a chuireann ceangal ar an gCoimisiún a bheith neamhspleách agus a fheidhmeanna á gcomhlíonadh aige.

Déanann an tAcht Airgeadais (Rialachán Achomharc Cánach agus Réamheolaire) 2019 foráil i dtaca le Cathaoirleach a earcú don Choimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach. Tá an próiseas maidir le Cathaoirleach a earcú, a bheidh chomh maith leis sin mar Choimisinéir Achomhairc, ar siúl faoi láthair agus an tuarascáil bhliantúil seo á réiteach.

12

An Eagraíocht

Seirbhísí Corparáideacha

/ Tacaíocht Achomharc

AP

Tacaíocht Achomharc

Reatha 2 x OF

Tacaíocht Achomharc Iarmharach

2 x OF

Tacaíocht Sceidil

OF

HR / Airgeadas

1 x CO

Cathaoirleach (Folamh)

Coimisinéirí Achomhairc

x 2

Príomh-Oifigeach Oibríochtaí

PO

Bainisteoir Sceidil

AP

AirgeadaisAOF

Bainisteoir Foirne

Achomharc Iarmharach

AOF

AOF HR 0.5 FTE

Bainisteoir Foirne

Achomharc Reatha

AOF

Coimisinéirí Achomhairc Sealadacha x 3.5 FTE

Bainisteoirí Cásanna 4 x AP

(1 x folamh)

Tacaíocht TEF Slándáil

Sonraí AOF

(Folamh)

Riarachán Achomharc

2 x CO(1 x folamh)

iarachán Achomharc

3 x CO

Bainisteoir TEC AP

13

Aschuir is Tábhachtaí agus Gníomhaíochtaí Seirbhíse Poiblí

Táscaire 2016 2017 2018 2019 Sprioc aschuir

2020

Achomhairc Chánach a Phróiseáil

Líon Achomharc Dúnta 206 690 1,438 1,584 1,500

Líon Socruithe a Eisíodh* 26 34 42 111 70

Líon Achomharc Ar Láimh i ndeireadh bliana**

2,151 3,208 3,459 3,370 3,200

Líon Éisteachtaí a sceidealaíodh n/bh 65 167 224 250

Candam Achomharc ar Láimh*** €1.4bn €2bn €4bn €3.7bn €3.5bn

Acmhainn na hEagraíochta

Líon Ball Foirne ag an TAC 7 12.5 19 28 33

Is é an cuspóir atá ag an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach ná a chuid oibleagáidí a chomhlíonadh faoin Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015 (mar a leasaíodh), an tAcht Comhdhlúite Cánacha 1997 (mar a leasaíodh) agus reachtaíocht bhainteach, agus a chinntiú leis sin gur féidir le gach íocóir cánach a gceart a éileamh, nuair is cuí, ar achomharc ag comhlacht neamhspleách in aghaidh cinntí a rinne Coimisinéirí Ioncaim a chuaigh i bhfeidhm orthu.

Tugann na haschuir agus na gníomhaíochtaí seirbhíse poiblí seo a leanas eolas maidir le feidhmíocht chun tacú leis an TAC measúnú a dhéanamh ar na haschuir agus na torthaí a thagann ón gcaiteachas poiblí. Tá tábhacht leis seo ó thaobh luach ar airgead a chinntiú agus chun feabhas a chur ar éifeachtacht agus ar éifeachtúlacht an chaiteachais phoiblí tríd an maoiniú a thugtar don TAC a nascadh leis na torthaí a cuireadh ar fáil.

Aschuir Ardleibhéil is Tábhachtaí agus Gníomhaíochtaí Seirbhíse Poiblí:

* Bhain socrú amháin a rinneadh in 2019 le 32 cás aonair. ** Rinneadh athbhreithniú in 2019 ar gach achomharc a osclaíodh agus a dúnadh ar an gCóras

Bainistithe Cásanna ón 21 Márta 2016. Rinneadh athbhreithniú faoi leith ar gach achomharc aonair. Rinneadh anailís ar aon mhíréir nó aon dúbailt agus leasaíodh sin dá réir, rud a d’fhág difear beag idir an figiúr tosaigh agus figiúr Thuarascáil Bhliantúil 2018.

*** Is deacair figiúr a chur ar an gcandam iarbhír, óir is féidir go ndéanfaí modhnú tar éis fógra faoin achomharc a chur isteach (i.e. sa chás go ndéantar gné d’achomharc a shocrú nó a aistarraingt), i gcásanna nach mbíonn na páirtithe ar aon intinn i ndáil le figiúr an chandaim chruinn atá faoi dhíospóid nó sa chás nach féidir i gcónaí luach airgid achomhairc a ríomh (e.g. in achomhairc ina bhfuil an ráta cánach faoi dhíospóid, in achomhairc a bhaineann le Teastais Imréitigh Chánach a dhiúltú, nó sa chás arb ionann an candam faoi dhíospóid agus faoiseamh caillteanas nó asbhaintí a dhiúltú).

14

Táscaire 2016 2017 2018 2019

Achomhairc Chánach a Phróiseáil

Deireadh agus cinnteacht a sholáthar d’Achomharcóirí agus do Fhreagróirí i ndáil le diospóidí cánach (slat tomhais: Líon achomharc a dúnadh)*

206 690 1,438 1,584

Cinnteacht a sholáthar don státchiste agus don CCP i ndáil leis an gcandam cánach atá dlite – (slat tomhais: Candam cánacha sna hAchomhairc a dúnadh)**

€11m €241m €569m €665m

Soiléire a chur ar fáil faoi léirmhíniú Dhlí Cánach na hÉireann agus cabhrú lena líomhadh agus lena éifeachtúlacht – (slat tomhais: Líon Socruithe a Eisíodh)***

26 34 42 111

Líon Éisteachtaí a sceidealaíodh n/b 65 167 224

Comhthéacs agus Táscairí Tionchair:

* Rinneadh athbhreithniú in 2019 ar gach achomharc a osclaíodh agus a dúnadh ar an gCóras Bainistithe Cásanna ón 21 Márta 2016. Rinneadh athbhreithniú faoi leith ar gach achomharc aonair. Rinneadh anailís ar aon mhíréir nó aon dúbailt agus leasaíodh sin dá réir, rud a d’fhág difear beag idir an figiúr tosaigh agus figiúr Thuarascáil Bhliantúil 2018.

** Is deacair figiúr a chur ar an gcandam iarbhír, óir is féidir go ndéanfaí modhnú tar éis fógra faoin achomharc a chur isteach (i.e. sa chás go ndéantar gné d’achomharc a shocrú nó a aistarraingt), i gcásanna nach mbíonn na páirtithe ar aon intinn i ndáil le figiúr an chandaim chruinn atá faoi dhíospóid nó sa chás nach féidir i gcónaí luach airgid achomhairc a ríomh (e.g. in achomhairc ina bhfuil an ráta cánach faoi dhíospóid, in achomhairc a bhaineann le Teastais Imréitigh Chánach a dhiúltú, nó sa chás arb ionann an candam faoi dhíospóid agus faoiseamh caillteanas nó asbhaintí a dhiúltú).

***Bhain socrú amháin a rinneadh in 2019 le 32 cás aonair.

15

Chun críche na tuarascála seo, is ionann ‘achomhairc reatha’ agus iad siúd a fuarthas ar an 1 Eanáir 2016 nó ina dhiaidh.

Déantar achomhairc reatha a ghlacadh, a phróiseáil agus a shocrú de réir fhorálacha Chuid 40A TCA 1997. Le linn 2019, lean an TAC den mhonatóireacht ar dhul chun cinn ar gach comhad achomhairc reatha agus rinne socruithe (agus nuair ba chuí, thug treoir) i ndáil le Comhdhálacha Bainistithe Cáis a reáchtáil, tuilleadh eolais agus/nó Ráitis Cáis agus/nó Achoimre Cáis a lorg. Sa chás gurbh fhéidir sin, rinneadh liostú ar achomhairc le haghaidh éisteachta.

In 2019, rinneadh 92 achomharc a liostú le haghaidh éisteachta, rud is ionann agus méadú 23% i comparáid le 2018. Anuas air sin, rinneadh 60 socrú maidir le hachomhairc reatha, rud is ionann agus méadú 240% i gcomparáid le 2018. De réir mar a thiocfaidh deireadh le hachomhairc iarmharacha agus leo siúd a tionscnaíodh roimh bhunú an Choimisiúin, beidh an TAC ábalta a chuid acmhainní a chur i bhfeidhm ar achomhairc reatha.

Tugann an tábla a leanas imlíne ar achomhairc reatha a glacadh agus a dúnadh faoi dheireadh 2019:

* Rinneadh athbhreithniú in 2019 ar gach achomharc a osclaíodh agus a dúnadh ar an gCóras Bainistithe Cásanna ón 21 Márta 2016. Rinneadh athbhreithniú faoi leith ar gach achomharc aonair. Rinneadh anailís ar aon mhíréir nó aon dúbailt agus leasaíodh sin dá réir, rud a d’fhág difear beag idir an figiúr tosaigh agus figiúr Thuarascáil Bhliantúil 2018.

Cé go raibh méadú suntasach ar an líon achomharc a fuarthas le linn 2017 i gcomparáid le 2016, bhí titim an-bheag ar an líon a fuarthas in 2019 seachas figiúr 2018. Cé go bhfuil méadú suntasach ar an líon achomharc ó 2016, tá méadú freisin ar an líon achomharc a dúnadh. In 2016, dúnadh 196 achomharc san iomlán. Mhéadaigh sé seo go 482 in 2017, 1,101 in 2018 agus 1,305 in 2019.

Achomhairc Reatha

Bliain Líon Achomharc Reatha a Glacadh*

Líon Achomharc Reatha a Dúnadh faoi

Dheireadh 2019*

Líon Achomharc Reatha atá fanta

2016 901 709 192

2017* 1,747 869 878

2018 1,689 848 841

2019 1,495 658 837

Iomlán 5,832 3,084 2,748

16

San iomlán, ón 1 Eanáir 2016, tá 5,832 achomharc reatha glactha ag an TAC agus tá 3,084 ceann dúnta sa tréimhse chéanna, agus 2,748 ar láimh ag an 31 Nollaig 2019.

Tá anailís mhionsonraithe ar chineálacha na n-achomharc ar fáil sa chaibidil Staidrimh. Tá seasmhacht ag baint leis an gcéatadán a fuarthas de réir chineál na cánach; is ionann achomhairc faoi Cháin Ioncaim agus breis agus 42% de na hachomhairc a fuair an TAC. In 2018, bhain 6.6% de na hachomhairc ar fad le níos mó ná cineál cánach amháin, ach tháinig laghdú go 5.5% air seo in 2019.

Léiríonn an staidreamh chomh maith go bhfuil difríochtaí suntasacha sna cineálacha achomhairc a fuarthas, bunaithe ar chúrsaí ar nós castacht ceisteanna agus díospóid faoi cheannábhar cánach, measúnuithe líon blianta faoi achomharc agus candam.

Tá sonraí i gcuid de na táblaí sa chaibidil Staidrimh a bhaineann leis an gcandam atá faoi dhíospóid i ndáil leis na hachomhairc a fuarthas (féach Nóta 1 ar lch 47 a chuireann síos ar an gcaoi a ríomhtar figiúirí ‘candam faoi dhíospóid’).

Ar an 31 Nollaig 2019, ba é €379 milliún an t-iomlán candam faoi dhíospóid i ndáil le hachomhairc a fuarthas in 2019 agus, ba é €427 milliún an t-iomlán candam faoi dhíospóid i ndáil le hachomhairc a dúnadh in 2019. Fuarthas seacht n-achomharc sa dá sheachtain deiridh de Nollaig 2019 agus orthu sin bhí comhiomlán €170 milliún de chandam. Ach na hachomhairc sin a fhágáil i leataobh ón iomlán bliantúil i ndáil le candam, is amhlaidh gur €209 milliún an figiúr candam le i ndáil le hachomhairc a fuarthas in 2019.

17

Is ionann achomhairc iarmharacha agus achomhairc an ama atá caite a rinneadh go díreach leis na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim sular bunaíodh an TAC. Sa dara leath de 2016, aistríodh 2,758 achomharc iarmharach chuig an TAC de réir Chuid 40A TCA 1997.

Ceapadh an tUas. Conor Kennedy BL ina Choimisinéir Sealadach um Achomhairc Chánach i Meitheamh 2017 agus tugadh de dhualgas dó plé leis na hachomhairc iarmharacha. Rinneadh athnuachan go ceann trí bliana ar cheapachán an Uas. Kennedy i Meitheamh 2019. Tar éis athbhreithniú géarchúiseach a dhéanamh ar na comhaid, cuireadh 1,599 de na hachomhairc i ngrúpa le hachomhairc bhainteacha nó le hachomhairc ina bhfuil ceannródaíocht. I bhfianaise an athbhreithnithe seo, laghdaíodh an líon achomharc aonair ó 2,578 go 1,159. Rinneadh athbhreithniú in 2019 ar gach achomharc iarmharach 21 Márta 2016. Rinneadh athbhreithniú faoi leith ar gach achomharc aonair. Rinneadh anailís ar aon mhíréir nó aon dúbailt agus leasaíodh sin dá réir, rud a d’fhág difear beag idir an figiúr tosaigh agus figiúr Thuarascáil Bhliantúil 2018.

Bhí líon iomlán 109 achomharc iarmharach a bhaineann le 467 achomharc aonair agus candam €209m i gceist, ar an sceideal le haghaidh éisteachta in 2019. Ón líon iomlán éisteachtaí a bhí ar an sceideal, bhí 37 achomharc a chuaigh chun éisteachta, 13 a socraíodh roimh éisteacht agus cuireadh 59 achomharc ar athlá le ligean do na páirtithe réiteach a chur chun cinn.

Le linn 2019, dúnadh 205 achomharc (i.e. socraíodh, glanadh, aistarraingíodh nó díbheadh iad). Faoi 31 Nollaig 2019, bhí 526 achomharc iarmharach fós ar oscailt. Tá timpeall 250 de na hachomhairc sin curtha chun tosaigh go maith.

Chríochnaigh an Coimisinéir Kennedy 13 shocrú i ndáil le 19 n-achomharc in 2019 le candam €41 milliún. Rinneadh achomharc san Ard-Chúirt maidir le 7 gcinn de na socruithe sin, de réir alt 949AQ TCA 1997. Tá eolas maidir le staid na n-achomharc sin i gCaibidil 11, a dhíríonn ar chásanna a rinneadh.

Bhí éifeacht leanúnach le Comhdhálacha Bainistithe Cásanna maidir le hachomhairc iarmharacha a chur chun cinn, agus bhí 10 gcomhdháil bainistithe cáis ann in 2019, a bhain do 30 achomharc agus candam iomlán €30m.

Tá 23 éisteacht ar achomhairc iarmharacha ar an sceideal do 2020 ag an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach, a bhaineann le 80 achomharc agus candam €16 milliún.

Achomhairc Iarmharacha

18

Achomhairc roimh Bhunú

Is ionann achomhairc roimh bhunú agus achomhairc a bhí idir lámha in Oifig na gCoimisinéirí Achomhairc roimh bhunú an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach (TAC).

Bhí 170 achomharc roimh bhunú idir lámha sa TAC ar an 1 Eanáir 2019.

Le linn 2019, rinneadh athbhreithniú grinn ar na 170 achomharc oscailte agus rinneadh beart oiriúnach le cúrsaí a chur chun cinn. Rinneadh anailís ar aon mhíréir nó ar aon dúbailt agus leasaíodh iad dá réir, rud a fhágann nach ionann lena chéile go díreach an figiúr tosaigh agus an figiúr ó Thuarascáil Bhliantúil 2018.

Rinneadh dul chun suntasach agus faoi dheireadh na bliana bhí deireadh curtha le 74 achomharc roimh bhunú, le candam faoi dhíospóid ar fiú €55,690,000 san iomlán é.

De na 74 achomharc a dúnadh, le socrú a dúnadh 45 (áirítear ansin achomharc ina raibh ‘ceannródaíocht’ nuair ab ionann an socrú i leith 32 achomharc). Díbheadh 7 n-achomharc ón TAC as teip treoir a chomhlánú a thug an TAC de réir alt 949E TCA 1997.

Ba rannpháirtíocht idir pháirtithe ba chúis le glanadh, le comhdhlúthú nó le haistarraingt 22 achomharc roimh bhunú le linn iad dul chun cinn sa TAC. Anuas air sin, liostaíodh 39 achomharc roimh bhunú le candam €39,855,573 le haghaidh éisteachta agus liostaíodh 9 gcinn le haghaidh comhdháil bainistithe cáis.

Níl anois ar oscailt ach 96 achomharc roimh bhunú, ó 31 Nollaig 2019 amach agus tá gach comhad á gcur chun cinn de réir an athbhreithnithe a rinneadh le linn 2019.

19

Forálann alt 949AP den Acht Comhdhlúite Cánacha gur féidir le páirtí nach bhfuil socrú TAC lena shásamh i ngeall ar earráid maidir le pointe dlí, a iarraidh ar an gCoimisinéir um Achomharc cás a shonrú agus a shíniú le tuairim a fháil ón Ard-Chúirt. Le linn 2019, chuir na Coimisinéirí síniú le 10 gcás sonraithe de bhun alt 949AQ TCA le go bhféadfaí achomharc a lorg san Ard-Chúirt ar shocruithe.

Le cois na 10 gcás sonraithe, bhí 34 cás roimh bhunú ag an TAC i dtús 2019, i.e. achomhairc a socraíodh agus d’iarr páirtí míshásta cás sonraithe roimh bhunú an TAC. Díobh seo, aistarraingíodh 3 iarratas ar chás sonraithe le linn 2019, agus d’iarr 3 achomharc athéisteachta. Bhí Comhdhálacha Bainistithe Cásanna ann i mí Feabhra 2020 leis na hiarratais ar chásanna sonraithe a chur chun cinn agus tá comhfhreagras ar leanúint i ndáil leis na hiarratais eile. Déanann an TAC na cásanna sonraithe roimh bhunú a phróiseáil de réir na bhforálacha aistrithe atá faoi iamh in ailt 29 agus 30 den Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015.

In 2019, thug an Ard-Chúirt breithiúnas sna hachomhairc a leanas i gcás sonraithe:

• Nationwide Controlled Parking Systems -v- Revenue Commissioners [2018] No. 154R;• Achomharc i ndáil le socrú 30TACD2018 nach bhfuil foilsithe fós.

Cásanna Sonraithe

Líon Cásanna Sonraithe a glacadh de réir Bliain a Osclaíodh agus Catagóir

Bliain Iomlán Iarmharach Roimh bhunú

2016 2017 2018

2016 0

2017 3 1 2

2018 11 4 5 1 1

2019 10 3 3 1 2 1

20

Forléargas ar Shocruithe

Tugtar do d’aire, le do thoil, gur tráchtaireacht í an chaibidil seo a aibhsíonn saincheisteanna ábhartha i gcomhthéacs socruithe a rinneadh le linn 2019, agus sin i dtéarmaí ginearálta. Tá tuilleadh sonraí maidir le gach socrú ar fáil ach dul ar ár suíomh gréasáin www.taxappeals.ie

Éilimh ar aisíocaíocht chánach agus teorainn reachtúil tréimhse ceithre bliana.

Déanann na tréimhsí teorann reachtúil a bhfuil feidhm acu ar íocóirí cánach foráil gur gá éilimh ar aisíocaíocht a dhéanamh faoi cheithre bliana ó dheireadh na dtréimhsí cánach lena mbaineann siad. Tá an TAC tar éis líon socruithe a dhéanamh maidir leis an gceist seo agus thug le fios go neamhbhalbh go mbeifear ag cloí leis an teanga shoiléir reachtúil atá in úsáid lena chinntiú go gcuirtear an riail ceithre bliana i ngach uile chás. Níl de chumhacht ag an TAC gan an riail a fheidhmiú i ngeall ar imthosca maolaitheacha, ná eisceachtaí a chruthú don riail ar fhorais atruacha.

Sa chás gurb eol gur lasmuigh den tréimhse ceithre bliana a rinneadh éileamh, tacóidh an TAC le diúltú na haisíocaíochta, óir tá foráil déanta sa reachtaíocht gur riachtanach éileamh bailí a dhéanamh laistigh den tréimhse reachtúil ceithre bliana.

D’eisigh an TAC na socruithe seo a leanas in 2019 maidir le achomhairc a bhí ‘as am’:- 14TACD2019, 20TACD2019, 69TACD2019, 70TACD2019 and 01TACD2020.

Cáin Chláraithe Feithiclí

Faigheann an TAC líon suntasach achomharc sa bhliain i ngeall ar VRT agus le linn 2019 d’eisigh sé 30 socrú maidir leis an VRT.

Baineann cuid mhór de na hachomhairc le heasaontas idir íocóirí cánach agus Ioncam maidir leis an luach atá le cur ar ‘praghas díola margaidh oscailte’ (‘OMSP) a bheadh ar fheithicil (féach socruithe 45TACD2019, 53TACD2019, 57TACD2019, 58TACD2019, 60TACD2019, 62TACD2019, 63TACD2019, 64TACD2019, 65TACD2019, 66TACD2019, 67TACD2019, 68TACD2019, 71TACD2019, 11TACD2020, 10TACD2020 agus 11TACD2020). Go ginearálta, is ionann an ‘praghas díola margaidh oscailte’ agus an praghas, gach cáin agus dleacht san áireamh, a bheifí ag dréim a gheobhadh an fheithicil dá ndíolfaí é go neamhthuilleamaíoch sa Stát.

21

Rinneadh breithniú i leith ‘faoiseamh aistrithe cónaí’ i 9 socrú VRT in 2019, mar atá 10TACD2019, 19TACD2019, 27TACD2019, 39TACD2019, 40TACD2019, 43TACD2019, 51TACD2019, 52TACD2019 agus 07TACD2020. Sna hachomhairc seo, bhí an tAchomharcóir tar éis faoiseamh ó VRT a lorg ar aistriú a gnáthchónaí ón RA go dtí an Stát, de bhun 134(1)(a) den Acht Airgeadais 1992. Leagtar amach in Ionstraim Reachtúil uimh. 59/1993 Rialachán um Cháin Chláraithe Feithiclí (Faoiseamh Buan) 1993 na coinníollacha is gá a chomhlíonadh chun cailiú don fhaoiseamh.

I socrú 10TACD2019 bhí an faoiseamh diúltaithe ag Ioncam óir cheap siad, ainneoin gur aistríodh ‘gnáthchónaí’ an Achomharcóra ón RA chun críche na reachtaíochta VRT, d’éiligh paragraf 4(a) de I.R. 59/1993 go mbeadh an fheithicil i seilbh ar feadh tréimhse 6 mhí roimh an aistriú cónaí. Socraíodh gurb é an chiall atá le ‘i seilbh agus á úsáid ag . . . tréimhse nach giorra ná sé mhí…’ go mbeidh ceangal ar úinéir feithicle a bheadh ag iarraidh an fhaoisimh a thaispeáint go raibh sé/sí ag úsáid na feithicle sa tréimhse sé mhí sonraithe, agus beidh asláithreachtaí incheadaithe sa chás gur réasúnta iad. Cé go raibh an tAchomharcóir ar saoire 7 seachtaine le linn na tréimhse sé mhí, shocraigh an Coimisinéir go raibh an tAchomharcóir tar éis na coinníollacha riachtanacha a chomhlíonadh agus i dteideal an fhaoisimh maidir le haistriú cónaí.

Bhain socruithe 34TACD2019, 42TACD2019, 44TACD2019 & 61TACD2019 leis an gceist cé acu ar cheart an mall-táille VRT a chur i bhfeidhm. Socraíodh gur soiléir gan aon athbhrí an reachtaíocht mar atá sí scríofa agus níl aon rogha ann maidir leis an táille a chur i bhfeidhm sa chás gur cláraíodh an fheithicil lasmuigh den tréimhse reachtúil 30 lá. Sna hachomhairc 44TACD2019 agus 61TACD2019, shocraigh an Coimisinéir gurbh amhlaidh go raibh an tAchomharcóir tar éis an fheithicil a chlárú laistigh den tréimhse 30 lá.

Bhain socrú 18TACD2019 le hachomharc i gcoinne VRT a gearradh i ndáil le hathrú mótarfheithicle. Cuireadh an fheithicil ar dtús i gcatagóir N1 le cúig shuíochán agus athraíodh ansin í ina feithicil catagóir N1 le dhá shuíochán. Thug an tAchomharcóir le fios go raibh súil aige €200 de VRT a íoc de réir s. 132(3)(d)(ii) den Acht Airgeadais 1992. Bhí an tuairim ag an bhFreagróir nach raibh an fheithicil i dteideal an ráta €200 óir nach feithicil catagóir N1 í an fheithicil a bhí mar sin ‘ag gach céim dá déantús, rangaithe mar fheithicil catagóir N1 ina bhfuil níos lú ná 4 shuíochán’. Mar thoradh air sin, gearradh VRT ar an Achomharcóir de réir s. 132(3)(c). Shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach feithicil í ‘ag gach céim dá déantús, rangaithe mar fheithicil catagóir N1 ina bhfuil níos lú ná 4 shuíochán’ agus nár chomhlíon sí riachtanais s. 132(3)(d)(ii) agus mar sin bhí an táille VRT bailí.

22

Cáin Fáltas Caipitiúil

Bhain socrú 29TACD2019 leis an gceist cé acu a bhí íocaíochtaí do CEO comhlachta ón mbeirt scairshealbhóirí is mó faoi réir ag cáin ioncaim mar dhíolaíochtaí de réir alt 112 TCA 1997 nó ab ionann sin agus bronntanas ó na scairshealbhóirí ar an Achomharcóir, faoi réir ag cáin de réir an Achta Comhdhlúite Cánach Fáltas Caipitiúil 2003, mar a leasaíodh (‘CATCA2003’).

Thug an tAchomharcóir le fios go ndearnadh na híocaíochtaí leis i ndáil lena cháilíochtaí pearsanta, agus as buíochas, meas, urraim agus cairdeas, agus gur ar bhonn pearsanta a rinneadh iad agus dá réir sin nach díolaíochta iad a d’eascair as an bhfostaíocht.

D’áitigh na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim go ndearnadh na híocaíochtaí mar aitheantas ar an méid suntasach a rinne an tAchomharcóir maidir le hatairiscint an chomhlachta, ar éirigh go maith leis. D’eascair siad, dar leo, as a ról mar CEO agus ba chothabháil iad a raibh cáin dlite orthu faoi Sceideal E.

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir go bhfuair an tAchomharcóir na híocaíochtaí i ngeall ar an tseirbhís eisceachtúil a thug sé a chuir go suntasach leis an méadú ar scaireanna na gcomhlachtaí cothromais phríobháidigh (na scairshealbhóirí is mó) a fuair brabús suntasach as a n-infheistíocht. Bhí an Coimisinéir den tuairim lena chois sin nárbh fhéidir feabhas aonair an Achomharcóra a dheighilt óna ról mar CEO sna himthosca seo arbh ionann a fheabhas a bhí sé a thaispeáint agus bheith ina CEO, feidhmiú mar CEO agus torthaí den scoth a chur ar fáil mar CEO.

Mar chonclúid, socraíodh gurbh ionann na híocaíochtaí a rinneadh leis an Achomharcóir agus díolaíochtaí inchánach de réir alt 112 TCA 1997.

Cáin Fáltas Caipitiúil, Díolúine ar Chostais Incháilithe Daoine Éagumasaithe

Bhain socrú 32TACD2019 le hoidhreacht a bhain an tAchomharcóir dá uncail, ar ar éiligh sé faoiseamh faoi alt 84 den Acht Comhdhlúite Cánach Fáltas Caipitiúil (CATCA 2003), mar bhí an rún aige an oidhreacht a úsáid le haghaidh cúram leighis agus cothabháil a bheirt pháistí, ar a raibh míchumas.

Tá díolúine in Alt 84(2) ar CAT sa chás go mbeidh leas glactha ‘chun críche na gcostas incháilithe a ghlanadh ag duine atá éagumasaithe go buan i ngeall ar easláinte fhisiciúil nó mheabhrach

23

agus go mbeidh Ioncam sásta gur chun na críche sin a cuireadh nó a chuirfear é’. D’áitigh an tAchomharcóir cé nach raibh an té a bhí marbh ar an eolas faoin díolúine dá bhforáiltear in alt 84(2), bhí sé báúil leis an anchaoi ina raibh na páistí agus nuair a bhí sé ag fágáil an airgid ag an Achomharcóir ina uacht, ba é an rún a bhí aige ná an t-airgead sin a úsáid le haghaidh chúram leanúnach pháistí an Achomharcóra.

D’áitigh na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim nár bhain an díolúine le hábhar óir is gá gur duine a bheadh éagumasaithe go buan a ghlacfadh an leas. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir Achomhairc, chun críche Alt 84 CATCA 2003, bhí páistí an Achomharcóra faoi éagumas buan agus gur chun íoc as costais incháilithe a úsáideadh, nó a d’úsáidfí an oidhreacht. Ní léir ó alt 84 cé hé an té a ghlacfaidh an leas; ní chuireann sé de cheangal ach cur ar son costais duine atá faoi éagumas buan a ghlanadh a thógfaidh duine an bronntanas nó an oidhreacht. Mar sin, shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach raibh Ioncam ceart ó thaobh an dlí de nuair a dhiúltaigh siad faoiseamh ar an mbunús gurbh é an tAchomharcóir seachas a pháistí a ghlac an oidhreacht.

Ceadaíodh mar sin achomharc an Achomharcóra.

Faoiseamh ar Ús Cánach Ioncaim

Bhain an bhuncheist i socrú 47TACD2019 le faoiseamh ar ús a d’éiligh an tAchomharcóir de bhun alt 248 de TCA 1997, mar a síneadh le halt 250.

Rinne an tAchomharcóir infheistíocht i gcomhlacht. Ciste an Achomharcóra féin a rinne páirtmhaoiniú ar an infheistíocht ach bhí maoiniú mór ann chomh maith le hiasacht sa lira Turcach. Bhí an comhlacht ag iarraidh airgead a chruinniú chun críche infheistiú a dhéanamh i gcomhlacht Éireannach agus infheistiú i bhfochomhlacht ar lánúinéireacht i ndíorthach airgeadais (‘an díorthach’) arna eisiúint ag feithicil urrúsaithe a rianaigh feidhmíocht an Innéacs Eorpach Réadmhaoine (EPRA). Rinneadh aistriú fálaithe chomh maith lena chinntiú go n-aisíocfaí an iasacht sa chás go mbeadh dímheas ar an lira Turcach.

D’áitigh Ioncam gur idirbheartaíochtaí casta iad ina raibh sreabhadh ciorclach airgid i gceist ar ais chuig an infheisteoir agus dá réir sin, ba chóir an asbhaint úis a theorannú go dtí an glanchostas eacnamaíoch don infheisteoir a bhain leis an aistriú ina iomláine. Thug Ioncam dúshlán éilimh an Achomharcóra ar fhaoiseamh úis bunaithe ar neamh-chomhlíonadh le ceithre cinn d’fhorálacha reachtúla, mar atá alt 248(2)(c), alt 248(3), alt 250(2)(a) agus alt 817A de TCA 1997. Dá réir sin, dhiúltaigh Ioncam an faoiseamh a thabhairt trí leasú a dhéanamh ar na fógraí measúnaithe do na blianta a bhí faoi achomharc. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir gur go dlíthiúil a rinneadh an measúnú cánach a rinne an Freagróir don bhliain is luaithe faoi achomharc, agus sin laistigh de 4 bliana ó dheireadh na tréimhse

24

inghearrtha inar cuireadh an tuairisceán isteach, agus mar sin bhí an cháin ag eascairt as sin iníoctha agus le híoc i bhfianaise an mhéid seo.

An chéad rud, shocraigh an Coimisinéir gurbh é an t-aon chuspóir nó an cuspóir is mó leis an infheistiú in Investco ná laghdú a fháil sa dliteanas cánach. Mar thoradh air sin, ba chóir an faoiseamh a dhiúltú de bhun alt 817A do na blianta ar fad faoi achomharc.

An dara rud, shocraigh an Coimisinéir faoi Airteagail Chomhlachais Investco, go raibh an tAchomharcóir dícháilithe ó bheith ina stiúrthóir i ndáil leis na blianta faoi mheasúnú toisc nár fhreastail sé ar chruinniú stiúrthóirí ar feadh ‘tréimhse sé mhí féilire gan aon chead speisialta saoire ó na stiúrthóirí eile” agus dá réir sin ba chóir faoiseamh a dhiúltú sna blianta faoi achomharc.

An tríú rud, shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach ndearna an tAchomharcóir aon fheidhmeanna gníomhacha mar ‘stiúrthóir páirtaimseartha’ mar a éilíonn alt 250 agus dá réir sin ní fhéadfaí caitheamh leis mar ‘stiúrthóir páirtaimseartha’. Mar sin, ba chóir an faoiseamh a dhiúltú don ús a íocadh ar an iasacht leis na scaireanna in Investco a fháil.

An ceathrú rud, shocraigh an Coimisinéir gurbh ionann na forálacha maidir le frithsheachaint agus athshlánú caipitil a allmhairiú ó alt 248 go halt 250, mar a d’áitigh Ioncam, agus dul in aghaidh na foclaíochtaí soiléire a bhí in alt 250 agus bheith mar sin in aghaidh na scéime Bunreachtúla. Dá réir sin, dhiúltaigh an Coimisinéir cur chuige Ioncaim a fhaomhadh.

I bhfianaise na bpointí thuas, shocraigh an Coimisinéir go seasfadh na measúnuithe do na blianta faoi achomharc.

Cáin ioncaim – ioncam Cás I nó Cás V

Nuair a tháinig soláthar an lóistín éigeandála ina chúram ar Chomhairle Cathrach Bhaile Átha Cliath (CCBÁC), thosaigh an tAchomharcóir lóistín éigeandála a chur ar fáil don mhuintir dhúchasach gan dídean agus do neamhnáisiúnaigh ar aon. Bhí an comhaontú seo faoi riail ag comhaontú caighdeánach le CCBÁC. (Socrú 09TACD2020)

Bhí an tAchomharcóir ag iarraidh an t-ioncam a tháinig ó DCC mar ioncam cíosa agus d’éiligh sé faoiseamh alt 23 le hais an ioncaim sin do na blianta cánach 2010 agus 2011. D’áitigh Ioncam go bhfuarthas an t-ioncam ó ghníomhaíochtaí trádála agus rinne measúnú ar an Achomharcóir faoi fhorálacha Sceideal D, Cás I. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir gurbh éadócha go mór go ndéanfadh an tAchomharcóir comhaontú le DCC gan na sainoibleagáidí a bheadh air a chinntiú ar dtús, i bhfianaise gurbh fhiú suim shuntasach airgid in aghaidh na bliana an comhaontú le DCC. Reáchtáil an tAchomharcóir an t-áitreabh faoi rialacha daingne a comhaontaíodh idir é féin agus DCC. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir

25

nárbh ann do chaidreamh tiarna talún/tionónta idir an Achomharcóir agus DCC, ná leis na daoine gan dídean a bhí ina gcónaí san áitreabh ach oiread. Bhí an tAchomharcóir i rith ama i seilbh an áitribh agus chuir sé seirbhísí ar fáil a bhí sa bhreis go mór orthu siúd a chuirfeadh tiarna talún ar fáil de ghnáth. Níorbh íocaíochtaí cíosa iad na híocaíochtaí a rinneadh. Socraíodh chomh maith nach raibh aon léas idir DCC agus an tAchomharcóir; is amhlaidh a bhí comhaontaithe ag an Achomharcóir lóistín agus seirbhísí suntasacha eile a chur ar fáil do dhaoine gan dídean a tarchuireadh chuige.

De thoradh an chomhaontaithe le DCC agus na seirbhísí iarbhír a chuir an tAchomharcóir de, níor chíos é an t-ioncam a fuarthas ó DCC de bhun chomhaontú tiarna talún agus tionónta, ach ba ioncam é a fuarthas i ngeall ar chomhaontú seirbhísí éagsúla a chur ar fáil.

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir mar sin nach raibh an tAchomharcóir bainteach le gníomhaíochtaí cíosa a bheadh inchánach faoi Sceideal D Cás V ach go raibh sé i mbun trádála de bhun an chomhaontaithe le DCC. Mar sin, ba chóir go seasfadh na measúnuithe cánach ioncaim a rinne Ioncam.

Cáin Ioncaim agus Comhaontú Cánachais Dúbailte a Fheidhmiú (DTA)

Bhain socrú 36TACD2019 le hIoncam diúltú ÍMAT a coinníodh siar a aisíoc i ndáil le dáileadh a bhí faighte ag an Achomharcóir in 2012 ó Chiste Dearbhaithe Scoir (ARF). Cuireadh ÍMAT i bhfeidhm ar an mbunús gurbh ionann an dáileadh agus ‘cothabháil ina bhfuil feidhm ag Sceideal E’. Mhaígh an tAchomharcóir nach raibh feidhm le halt 784A de TCA 1997.

In 2011, fuair an tAchomharcóir agus a bhean chéile réadmhaoin i Málta ina gcónaíodh sé ó am go chéile lena bhean. I mí na Nollag 2011, rinne an tAchomharcóir a theach in Éirinn a dhiúscairt le hIontaobhas a raibh sé féin agus a mhac mar iontaobhaithe air, agus arbh iad a chuid páistí na tairbhithe.

Thug an tAchomharc le fios go raibh cónaí chun críche na cánach air i Málta faoi DTA Éire-Málta agus mar thoradh air sin, ní raibh cáin Éireannach dlite ar an dáileadh faoi Alt 18 (Pinsin, blianachtaí agus íocaíochtaí cosúla) nó, seachas sin, Airteagal 21 (ioncam eile), ar foráil uileghabhálach é den DTA.

Thug an tAchomharcóir le fios nach raibh cónaí buan aige in Éirinn ach go raibh cónaí buan ar fáil dó i Málta. D’easaontaigh na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim leis an méid sin, á thabhairt le fios nárbh ionann an réadmhaoin a dhiúscairt leis an iontaobhas agus a rá nach ‘cónaí buan ar fáil’ don Achomharcóir in Éirinn a bhí ann chun críche an DTA.

26

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir gur cónaitheach conartha an tAchomharcóir in 2012 faoin chlásal réitigh in Airteagal 4, óir ba in Éirinn a bhí lárionad a leasanna bunúsacha in 2012, toisc gur in Éirinn a bhí an chuid is mó dá chaidrimh phearsanta agus eacnamúla an bhliain sin. Mar sin is ag Éirinn a bhí an ceart ar an mbuncháin a ghearradh i ndáil leis an dáileadh, agus ní raibh an tAchomharcóir i dteideal aisíocaíocht ÍMAT a coinníodh siar.

De ghrá bheith iomlán ar fad, rinne an Coimisinéir breithniú ar fheidhmiú an DTA amhail gur cónaitheach conartha i Málta ba ea an tAchomharcóir. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir nár tháinig an dáileadh ón ARF faoi réir Airteagal 18 den DTA agus nár tháinig sé faoi réir Airteagal 21 den DTA.

Mar a déileáladh ó thaobh cánach le hÍocaíochtaí ÍMAT – Bonn fabhraithe nó admhálacha

I socrú 48TACD2019 rinne an Coimisinéir breithniú ar alt 112 de TCA 1997 agus Ioncam diúltú déileáil le híocaíochtaí tuarastail a rinneadh le hAchomharcóir in 2019 ach a bhain le tuilleadh 2018 mar thuilleadh inchánach in 2018. Ba cháiníocóir ÍMAT é an tAchomharcóir in 2018 agus 2019 ar aon. Thóg sí sos gairme i Lúnasa 2017 agus d’fhill sí ar an obair timpeall bliana ina dhiaidh sin.

In 2019, tugadh pá trí seachtaine don Achomharcóir i ndáil le hobair a rinneadh i Nollaig 2018. Faoin gcóras ÍMAT, déileáladh leis an íocaíocht mar thuilleadh in 2019. Chuir an tAchomharcóir ina aghaidh seo óir ba lú an dliteanas cánach a bheadh uirthi dá ndéileálfaí leo mar thuilleadh 2018, óir bhí creidmheas cánach ar fáil di i ngeall ar a sos gairme a mbeadh candam ní b’ísle cánach ag siúl leis.

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach raibh aon athbhrí leis an reachtaíocht ábhartha, a rinne foráil shoiléir don bhliain 2018 amach go ndéanfaí íocaíochtaí cánach faoin gcóras ÍMAT ‘a ríomh ar an tsuim díolaíochtaí a íocadh leis an duine sa bhliain a fhad leis an measúnú’. Dá réir sin, shocraigh sé nach raibh an tAchomharcóir i dteideal go ngearrfaí cáin in 2018 ar a tuilleadh i mí Nollag 2018. Bhain socrú 49TACD2019 (a rinne breithniú ar alt 531AM(1) agus alt 531AL(1) TCA 1997) le feidhmiú an mhuirir shóisialaigh uilíoch (MSU) ar ioncam a thuill an tAchomharcóir in 2014 ach a íocadh in 2015. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir go raibh an ceart ag Ioncam MSU a chur i bhfeidhm ar íocaíochtaí saoire máithreachais an Achomharcóra in 2015.

27

Stádas Sainchónaí Cánach Achomharcóra agus Candam Tuillidh

Bhain socrú 23TACD2019 le dliteanas cánach an Achomharcóra i ndáil le hioncam ó fhoinse anaithnid nó neamhdhlíthiúil. D’áitigh an tAchomharcóir nach raibh sé cónaitheach ná cónaitheach chun críche na cánach in Éirinn agus nach raibh cónaí air in Éirinn do na blianta cánach ar i ndáil leo a ardaíodh na Fógraí Measúnaithe.

Phléigh an Coimisinéir leis an mbuncheist maidir leis an gceart ar achomharc a bheith ar fáil do dhaoine neamh-inmhuirir ar nós an Achomharcóra agus shocraigh gur chóir go rachadh an t-achomharc ar aghaidh ó b’ionann a choisceadh agus dul in aghaidh reachta, an Bhunreachta agus Choinbhinsiún na hEorpa um Chearta an Duine.

Cheal aon fhianaise a thabhairt ar an aird ag Ioncam agus bunaithe ar fhianaise viva voce an cháiníocóra, shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach raibh an tAchomharcóir cónaitheach chun críche cánach sa Stát óir d’fhág sé Éire ina dhiaidh in aois a óige agus is thar lear a bhí cónaí ó shin air, gan filleadh ar Éirinn ach am go chéile. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir chomh maith, bunaithe ar an bhfianaise a tugadh ar aird, nach i Málta a bhí an tAchomharcóir cónaitheach chun críche DTA.

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir mar dhuine neamhchónaitheach nach raibh an tAchomharcóir dlite cáin a íoc ach i ndáil lena ioncam ón bhfoinse Éireannach. Ar an mbonn sin, rinne an Coimisinéir cainníochtú ar ioncam ó fhoinse Éireannach an Achomharcóra bunaithe ar an bhfianaise a thug sé maidir le líon agus le candam na n-aistrithe gnó a chuir sé i gcrích agus é in Éirinn.

Faoiseamh ar Cháin Ioncaim toisc Cónaí Roinnte sa bhliain

Bhain socrú 25TACD2019 le hIoncam diúltú faoiseamh cónaí roinnte sa bhliain a thabhairt don Achomharcóir i ndáil lena ioncam óna fhostaíocht i SAM ar fhilleadh dó go hÉirinn in 2014.

Chuaigh an tAchomharcóir agus a bhean chéile go SAM in 2013, agus rún acu fanacht thar lear go ceann roinnt blianta. Fuair a bhean chéile céim in airde, áfach, agus bhí ceangal uirthi as sin gur in Éirinn a bheadh sí ag obair, agus d’fhill an lánúin ar Éirinn sa bhliain 2014.

Thug Ioncam faoiseamh cónaí roinnte sa bhliain ar bhonn liúntais don Achomharcóir nuair a d’imigh sé ó Éirinn in 2013 ach diúltaíodh faoiseamh liúntais a thabhairt dó i ndáil lena fhilleadh ar Éirinn in 2014. Mar sin, bhí sé lándlite ar cháin ioncaim a íoc in 2014 ar a ioncam ón bhfostaíocht. Bhí an tAchomharcóir míshásta leis an diúltú faoiseamh cónaí roinnte sa bhliain a thabhairt, rud a thabharfadh cosaint dá ioncam ón bhfostaíocht i SAM ón gcáin Éireannach don tréimhse sular athlonnaigh sé in Éirinn.

28

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir mar fhíric ábhartha go raibh an tAchomharcóir cónaitheach chun críche na cánach in Éirinn sa bhliain 2013 óir chaith sé níos mó ná 183 lá in Éirinn an bhliain sin. Dá réir sin, shocraigh sé nár chomhlíon an tAchomharcóir an coinníoll neamhchónaitheach don bhliain roimhe atá leagtha amach in alt 822(1)(a)(i) TCA 1997 agus nár chomhlíon sé an riachtanas reachtúil chun cáiliú don fhaoiseamh cónaí roinnte sa bhliain.

Dúirt an Coimisinéir chomh maith gur neamhoiriúnach an mhaise dó féin, bunaithe ar an gcásdlí bunaithe, dul ag breithniú cé acu is cothrom nó a mhalairt do dhliteanas ar cháin i ngeall ar an easpa caipitil le hais na cánach. Chomh maith céanna, shocraigh sé nach de dhlínse an TAC liúntas neamhreachtúil de chuid Ioncaim a oibriú. Luaigh sé go bhféadfaí an faoiseamh a lorg trí éileamh a dhéanamh ar ionchas dlisteanach, agus arís bhí sé le rá aige nárbh éileamh sin a bheadh laistigh de dhlínse an TAC. Dá réir sin dhiúltaigh an Coimisinéir d’achomharc an Achomharcóra agus thacaigh sé le measúnú Ioncaim ar an gcáin ioncaim do 2014, faoi réir ag coigeartú ag creidmheasanna cánach i ngeall ar fhaoiseamh DTA de réir DTA na hÉireann/SAM.

Dliteanas ar Liúntais Cháin Ioncaim do Mhairnéalach

Bhain socrú 02TACD2020 le hIoncam diúltú Liúntas Mairnéalaigh a thabhairt don Achomharcóir do na blianta 2012-2015. Déanann alt 472B de TCA 1997 foráil i leith dliteanais ar asbhaint cánach nuair a chomhlíontar na ceanglais reachtúla a bhaineann le Liúntas an Mhairnéalaigh. Bheadh an faoiseamh ar fáil don Achomharcóir sa chás go bhféadfadh sé a dhéanamh amach gur chaith sé ar a laghad 161 lá ar shiúl as an Stát chun críche na dualgais a bhaineann le fostaíocht incháilithe a chur de.

Is ionann fostaíocht incháilithe agus fostaíocht a gcomhlíontar na dualgais a bhaineann léi ar shoitheach farraige. Is ionann soitheach farraige agus soitheach atá cláraithe i gClár an Bhall-Stáit agus nach n-úsáidtear é ach le haghaidh paisinéirí nó loingeas a iompar ar luach saothair.Thug an tAchomharcóir féin fianaise gur úsáideadh an soitheach i bpáirt le haghaidh oibríochtaí taighde. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir dá réir sin nach bhféadfadh sé a thuiscint gur le haghaidh paisinéirí nó loingeas a iompar a úsáideadh an soitheach. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir chomh maith nach raibh an tAchomharcóir tar éis aon fhianaise a thabhairt uaidh de réir thástáil an ‘suaitheantas tráchtála’ chun tacú le hargóint gur úsáideadh an soitheach chun críche na tráchtála. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir nár comhlíonadh na coinníollacha ba ghá leis an teidlíocht ar Liúntas Mairnéalaigh a shlánú, agus dá réir sin thacaigh sé le diúltú Ioncaim an Liúntas a thabhairt.CBL, Faoiseamh Gnó a Aistriú

Bhain socrú 15TACD2019 le hIoncam teidlíocht a dhícheadú ar chreidmheas ionchuir ag an

29

Achomharcóir ar an mbonn gur bhain aistriú an fhaoisimh gnó leis an mbeart a bhí i gceist de réir alt 20(2)(c) de VATCA 2010. Tá feidhm ag an alt seo sa chás go bhfuil aistriú sócmhainní chuig duine cuntasach sa chás gurb ionann aistriú sócmhainní dá sórt agus gnóthas nó cuid de ghnóthas ar féidir a oibriú ar bhonn neamhspleách. Sa chás go gcomhlíontar coinníollacha an fhaoisimh, glactar leis nach soláthar earraí é an beart.

Bhain fíricí an achomhairc le haistriú áitribh, stoic, daingneáin agus feistis chuig comhlacht. Bhí an gnó ar obair ag an achomharcóir mar óstán. Ghlac an Coimisinéir le haighneacht na gCoimisinéirí Ioncaim nach raibh ceanglas faoi alt 20(2)(c) gur duine cuntasach é an té a d’aistreodh an gnó. Tharla nár chuir an tAchomharcóir in aghaidh na fírice gur thrádáil an teach sa tréimhse ábhartha, shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach raibh bunús le hargóint an Achomharcóra nach raibh rún aige trádáil a dhéanamh. Tuigeadh nárbh ionann ceal ceadúnais oibriú mar óstán agus nárbh fhéidir le haistriú teacht faoi alt 20(2)(c). Dá réir sin, socraíodh go raibh feidhm le halt 20(2)(c) óir bhí aistriú sócmhainní ann chuig duine cuntasach agus gurbh ionann an t-aistriú sócmhainní sin agus gealltanas nó cuid de ghealltanas a d’fhéadfaí a oibriú ar bhonn neamhspleách, agus gur ar an mbonn sin a oibríodh é. Dá réir sin, bhain an fhoráil a shonraítear in alt 20(2)(c) leis an mbeart, rud a shonraigh nach soláthar earraí é. Ar an mbunús seo, shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach raibh an tAchomharcóir i dteideal slánú ioncaim CBL i ndáil leis an mbeart agus go raibh an measúnú a bhí déanta ag Ioncam bailí.

CBL

Bhain socrú 03TACD2020 le héileamh ar CBL a aisíoc. Cheadaigh Ioncam aisíoc CBL don tréimhse chánach Samhain-Nollaig 2009 óir bhí sé laistigh den tréimhse 4 bliana tar éis na tréimhse lenar bhain sé. Mar sin féin, dhícheadaigh Ioncam éileamh ar aisíoc CBL maidir leis an tréimhse Eanáir-Feabhra go Meán Fómhair-Deireadh Fómhair 2009 ar an mbunús go raibh sé sin lasmuigh de thréimhse 4 bliana na teorann reachtúla ama.

An cheist san achomharc seo ná cé acu a bhí an tAchomharcóir i dteideal athshlánú CBL i dáil leis na tréimhsí Eanáir-Feabhra go Meán Fómhair-Deireadh Fómhair (gach mí san áireamh), i bhfianaise na scéime reachtúla a leagann amach na rialacha do chionroinnt an ionchuir dhé-úsáide mar aon leis na forálacha athshlánaithe a bhaineann le hathshlánú CBL.

Ba fhochuideachta de chuid sholáthróir seirbhísí airgeadais agus teicneolaíocht é an tAchomharcóir. Thug sé seirbhísí do chustaiméirí a raibh cuid díobh lonnaithe san Aontas Eorpach agus cuid eile lonnaithe lasmuigh den Aontas Eorpach.

Roimh 2013, lean an tAchomharcóir ar aghaidh ar an mbunús go raibh díolúine CBL ag a chuid gníomhaíochtaí agus mar sin ní raibh aon dliteanas aige ar athshlánú CBL. Chuir an

30

tAchomharcóir isteach a thuairisceán CBL go deireadh 2013 ar bhunús na tuisceana a bhí aige go raibh sé ag cur seirbhísí ar fáil a bhí saor ó CBL de réir Sceideal 1, paragraif 6 agus 7 de VATCA 2010, ar seirbhísí iad nach raibh teidlíocht acu ar athshlánú CBL ar chreidmheasanna ionchuir.

In 2013, tar éis do ghníomhaire an Achomharcóra athbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar a chuid gníomhaíochtaí, bhí an tuairim ag an Achomharcóir go raibh gníomhaíochtaí ar siúl aige a bhí ag teacht le sainmhíniú ‘gníomhaíochtaí incháilithe’ chun críche alt 59(1) de VATCA 2010, a cheadaigh asbhaint CBL de bhun alt 59(2).

I Mí na Nollag 2013, chuir an tAchomharcóir tuairisceán leasaithe CBL isteach (dar teideal ‘Tuairisceán VAT3 Forlíontach) don tréimhse Samhain-Nollaig 2009 agus aisíoc CBL ar taispeáint ann.

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir go raibh de cheart ag cáiníocóir asbhaint a dhéanamh chomh luath agus a bhíonn CBL inghearrtha de réir Airteagal 167 de Threoir Chomhairle 2006/112/EC agus nach raibh seachas sa chás sin. Is i bhfianaise seo an chirt ar asbhaint is gá léamh agus léirmhíniú a dhéanamh ar theorainneacht ama.

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach raibh aon bhunús leis an tuairisceán leasaithe CBL maidir leis an tréimhse Samhain-Nollaig 2009 a chruthú ina thuairisceán maidir le hathbhreithniú ar chionroinnt ionchur dé-úsáide de réir alt 61 de VATCA 2010 agus Rialachán 17 de S.I. 639/2010.

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir maidir leis an tuairisceán leasaithe do Shamhain-Nollaig 2009 a cuireadh isteach ar an 30 Nollaig 2013 nach modh bailí a bhí ann ar aisíoc a éileamh ar CBL sna tréimhsí inchánach Samhain-Nollaig 2009 agus nach éileamh bailí a bhí sa tuairisceán leasaithe do Shamhain-Nollaig 2009 maidir le creidmheasanna ionchuir a bhí infheidhmithe i dtréimhsí inchánach roimhe sin.

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir dá réir go raibh an ceart ag an bhFreagróir diúltú d’éileamh an Achomharcóra ar aisíoc CBL i ndáil leis na tréimhsí inchánach Eanáir-Feabhra go Meán Fómhair-Deireadh Fómhair 2009 ar an mbunús gur ar an 30 Nollaig 2013 a rinneadh an t-éileamh agus nach raibh sé déanta laistigh de thréimhse 4 bliana tar éis na dtréimhsí inchánach lenar bhain sé.

CBL

Bhain socrú 16TAC2020 le ceithre hachomharc chomhdhlúite a thionscain comhlacht

31

teileachumarsáide in aghaidh socruithe agus measúnuithe a rinne na Freagróirí i ndáil le Muirir Fánaíochta neamh-AE, Muirir Cealaithe seirbhíse, Leathanbhanda Bille agus éileamh as am.

Bhain ceist na Fánaíochta neamh-AE le cé acu atá foráil i VATCA 2010 ar aisíoc CBL sa chás go n-úsáideann custaiméirí ‘a íocann bille’ ‘cártaí teileafóin’ lasmuigh den AE, nó nach bhfuil. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach raibh sé indéanta dealú a dhéanamh chun críche CBL idir roghanna ‘réamhíoc’ agus ‘bille a íoc ar chuachadh’ le haghaidh seirbhísí teileachumarsáide le linn fánaíochta neamh-AE. Mar sin, ó tharla go raibh an tAchomharcóir i dteideal laghdú ar cháin iníoctha i ndáil le ‘cárta teileafóin’ dá chustaiméirí ‘réamhíoc’, bhí feidhm chomh maith le laghdú CBL a gearradh ar a chustaiméirí ‘bille a íoc ar chuachadh’ i ndáil leis na seirbhísí fánaíochta sin.

Mar thoradh ar shocrú seo thuas an Choimisinéara, níorbh fhéidir rialacha a bhí ag teacht salach ar a chéile a chur i bhfeidhm ar sholáthar seirbhísí teileachumarsáide trí thagairt a dhéanamh don mheán lena ngearrtar táille do na seirbhísí sin. Mar sin, níorbh fhéidir caitheamh go héagsúil le seirbhísí teileachumarsáide comhionanna ach ar chustaiméirí ‘i gcuachadh’ agus ‘as cuachadh’ a d’úsáid iad lasmuigh den AE, beag beann ar an am a gearradh bille nó táille i leith na seirbhísí sin. Dá thoradh sin, bhí an tAchomharcóir i dteideal laghdú ar an gcáin iníoctha i ndáil leis an rogha ‘bille lasmuigh de chuachadh’ acu do sheirbhísí teileachumarsáide fánaíochta neamh-AE dá chustaiméirí sa chás gur úsáideadh na seirbhísí sin lasmuigh den Aontas.

Bhain ceist na muirear cealaithe leis an CBL ar mhuirir chealaithe seirbhísí a ghearr an tAchomharcóir ar a chustaiméirí sa chás gur chríochnaigh an custaiméir conradh ar théarma seasta roimh dháta deiridh an chonartha sin. Tharla go raibh ceangal an chásdlí (agus go háirithe an breithiúnas MEO) ar an gCoimisinéir, shocraigh sé sa chás go mbíonn comhaontú ag custaiméir maidir le seirbhísí teileachumarsáide faoi riail an phraghais do thréimhse an chomhaontaithe, bíonn táille CBL ann maidir leis an gceart conartha ar na seirbhísí sin a úsáid don tréimhse sin beag beann ar neamh-úsáid na seirbhísí sin.

Bhain ceist an leathanbhanda bille le CBL agus custaiméirí nár ídigh a liúntas sonraí ina iomláine in aon mhí faoi leith, agus cé acu a bhí an breithniú ag teacht i gcomhréir leis na sonraí nár úsáideadh. Ar aon dul le ceist na muirear cealaithe, shocraigh an Coimisinéir go mbíonn gearradh CBL ann maidir leis an gceart conartha a comhaontaíodh an méid sin sonraí a úsáid beag beann ar an gcustaiméir na seirbhísí sin a úsáid nó gan a úsáid. Bhain an cheist ‘as am’ le cé acu a bhí na tréimhsí teorann ar éileamh CBL lasmuigh den teorainn ama dá bhforáiltear in alt 99 de VATCA 2010. An cheist a bhí le socrú ná cé acu a bhí alt 99 ag sárú phrionsabal coibhéise an AE. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir go bhféadfaí caitheamh

32

leis an dleacht stampa mar ‘chomparadóir fírinneach’ leis an CBL maidir leis an teorainn ama ar éileamh ar aisíoc cánacha. Shocraigh sé nach raibh Ioncam tar éis prionsabal na coibhéise a shárú nuair a dhiúltaigh sé glacadh le héileamh ar aisíoc CBL ar an mbunús go ndearnadh an t-éileamh lasmuigh den teorainn ama ceithre bliana dá bhforáiltear in Alt 99(4) VATCA.

Dleacht máil agus CBL

Bhain socrú 41TACD2019 le feidhm an ráta chaighdeánaigh CBL, seachas an ráta laghdaithe, ar mhéid mór ola mianraí áit nár chomhlíon an tAchomharcóir Rialacháin maidir le ‘hOla Mianraí Marcáilte’ a choinneáil agus a stóráil. Bhain cuid mhór den CBL faoi dhíospóid le dícheadú creidmheasanna ionchuir CBL ar an mbonn nach raibh an Freagróir sásta gur tuairiscíodh an beart díreach mar a tharla sé.

Le linn an achomhairc, níor éirigh leis an Achomharcóir faisnéis agus fianaise riachtanach a thabhairt a ligfeadh don Choimisinéir a thuiscint gurb amhlaidh a tharla na hidirbheartaíochtaí. Tuigeadh don Choimisinéir chomh maith, bunaithe ar an bhfianaise agus ar na haighneachtaí a rinneadh ag an éisteacht, gur sáraíodh roinnt babhtaí na Rialacháin um Ola Mianraí agus nár éirigh leis an Achomharcóir a thaispeáint conas gurb eisceachtaí iad a sholáthairtí ar an ráta caighdeánach dá bhforáiltear san Acht CBL. Dá thoradh sin, shocraigh an Coimisinéir go raibh feidhm ag an ráta 23% CBL ar na soláthairtí agus diúltaíodh an creidmheas ionchuir CBL ar na ceannaigh sa chás nár leor an fhianaise le ligean don Choimisinéir a thuiscint mar fhíric ábhartha gurb amhlaidh a tharla na ceannaigh.

Rinneadh grinnbhreithniú ar sháruithe ar na Rialacháin um Ola Mianraí 2012 agus na ceanglais in alt 99(10) den Acht Airgeadais 2001 i socruithe 41TACD2019 agus 59TACD2019. Éisteadh le fianaise mhionsonraithe maidir le sáruithe na Rialachán sa dá achomharc sin, agus rinneadh breithniú ar feadh i bhfad ar an léirmhíniú ar an bhforáil a bhaineann le seachaint an dliteanais atá in alt 99(10). Tharla go bhfuil an dleacht máil san áireamh i dTreoir AE, rinneadh scrúdú chomh maith ar fheidhmiú an Dlí AE.

Sa chás nach gcomhlíontar ceanglais alt 99(10) agus na Rialacháin Ola Mianraí 2012, glactar leis gur soláthraíodh na soláthairtí ola mianraí mar dhíosal bóthair agus tá dleacht dlite ar an soláthar ag an ráta caighdeánach, seachas ag an ráta laghdaithe. Tá na hoibleagáidí ar thrádálaithe san earnáil seo mionsonraithe agus mionchúiseach. Bhí an dá thaobh i dtuilleamaí cuid mhaith cásdlí Eorpaigh agus rinneadh breithniú air sin sa socrú. Thug an Coimisinéir dá aire in achomhairc chánach gur ar an Achomharcóir a bhíonn

33

an dualgas cruthúnais a léiriú gur dóichí gur mícheart na measúnuithe a rinne Ioncam. I gcásanna ina bhfuil faoiseamh nó díolúintí i gceist, is ar an Achomharcóir atá an dualgas a léiriú go mbaineann an faoiseamh leis, agus go bhfuil na Rialacháin agus na coinníollacha a bhaineann leis an díolúine sin comhlíonta aige. Sa dá achomharc seo, shocraigh an Coimisinéir nár éirigh leis na hAchomharcóirí an dualgas cruthúnais a chomhlíonadh agus tacaíodh leis na measúnuithe ar an Dleacht Máil.

Bhain socrú 68TACD2020 le hachomharc ar an bhFreagróir creidmheasanna ionchuir CBL a dhiúltú ar an mbonn gurbh eol nó gur chóir gurbh eol don Achomharcóir go raibh sé páirteach in idirbheartaíocht a raibh baint aici leis an CBL a sheachaint go calaoiseach.

Rinneadh grinnbhreithniú ar na tástálacha dlíthiúla a d’eascair ó dhlí-eolaíocht an AE. Le linn dó teacht ar chinneadh bunaithe ar an bhfianaise a cuireadh faoina bhráid le linn an achomhairc, thug an Coimisinéir aird faoi leith ar thosca oibiachtúla a bhain don cheist cé acu ab eol nó ba chóir gurbh eol don Achomharcóir go raibh sé páirteach in idirbheartaíocht a raibh baint aici leis an CBL a sheachaint go calaoiseach. Ba é an toradh carnach ar gach toisc ná conclúid an Choimisinéara nach raibh an dara míniú ar na ceannaigh ach go raibh siad bainteach leis an CBL a sheachaint go calaoiseach.

Ceannteidil Chánach agus Socruithe Eile

Rinneadh socruithe chomh maith i dtaca leis na nithe seo a leanas:

Díolaíochtaí StiúrthóiríTá foráil in alt 997A(3) de TCA 1997 nach dtabharfar creidmheas i ndáil le cáin a asbhaineadh ó dhíolaíochtaí a d’íoc comhlacht le stiúrthóir dílsithe seachas sa chás go bhfuil fianaise scríofa ann a léireoidh gur díoladh an cháin a asbhaineadh le hIoncam.

Rinneadh breithniú ar an alt seo i socrú 13TACD2019. D’áitigh an tAchomharcóir nach raibh teidlíocht ar éileamh ar chreidmheas don cháin a asbhaineadh ó dhíolaíochtaí an Achomharcóra ag an gcomhlacht d’ainneoin nár íocadh an cháin sin leis an bhFreagróir. Chinn an Coimisinéir nár éirigh leis an argóint seo a aithint nach féidir le comhlachtaí gníomhú, mar nithe neamhbheo, ach trí ghníomhartha a gcuid stiúrthóirí agus sin de réir a n-oibleagáidí conartha agus muiníneacha agus a gcumhachtaí arna ndílsiú sa bhord stiúrthóirí de réir na nAirteagal Comhlachais. Chinn an Coimisinéir chomh maith gurb é an éifeacht shoiléir atá le halt 997A ná a chosc ar dhaoine a bhfuil smacht agus tionchar acu ar ghníomhaíochtaí gnó comhlachta creidmheas a éileamh ar cháin gan íoc ba chóir a asbhaint agus a íoc le comhlachtaí dá sórt leis na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim.

34

Caillteanais Trádála – s.662 srianadh TCA ar fhaoiseamh i ndáil caillteanas ón bhfeirmeoireacht nó ón ngarraíodóireacht mhargaidhRinne socrú 33TACD2019 breithniú ar Ioncam diúltú d’éileamh an Achomharcóra ar chaillteanais trádála le hais ioncam ÍMAT an Achomharcóra do na blianta faoi achomharc. Dícheadaíodh an t-éileamh ar an mbonn nár lig na rialacha leagtha amach in alt 662 de TCA 1997 don Achomharcóir faoiseamh a éileamh i dtaca le caillteanais faoi alt 381 TCA.

Ba chúntóir siopa é an tAchomharcóir a raibh trádáil na feirmeoireachta ar siúl chomh maith aige. Thosaigh sé ar an bhfeirmeoireacht lena athair i 1998 agus in 2001 d’fhág an t-athair 26 acra talaimh le huacht aige agus lean sé ar iad sin a shaothrú. Thug an tAchomharcóir fianaise go raibh an-drochbhail ar an talamh nuair a fuair sé é agus go raibh a dhícheall déanta aige thar na blianta an talamh a fheabhsú agus gnó na feirmeoireachta a thógáil suas oiread agus a bheadh brabús air agus go mbeadh fáltas aige ar an airgead agus ar an am a bhí tugtha dó aige.

Chinn an Coimisinéir i ndáil leis na ceanglais in alt 662 gurbh amhlaidh, le linn na mblianta faoi achomharc agus sna blianta roimhe sin, ba é an cuspóir amháin a bhí le ham, le hobair agus le hinfheistíocht an Achomharcóra ná an fheirm a fheabhsú agus gnó na feirme a fhorbairt oiread agus a bheadh brabús air. Chinn an Coimisinéir chomh maith gurbh é rún croí an Achomharcóra go mbeadh brabús ar deireadh lena ghnó feirme agus gur lean sé de ghnó na feirmeoireachta ar bhonn tráchtála agus mar sin chinn sé gur shásaigh an tAchomharcóir na ceanglais a bhí in alt 662(2)(a) do na blianta faoi achomharc.

D’ainneoin an tAchomharcóir bheith cáilithe prima facie don fhaoiseamh i ngeall ar é na critéir a chomhlíonadh in alt 662(2)(a), chuir alt 662(2)(b) teorainn leis an teidlíocht ar chaillteanas a éileamh mar fhaoiseamh sa chás gur tharla an caillteanas le linn trádála i ngach bliain de na trí bliana roimhe sin.

Bhain caillteanas le gnó feirme an Achomharcóra gach bliain ó 2007 go 2014, an dá bhliain san áireamh. Tá foráil choigiltis in alt 662(2)(d) a deir go bunúsach nach gcuirfidh alt 662(2) teorainn le faoiseamh sa chás go léiríonn éilitheoir go mbeartaíonn sé sa bhliain tar éis trí bliana de chaillteanas ar mhodh agus ar bhealach a mbeifí ag súil leis go mbeadh brabús ar ball ann dá mba rud é gur feirmeoir nó garraíodóir inniúil margaidh a bheartaigh mar sin, agus dá mba rud é gur bheartaigh an feirmeoir nó an garraíodóir margaidh mar sin i dtosach na tréimhse ar bhain an caillteanas léi, níorbh fhéidir leis bheith ag súil go réasúnta le brabús go dtí deireadh na bliana tar éis na tréimhse caillteanais.

Chinn an Coimisinéir ar an bhfianaise gur chomhlíon an tAchomharcóir na critéir a mionsonraíodh in alt 662(2)(d) agus dá réir sin nár bhain an teorainn ar fhaoiseamh in alt 662(2)(b) leis an Achomharcóir.

35

Creidmheasanna Cánach FostaíI socruithe 30TACD2019 agus 31TACD2019, bhí an tAchomharcóir i dteideal pinsin ranníocaigh de bhun alt 108 den Acht Comhdhlúite Leasa Shóisialaigh 2005, tar éis na coinníollacha a chomhlíonadh atá leagtha amach in alt 109 den Acht sin agus bhíothas tar éis an pinsean sin a éileamh agus a fháil do na blianta faoi achomharc. Méadaíodh suim an phinsin de bhun alt 112(1) d’Acht 2005 óir ba ‘duine lánfhásta cáilithe’ é céile an Achomharcóra laistigh de bhrí an Achta.

An cheist a bhí le socrú ná cé acu ba chóir ligean d’éileamh ar an gcreidmheas cánach fostaí faoi alt 472 TCA 1997 ar an bpinsean méadaithe ar an bpinsean ranníocach Stáit arna dhíol i ndáil le céile tuilleamaíoch.

Chinn an Coimisinéir sa dá chás go raibh an tAchomharcóir i dteideal an chreidmheasa i ndáil leis an ioncam sin, de bhun alt 472(4)(b) den Acht Comhdhlúite Cánach 1997, mar a leasaíodh.

Liúntas ‘gan aon chaillteanas don Ioncam’ agus Suaitheantais TrádálaRinne socrú 24TACD2019 breithniú cé acu a bhí teip ghinearálta ann na Rialacháin ÍMAT a oibriú i ndáil le híocaíochtaí d’fhostaithe áirithe. D’áitigh an tAchomharcóir nach mbeadh ÍMAT inbhuailte ar na híocaíochtaí sa chás gur oibríodh na Rialacháin mar ba cheart. D’iarr an tAchomharcóir leas a bhaint as an liúntas ‘gan aon chaillteanas don Ioncam’ dá bhforáiltear sa Chód Cleachtais don Iniúchadh Ioncaim agus Idirghabhálaithe Géilltiúnais. Chinn an Coimisinéir nach raibh aon dlínse ag an TAC maidir leis an liúntas seo a chur i bhfeidhm.

Rinne an t-achomharc seo breithniú chomh maith cé acu a bhí an tAchomharcóir ag gabháil do thrádáil athmhúnlaithe carranna/díol agus ceannach carranna. Rinneadh grinnbhreithniú ar ‘sé shuaitheantas tráchtála’ agus bunaithe ar an bhfianaise agus na tosca a bhain leis ‘na sé shuaitheantas’ san achomharc seo, shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach raibh tráchtáil ar siúl ag an Achomharcóir.

Ráta Cánach infheidhme ar Ioncam Inchánach a áiríonn ús Ábhartha – S.261(c)(i)(II) TCA 1997Bhain socrú 06TACD2020 le feidhmiú alt 261(c)(i)(II) TCA 1997 agus conas a théann an t-alt seo i bhfeidhm ar an ráta laghdaithe cánach ioncaim agus an scoithphointe caighdeánach. Ba ús éarlais é cuid mhór d’ioncam an Achomharcóra, faoi réir ag DIRT. Lena chois sin bhí asbhaint incheadaithe suntasach a bhain le costais leighis i dteach altramais sna blianta ábhartha sin. D’áitigh an Freagróir gurbh ionann feidhmiú alt 261(c)(i)(II) agus go raibh ioncam inchánach an Achomharcóra, tar éis asbhaintí, faoi réir ag cáin ag an ráta infheidhme DIRT, agus nach raibh feidhm leis an ráta 20% ná na rialacha maidir leis an scoithphointe ráta caighdeánach.

36

Chinn an Coimisinéir go raibh athbhrí le ciall agus le léirmhíniú alt 261(c)(i)(II). Chinn an Coimisinéir nach raibh na rialacha a bhain le hord ceart an fhaoisimh ar asbhaintí ná na rialacha scoithphointe don ráta caighdeánach sáraithe ag alt 261(c)(i)(II). Dualgas Cruthúnais i ndáil le héileamh ar fhaoiseamh Caiteachais Leighis faoi S.469 TCA 1997.Bhain socrú 54TACD2019 leis an bhfianaise is riachtanach chun a dheimhniú cén asbhaint faoisimh atá ag gabháil le táillí tí altramais faoi alt 469 de TCA 1997. San achomharc seo, rinne an Freagróir iniúchadh ar éileamh faoisimh an Achomharcóra agus tharraing siar faoiseamh ar chostais nach bhféadfadh an tAchomharcóir a chruthú le fianaise gurb iad féin a ghlan na costais.

Nuair a bhí an t-achomharc á shocrú, luaigh an Coimisinéir arís gurb amhlaidh in achomhairc chánach a dhéanann breithniú ar theidlíocht ar fhaoiseamh, is ar an gcáiníocóir atá an dualgas cruthúnais a léiriú go bhfuil an teidlíocht sin acu.

Tuairisciú Éigeantach Leictreonach – S.917EA (4) TAC 1997Rinneadh breithniú i socrú 37TACD2019 ar dhiúltú d’iarratas ar eisiamh a rinne Achomharcóir ón oibleagáid na rialacháin maidir le tuairisciú éigeantach leictreonach a chomhlíonadh.

Chinn an Coimisinéir gur soiléir go raibh an tAchomharcóir faoi riail na n-oibleagáidí éigeantacha agus gur theip air an dualgas cruthúnais a chomhlíonadh nach bhféadfaí go réasúnta bheith ag súil go mbeadh an acmhainn acu tuairisceáin leictreonacha a dhéanamh nó nach raibh siad in inmhe sin a dhéanamh i ngeall ar aois nó ar éiglíocht.

Athéilimh Leictreonacha CBL – Alt 101 VATCA 2010 – aisíocaíochtaí cánach Ion-PhobailI socrú 46TACD2019, ba neach inchánach é an tAchomharcóir i mballstát AE eile. Bhain an socrú leis an bpróiseas faofa agus íoctha atá i bhfeidhm in Éirinn agus aisíocaíocht á héileamh trí chóras EVR an AE. Éisteadh le háitiú ón dá thaobh maidir leis an léirmhíniú ceart ar reachtaíocht CBL na hÉireann, ar Threoir an AE agus ar phróisis mholta an AE. Leag an tAchomharcóir béim shuntasach ar an bhfíric go raibh feidhm sa stát AE inar chónaigh sé le modhanna faofa nach raibh chomh dian céanna agus aisíocaíochtaí á bpróiseáil.Chinn an Coimisinéir go raibh foráil sa Treoir ar na forálacha reachtaíochta CBL in Éirinn a raibh feidhm leo san achomharc seo i ndáil leis an bhfaisnéis agus leis an gcáipéisíocht a iarradh chun éileamh ar aisíocaíocht a bhailíochtú, agus nach raibh de dhlínse ag an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach moltóireacht a dhéanamh maidir lena chothroime a chuirtear rialacháin CBL na hÉireann i bhfeidhm. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir gur ar an gcáiníocóir a bhí an dualgas teidlíocht shoiléir ar an aisíocaíocht a léiriú, de réir reachtaíocht CBL na hÉireann.

37

Stádas cánach duais liteartha airgid nár iarradh An cheist a bhí le socrú in 04TACD2020 ná cé acu ab ionann airgead duaise ó dhuais idirnáisiúnta liteartha agus cuid de bhrabús scríbhneora ghairmiúil. D’áitigh an tAchomharcóir go raibh cinneadh déanta cheana ag Coimisinéirí Speisialta an RA gan cáin a ghearradh ar dhuais gan iarraidh dá leithéid, agus gur chóir go mbeadh sé sin i bhfeidhm in Éirinn chomh maith agus nár chóir go mbeadh airgead duaise mar chuid de bhrabús inchánach an scríbhneora. Rinne an Coimisinéir breithniú ar fhasaigh ábhartha dlíthiúla na hÉireann agus thug dá aire go raibh difear idir cásdlí na hÉireann agus RA maidir leis na tréithe tábhachtacha a úsáidtear lena dhéanamh amach cé acu a bhí an duais inchánach faoi Chás II nó nach raibh. Ghlac an Coimisinéir leis go mbeadh seasamh an Achomharcóra áititheach i gcomhthéacs an RA ach bhéimnigh sé go raibh dlí-eolaíocht na hÉireann difriúil. Chinn sé nár éirigh leis an Achomharcóir an dualgas cruthúnais a chomhlíonadh agus nach raibh léirithe nár chóir go mbeadh airgead na duaise mar chuid de bhrabús inchánach an scríbhneora.

Faoiseamh cánach ar ranníocaíocht aon-uaire pinsin I socrú 38TACD2019 d’íoc an tAchomharcóir ranníocaíocht phinsin roimh an dáta ábhartha tuairiscithe dá thuairisceán cánach ioncaim, deich mbliana tar éis dheireadh na bliana. Mar sin féin, níor chuir an tAchomharcóir a thuairisceán cánach ioncaim isteach in am agus dhiúltaigh an Freagróir faoiseamh cánach a thabhairt sa bhliain roimhe óir níor roghnaíodh in am siardhátú a dhéanamh ar an ranníocaíocht. Bhí foráil reachtaíochta in alt 787(15) TCA 1997 nach dtabharfar faoiseamh ‘seachas ar éileamh a dhéanfaí leis an gcigire agus a cheadóidh an cigire’. Chinn an Coimisinéir go raibh athbhrí leis an gceanglas sa reachtaíocht an Cigire a chur ar an eolas ar dháta an tuairiscithe nó roimhe agus go raibh teipthe ar an Achomharcóir fianaise a thabhairt go raibh na ceanglais sin comhlíonta aige.

In-asbhainteacht Cánach Corparáidí ar Cháin Shiarchoinneálach Iasachta ar DhíbhinníRinne socrú 08TACD2019 breithniú cé acu a d’fhéadfaí asbhaint a éileamh faoi alt 81(2) de TCA 1997 ar cháin shiarchoinneálach iasachta a gearradh i ndáil le díbhinní a fuarthas. Is é déantús margaidh agus soláthar leachtachta i dtáirgí casta airgeadais an gnó Éireannaigh a bhí ag an Achomharcóir. Mar dhéantóir margaidh i roghanna cothromais ar mhalartáin éagsúla Eorpacha, bhí ceanglas ar an Achomharcóir leachtacht a chur ar fáil don mhargadh trí roghanna a dhíol agus a cheannach.

D’fhéadfaí rioscaí a fhálú trí fritháireamh a dhéanamh ar shuíomhanna stoic i suíomhanna comhghaolaithe. Le linn a ghnáth-thrádála, ba ghnách leis an Achomharcóir suíomhanna stoic a choinneáil go rialta thar dháta tuairiscithe díbhinní agus dá réir sin gheobhadh sé díbhinní. Ba thoradh dosheachanta é sin ar a ghníomhaíochtaí trádála.

38

An tsaincheist a bhí faoi achomharc ná cé acu an costas in-athbhainte de réir alt 81 í an chain a coinníodh siar ó dhíbhinní iasachta le linn a thrádála, oiread agus nach bhféadfaí an cháin siarchoinneála a fhritháireamh mar chreidmheas le hais dhliteanas cánach an Achomharcóra. Coisceadh an tAchomharcóir ó dhíolúine a éileamh ar cháin chorparáideach faoi alt 21B(4)(c) de TCA 1997 agus diúltaíodh creidmheas chomh maith ar na cánacha siarchoinneála ó fhorálacha i dtaca le faoiseamh ar cháin dúbailte in alt 35 agus Sceideal 24. Mar sin gearradh cáin ar an Achomharcóir ar ioncam díbhinní gan aon teidlíocht chomhfhreagrach ar chreidmheas nó ar asbhaint don cháin iasachta a coinníodh siar ar an ioncam sin.

D’áitigh an tAchomharcóir cé nach gnách go mbíonn cánacha in-asbhainte ar an mbunús seo, is féidir go mbeadh faoi dhálaí áirithe. Níor aontaigh Ioncam leis sin agus d’áitigh gurb ionann cánacha siarchoinneála iasachta agus cáin ar an ioncam.

Tar éis na fíricí a bhreithniú, bhí an Coimisinéir sásta gurbh ionann aon cháin siarchoinneála a gearradh ar dhíbhinn nach bhféadfaí a éileamh ar ais faoi chomhaontú cánach dúbailte (DTA) agus costas deiridh dul isteach sa trádáil, ar nós ‘costas an díolacháin’ sa chuntasóireacht, agus bhí tionchar aige ar an mbrabús nó ar an gcaillteanas deiridh glan a tháinig leis an trádáil iomlán.

Thug an Coimisinéir dá aire nach bhfuil aon phrionsabal sa cháindlí a chuireann an cháin as an áireamh mar asbhaint le hais brabús sa chás nach bhfuil an cháin bunaithe ar an mbrabús foluiteach. Lena chois sin, thagair an Coimisinéir don in-asbhainteacht a bhain le dleacht stampa na hiasachta, CBL neamh-athshlánaithe na hÉireann agus na hiasachta, Cáin Idirbheartaíochta Airgeadais na hiasachta agus ÁSPC fostóra. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir gur chóir an cás seo a dhealú ó shocrú 02TACD2018, a rinne breithniú ar cheisteanna cosúla i gcomhthéacs na gcánacha siarchoinneála iasachta a gearradh ar ioncam ríchíosa. Sa chás ar láimh, thug an Coimisinéir dá aire nach ionann cáin siarchoinneála ar ioncam ríchíosa agus cáin siarchoinneála ar dhíbhinní óir tagann ioncam ríchíosa ó cheart ceadúnaithe agus is ioncam é a thuilltear. Chinn an Coimisinéir a mhalairt i gcás an achomhairc seo óir níor tuilleadh na díbhinní agus is amhlaidh a tháinig siad leis an trádáil agus díol agus ceannach na n-urrús. Chinn an Coimisinéir gurb ionann aon cháin siarchoinneála ar dhíbhinn a gearradh ar an Achomharcóir agus cáin a gearradh le linn don trádáil iomlán bheith á déanamh seachas i dtuilleadh ioncam na díbhinne. Is é a bhí sa cháin mar sin ná costas an trádáil sin a dhéanamh don Achomharcóir, óir ba é príomhchuspóir an Achomharcóra ná brabús a dhéanamh óna thrádáil charnach ar a fháltas scaireanna agus a straitéis fhálaithe a bhain leis sin. Dá thoradh sin, ba eisíocaíochtaí iad na cánacha sin ag an ngnó a rinneadh go hiomlán agus go heisiach chun críche na trádála.

39

Iarradh ar an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach cás a shonrú agus a shíniú chun tuairim na hArd-Chúirte a lorg i ndáil leis an socrú seo.

Stádas LLC SAM chun críche an fhaoisimh ar Ghrúpa ÉireannachBhain socrú 17TACD2019 le teidlíocht na nAchomharcóirí ar fhaoiseamh grúpa de bhun alt 411 de TCA 1997.

Bhain an t-achomharc le LLC de chuid Delaware a raibh smacht aige ar roinnt comhlachtaí, lena n-áirítear trí chomhlacht cónaitheach in Éireann, a rinne éilimh éagsúla ar fhaoiseamh grúpa faoi alt 411 in 2010, 2011 agus 2012. Ba chomhlachtaí cónaitheacha in Éirinn iad an comhlacht géillte agus na comhlachtaí éilithe agus ní raibh an LLC cónaitheach in Éirinn chun críche na cánach.

Chun críche an chaillteanais cánach corparáidí, déanann alt 411 sainmhíniú ar ghrúpa comhlachtaí mar mháthairchomhlacht agus a fhochomhlachtaí 75%. Roimh an Acht Airgeadais 2012, níor bhain tagairtí do ‘chomhlacht’ in alt 411 ach do chomhlacht a bhí cónaitheach san AE nó i mBallstát de chuid an AE. Rinne an tAcht Airgeadais, a tháinig i bhfeidhm ar an 1 Eanáir 2012, leasú ar alt 411 chun comhlachtaí a áireamh atá cónaitheach i gcríoch lena bhfuil DTA ag Éirinn chun críche a fháil amach cé acu is ann do ghrúpa nó nach ea.

Níor roghnaigh an LLC go gcaithfí leis mar chomhlacht chun críche na cánach ioncam cónaidhme SAM, agus dá réir sin caitheadh leis faoi na rialacha bunúsacha. Mar thoradh ar an méid sin, gearradh cáin ar a ioncam ar aon dul lena mbaill, mar atá cúigear úinéirí a bhí cónaitheach chun críche na cánach i SAM.

Dhiúltaigh Ioncam do na héilimh ar fhaoiseamh grúpa ar an mbunús nach ‘comhlacht’ a bhí sa LLC agus go háirithe nach comhlacht é chun críche na cánach Éireannaí. Chomh maith leis sin, d’áitigh siad go raibh an LLC trédhearcach chun críche na cánach i SAM agus de bhun na bunrialach cánach SAM, ba chóir caitheamh leis mar neach nach ionann agus a úinéir. Thug Ioncam dúshlán na teidlíochta ar fhaoiseamh grúpa fosta, ar an mbunús nach raibh an LLC cónaitheach i SAM chun críche na cánach mar a bheadh an cháin chorparáideach Éireannach.

Rinne an Coimisinéir breithniú ar chásdlí a phléigh conas ba chóir don Ioncam Éireannach caitheamh le neach ón iasacht chun críche dhlí cánach na hÉireann. Maidir leis an gceist seo, d’éist sé le finnéithe saineolacha dhlí agus cháin SAM agus ansin rinne breithniú cé acu ba chosúla a dhóthain LLC le comhlacht Éireannach maidir le tréithe agus gnéithe le go gcaithfí leis mar chomhlacht corpraithe chun críche na cánach corparáidí in Éirinn. Shocraigh sé gurb amhlaidh a bhí.

40

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir lena chois sin, dá léirmhíneofaí go litriúil Airteagal 4 den DTA, ní raibh cáin dlite ar LLC i SAM i ndáil leis na blianta faoi achomharc. Mar sin féin, chinn an Coimisinéir Achomhairc tar éis breithniú a dhéanamh ar gach uile mhionghné den fhaoiseamh Éireannach grúpa agus an dícheangal is dealraitheach leis an gcód cánach i SAM, gur chóir léirmhíniú teileolaíoch a ghlacadh maidir le léirmhíniú conarthaí idirnáisiúnta. Dá réir sin, shocraigh an Coimisinéir gur chóir caitheamh le LLC amhail is go raibh cáin dlite air i SAM agus go raibh an cháin sin comhghaolmhar le cáin chorparáideach sa Stát de bhun gach ioncaim leis bheith faoi réir go hiomlán ag Cáin Ioncaim Cónaidhme faoi Chód Cánach SAM, ainneoin gur ag leibhéal an bhaill a tharla sé sin.

I bhfianaise an mhéid seo thuas, shocraigh an Coimisinéir Achomhairc gur comhlacht corpraithe é LLC, agus go raibh na hAchomharcóirí i dteideal leas a bhaint as faoiseamh grúpa de bhun Alt 411 TCA 1997.

Cáin Siarchoinneála DíbhinníRinne socrú 16TACD2019 breithniú mar cheist tosaigh cé acu ba chóir srian ceithre bliana a chur ar cheart Ioncaim measúnú a dhéanamh nó a leasú, faoi fhorálacha alt 955(3) de TCA 1997. Bhí Fógraí Measúnaithe curtha amach ag Ioncam maidir le cáin siarchoinneála díbhinní (DWT) in 2018 i ndáil lena dháileadh a rinneadh sna blianta 1999 go 2010. Theip ar an Achomharcóir tuairisceáin DWT a dhéanamh i ndáil leis na dáiltí agus d’fhoilsigh sé mionsonraí fúthu, agus an fhíric nár asbhaineadh aon DWT, ar a thuairisceáin cánach corparáidí (Foirmeacha CT1) a tuairiscíodh do na blianta ábhartha.

Dar leis an Achomharcóir nach raibh ceangal air DWT a choinneáil siar ar an mbunús go ndearnadh na dáiltí as ioncam a bhí faoi neamhaird laistigh de bhrí alt 141(5) de TCA 1997 (an cheist shubstainteach).

Chinn an Coimisinéir éisteacht leis an gceist tosaigh i dtosach óir bhí de chumas sa cheist sin plé go cinntitheach leis an gceist shubstainteach. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir ansin nach dtugann alt 955(3) cosaint ach sa chás go bhfuil oibleagáidí reachtúla cáiníocóra comhlíonta go hiomlán. Shocraigh an Coimisinéir, tharla nach raibh an cáiníocóir tar eis tuairisceán DWT a chur isteach, nach raibh nochtadh iomlán ábhartha na bhfíricí ábhartha déanta aige ar an tuairisceán oiriúnach DWT agus mar sin níor fheád sé teacht i dtír ar an srian as am a thugann alt 955(3). Táthar ag súil go n-éistfear leis an gceist shubstainteach le linn 2020.

Cáin Fáltais ChaipitiúilRinne socrú 28TACD2019 breithniú cé acu ba chóir aisíoc teacht tar éis gur íocadh CGT go hearráideach i ndáil le scaireanna a bhí ar coinneáil ag soláthróir bainne in Newmarket

41

Cooperative Creameries Limited (NCC). Bhí an tAchomharcóir den tuairim gurbh ionann na scaireanna agus ‘sócmhainn gnó inmhurir’, mar a shainmhínítear in alt 598(1) de TCA 1997, agus gur úsáid sé iad ina ghníomhaíochtaí feirme agus dá réir sin gur chóir go mbeadh sé i dteideal faoiseamh scoir CGT.

Chuir an Freagróir suas d’áitiú an Achomharcóra agus áitíodh go raibh na scaireanna ar coinneáil mar infheistíocht agus mar sin ba ‘sócmhainní eisiata’ iad chun críche an fhaoisimh scoir CGT.

Chinn an Coimisinéir go raibh ceannach an bhainne ag NCC faoi riail an chórais cuótaí bainne agus nach raibh aon tionchar ag an scairsheilbh in NCC ar an gcóras sin. Ní raibh aon fhianaise ann gurbh ionann na scaireanna agus ceadúnas nó gur úsáid an tAchomharcóir na scaireanna chun críche na feirmeoireachta. Focal gníomhach é ‘úsáid’, agus is rud éigníomhach é scaireanna a choinneáil. Níor shócmhainn iad na scaireanna agus ní raibh iontu ach cuachadh ceart.

Tar éis grinnbhreithniú a dhéanamh ar phrionsabail an léirmhínithe reachtúil mar a fheidhmítear iad chun críche na cánach, agus go háirithe an dealú sna sainmhínithe dlíthiúla ar ‘sócmhainní cáilithe’ agus ‘sócmhainní inmhuirir’, shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach raibh an tAchomharcóir i dteideal faoiseamh scoir a éileamh ar a chuid scaireanna i NCC a dhiúscairt.

Dleacht StampaBhain socrú 67TACD2020 le díospóid maidir le hinfhaighteacht faoisimh ar fhodhíol de réir alt 46 den Acht Comhdhlúite Dleacht Stampa 1999, mar a leasaíodh (‘SDCA’). Bhí castacht áirithe ann maidir le cúlra na n-idirbheartaíochtaí, agus tá na mionsonraithe air sin leagtha amach sa socrú.

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir an méid seo a leanas:

• ní ligeann oibriú alt 46(1) SDCA ainm an cheannaí a chur isteach faoin mbunchonradh i gconradh an fhodhíola sa chás nach bhfuil acmhainn ag an gceannaí mar dhíoltóir a thuilleadh, i ndáil le conradh an fhodhíola.

• nach ionann uamadh duine i gconradh fodhíola i gcásanna a mbeidh rannpháirtíocht an duine sin iomarcach nó neamhriachtanach, agus cead a thabhairt ar éileamh ar fhaoiseamh fodhíola de réir alt 46(1) SDCA 1999 agus nach raibh cead mar sin ag an Achomharcóir teacht ar fhaoiseamh fodhíola.

• nár comhlíonadh na coinníollacha is riachtanach chun teacht ar fhaoiseamh fodhíola de réir alt 46 de SDCA.

42

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir mar sin go seasfadh an measúnú ar dhleacht stampa.

Cáin Ioncaim Bhí 32 Achomharcóir aonair i gceist i socruithe 28TACD2020 go 59TACD2020. Bhí ceisteanna sna hachomhairc maidir le hin-asbhainteacht caillteanas áirithe cánach a bhain do na hAchomharcóirí. Mhaígh na hAchomharcóirí gur chaillteanais incheadaithe Cáis 1 iad na caillteanais seo. Dhiúltaigh an Freagróir na caillteanais ar an mbonn nach caillteanais incheadaithe trádála iad. Thug na hAchomharcóirí faoi achomharc an tráth sin. Tháinig ann do na caillteanais trí idirbheartaíochtaí casta chun díbhinní a fháil ó chomhlacht áirithe in Oileáin Bhriotanacha na Maighdean, arna mhaoiniú ag iasachtóir ó Oileáin Bhriotanacha na Maighdean. Chinn an Coimisinéir go ndearnadh na hidirbheartaíochtaí chun buntáiste cánach a thabhairt ann do na rannpháirtithe (na hAchomharcóirí), i riocht caillteanas cánach.

Shocraigh an Coimisinéir an méid seo a leanas:

• an aidhm agus an cuspóir a bhí le gach idirbheartaíocht le díbhinn a cheannach ná idirbheartaíocht a ghin caillteanas a athrú ina idirbheartaíocht luachmhar ó thaobh cánach de do gach duine de na hAchomharcóirí trí chaillteanais chánach a ghiniúint a d’úsáid na hAchomharcóirí chun an t-ioncam inchánach a laghdú.

• ní raibh na hAchomharcóirí ag gabháil do thrádáil in ionstraim airgeadais agus urrúis. • ní raibh baint ag alt 812 TCA 1997 le díbhinn a shannadh mar ioncam ‘úinéir’ na n-urrús

foluiteach sa chás go bhfuil an t-úinéir sin bunaithe lasmuigh den Stát agus nach bhfuil sé faoi dhlínse an Oireachtais ná laistigh de cheantair inmhuirir cháin na hÉireann agus, bunaithe ar an bhfianaise agus ar na haighneachtaí san achomharc, ní raibh aon bhunús ann leis an tuairim a bheith ann nach raibh na hAchomharcóirí faoi réir cháin ioncaim ar a n-ioncam iasachta ó dhíbhinní de réir alt 18 TCA 1997.

• bhí na hAchomharcóirí laistigh go daingean den mhuirear cánach in alt 18 TCA 1997 i ndáil lena n-ioncam ó dhíbhinní iasachta.

• níor éirigh leis na háitithe amhrais a thuairiscigh líon áirithe Achomharcóirí an t-amhras a shainiú, mar is riachtanach faoi alt 955(4)(a). Anuas air sin, de reir s.955(4)(b) de TCA 1997, shocraigh an Coimisinéir nach raibh na háitithe amhrais seo fíor agus go raibh na hAchomharcóirí ag gníomhú chun an cháin a sheachaint.

43

Thacaigh an Coimisinéir leis na measúnuithe leasaithe Sceideal D a chruthaigh an Freagróir i ndáil leis na blianta measúnaithe cánach 2009 agus/nó 2020.

Cúrsaí eile a shocraigh an TAC

D’eisigh an TAC socruithe eile le linn 2019 i ndáil le cúrsaí eile cánach nár luadh thuas, mar atá:

• Rinne socrú 05TACD2020 socrú faoi theidlíocht an Achomharcóra ar an bhfaoiseamh cánach dá ngairtear go hiondúil an Díolúine Ealaíontóra.

• Rinne socrú 21TACD2019 breithniú ar theidlíocht an Achomharcóra ar an bhfaoiseamh cánach dá ngairtear go hiondúil an Scéim Cabhair chun Ceannach.

• Bhain socrú 55TACD2019 le hachomharc ar dhiúltú faoiseamh a thabhairt ar ús a íocadh ar iasacht tí de réir alt 244 de TCA 1997, ar faoiseamh é dá ngairtear go hiondúil faoiseamh ús morgáiste.

• Bhain socrú 50TACD2019 leis an gceist cé acu ba chóir breithniú ar fheithicil mar ‘modh nua iompair’ de réir alt 1 de VATCA 2010 agus CBL dlite air mar sin ar a hallmhairiú.

• Bhain socrú 13TACD2020 le hachomharc ar dhiúltú díolúine a thabhairt don Achomharcóir ón gcáin ioncaim de bhun alt 192A de TCA 1997, arb ionann é agus díolúine i ndáil le híocaíochtaí áirithe faoi dhlí na fostaíochta.

44

Ar an 6 Meitheamh 2018, thionscain an tAire Airgeadais, an t-Uas. Paschal Donohoe TD, athbhreithniú neamhspleách ar ualach oibre agus ar oibríochtaí an TAC i gcomhthéacs iarratas a rinne an TAC ar a Roinn ag iarraidh breis foirne agus acmhainní. Cheap an tAire Niamh O’Donoghue, iar-Ard-Rúnaí na Roinne Leasa Shóisialaigh, leis an athbhreithniú a dhéanamh.

San athbhreithniú a rinne sí, chuaigh Niamh O’Donoghue i gcomhairle leis na Coimisinéirí TAC agus an fhoireann, na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim, an Roinn Airgeadais, an Dlí-Chumann, ionadaithe ó Bharra na hÉireann, comhlachtaí gairmiúla cuntasaíochta agus lucht cleachtais ón earnáil phríobháideach

Sa tuarascáil a rinne sí (‘Tuarascáil O’Donoghue’), a foilsíodh ar an 9 Deireadh Fómhair 2018, rinneadh roinnt moltaí i dtaca le foireann, le hacmhainní agus le rialachas corparáideach an TAC. D’fháiltigh an TAC roimh thorthaí na Tuarascála agus d’oibrigh sé ó shin i gcomhar leis an Roinn Airgeadais agus le comhlachtaí eile chun na moltaí sa tuarascáil a chur i bhfeidhm.

Le linn 2019, le tacaíocht an Aire agus na Roinne Airgeadais, rinneadh dul chun cinn suntasach maidir le moltaí na Tuarascála a chur i bhfeidhm.

Dul chun cinn ar fheidhmiú

Buiséad D’aithin Tuarascáil O’Donoghue gur ghá ardú suntasach ar bhuiséad an TAC in 2017 dá mbeifí lena moltaí a chur i bhfeidhm. Mar thoradh air sin, méadaíodh buiséad 2019 go €3.2 milliún mar mhacalla ar an gcostas measta ar fheidhmiú le linn 2019. Mar a phléitear níos mó i gcaibidil 16, chaith TAC timpeall €1.7 milliún le linn 2019. Tharla an tearc-chaitheamh, i gcomparáid leis an leithdháileadh buiséid, i ngeall go príomha ar an am a bhí riachtanach chun próisis earcaíochta a dhéanamh agus chun an fhoireann a aimsiú a mhol an Tuarascáil. Faoi dheireadh 2019, bhí foireann 28 ag an gCoimisiún, arb ionann agus dhá oiread na foirne a bhí ann i ndeireadh 2018.

Acmhainní Foirne agus Coimisinéara Earcaíodh Príomh-Oifigeach Oibríochtaí (COO) buan ag céim an Phríomh-Oifigigh agus thosaigh an duine sin ag obair le TAC i mí Feabhra 2019. Ceapadh foireann bhreise le linn na bliana ag leibhéal an Phríomh-Oifigigh Chúnta, Ard-Oifigeach Feidhmiúcháin, Oifigeach Feidhmiúcháin agus Oifigeach Cléireachais, rud a fhágann go bhfuil struchtúir an TAC ag teacht níos fearr leis na moltaí i dTuarascáil O’Donoghue. Le linn Mheán Fómhair agus Dheireadh Fómhair 2019, ceapadh beirt Choimisinéirí sealadacha Achomhairc lánaimseartha, agus ceann amháin páirtaimseartha, sa TAC.

Athbhreithniú ar Ualach Oibre agus ar Oibríochtaí an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach

45

Fostaíodh bainisteoir lánaimseartha TEF sa dara leath de 2019, agus an tasc aige straitéis TEF a fhorbairt agus feabhas a chur ar na hoibríochtaí TEF laistigh den TAC. Thoiligh Príomh-Oifigeach Oifig Faisnéise an Rialtais bheith ag obair leis an TAC le linn 2020 chun cúnamh a thabhairt an TAC a nascadh le líonraí rialtais agus tacaíocht bonneagair agus teicniúil a chur ar fáil.

Moladh mór de chuid Thuarascáil O’Donoghue ná go gceapfaí Cathaoirleach ar an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach. Tá forálacha san Acht Airgeadais (Rialachán Achomharc Cánach agus Réamheolaire) 2019, a bhí mar leasú ar an Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015, go mbunófaí post an Chathaoirligh ar an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach. Beidh freagracht ar an gCathaoirleach i dtaca le ceannas, rialachas agus treo straitéiseach an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach. Tá próiseas earcaíochta ar bun faoi láthair agus táthar ag súil go ndéanfar ceapachán sa dara ráithe de 2020. Bainistíocht CásannaTá baill an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach neamhspleách maidir lena bhfeidhmeanna i dtaca lena n-ualaí aonair cásanna atá le héisteacht agus/nó le socrú. Leanadh den obair i gcaitheamh na bliana chun gach ualach cásanna faoi seach a laghdú. Úsáideadh Comhdhálacha Bainistithe Cásanna (CMCanna) chun achomhairc a chur chun cinn nuair is oiriúnach agus thosaigh na Coimisinéirí Sealadacha Achomhairc ag obair ar éisteachtaí agus ar shocruithe lena n-áirítear socruithe alt 949U. Tá líomhadh chionroinnt na mbainisteoirí cáis ag Coimisinéirí Achomhairc ar leanúint de réir fhorálacha Acht 2015, agus tosaíodh sa chéad chuid de 2020 ar chlár oiliúna agus forbartha do bhainisteoirí cáis, a bunaíodh in 2019. In 2019, rinne an fhoireann riaracháin athbhreithniú ar gach uile chomhad cáis, rud a críochnaíodh sa chéad ráithe de 2020.

Tacaíocht Chorparáideach agus OibríochtaíTá dul chun cinn suntasach déanta ag an TAC i dtreo soláthar a fheabhsú maidir le tacaíochtaí corparáideacha le linn 2019. Bhí líon áirithe moltaí i dTuarascáil O’Donoghue maidir le soláthar fadtéarmach agus gearrthéarmach na bhfeidhmeanna seo. Rinneadh an t-athbhreithniú inmheánach ar na tacaíochtaí corparáideacha a bhí ag teastáil ón TAC agus cuireadh an moladh againn ar aghaidh chuig an Roinn Airgeadais agus súil againn go mbeidh comhaontú faoi struchtúr tacaíochtaí corparáideacha don eagraíocht sa bhliain amach romhainn.

46

Staidreamh

Líon Achomharc sa Bhliain faighte ag TAC 48

Achomhairc Faighte in 2019 50

Achomhairc a Dúnadh 2019 51

Achomhairc – Príomhchineálacha Cánach 52

Cáin Ilchineálach 55

Achomhairc Liostaithe le hÉisteacht in 2019 56

Socruithe 58

Comhdhálacha Bainistithe Cásanna in 2019 61Dul chun Cinn ar gach Achomharc in 2019 64

Nóta 1: I gcuid de na táblaí sna leathanaigh a leanann léirítear an ‘candam faoi dhíospóid’ in achomhairc atá faighte ag an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc. Ba chóir breathnú ar an bhfigiúr seo mar mheastachán ar an mbunús seo a leanas:

• is féidir go ndéanfaí coigeartú ar an mbunchandam cánach atá faoi dhíospóid tar éis fógra an achomhairc dul isteach (i.e. sa chás go nglantar nó go n-aistarraingítear gné den achomharc).

• D’fhéadfaí nach mbeadh na páirtithe ar aon intinn faoin gcandam cruinn cánach atá faoi dhíospóid

• ní bhíonn luach airgid achomharc inríofa i gcónaí (e.g. in achomhairc ina bhfuil an ráta cánach faoi dhíospóid nó in achomhairc i ndáil le diúltú Deimhniú Imréitigh Cánach).

Nóta 2: Is tábhachtach a lua go mbíonn síorathrú faoi staidreamh a bhaineann le hachomhairc agus go ndéantar nuashonrú orthu ar bhonn laethúil de réir comhfhreagrais agus teachtaireachtaí a fhaightear. Faoi dheireadh R1 2020, léiríonn an tuarascáil seo pictiúr cruinn de chúrsaí na bliana féilire 2019.

47

Líon Achomharc sa Bhliain a fhaigheann TAC

Bunaíodh TAC ar an 21 Márta 2016. Tá córas catagóirithe achomharc ann mar mhacalla ar na hachomhairc a bhí idir lámha roimh bhunú an TAC (‘achomhairc roimh bhunú’), achomhairc a fuarthas tar éis bhunú TAC (‘achomhairc reatha’), agus achomhairc an ama atá caite a aistríodh ó na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim (‘achomhairc iarmharacha’) agus cuirtear síos dá réir sin ar na hachomhairc.

Tugann an tábla thíos léargas ar an líon achomharc a fuarthas agus a dúnadh ó bunaíodh an TAC in 2016:

Bliain Iomlán Iarmharach Roimh Bhunú

Reatha

2016 2017 2018 2019

2016

Achomhairc a fuarthas in 2016* 2,357 1,159 297 901

Dúnta in 2016 (206) (1) (9) (196)

Iarmhéid (31/12/16)** 2,151 1,158 288 705

2017

Achomhairc a fuarthas in 2017 1,747 1,747

Dúnta in 2017 (690) (175) (33) (223) (259)

Iarmhéid (31/12/17)** 3,208 983 255 482 1,488

2018

Achomhairc a fuarthas in 2018 1,689 1,689

Dúnta in 2018 (1,438) (252) (85) (204) (406) (491)

Iarmhéid (31/12/18)** 3,459 731 170 278 1,082 1,198

2019

Achomhairc a fuarthas in 2019 1,495 1,495

Dúnta in 2019 (1,584) (205) (74) (86) (204) (357) (658)

Iarmhéid (31/12/19) 3,370 526 96 192 878 841 837

Achoimre

Achomhairc a fuarthas 7,288 1,159 297 901 1,747 1,689 1,495

Dúnta (3,918) (633) (201) (709) (869) (848) (658)

Iarmhéid (31/12/19) 3,370 526 96 192 878 841 837

48

*Mar gheall ar athbhreithniú ar na comhaid iarmharacha ag an TAC in 2017, laghdaigh an TAC an líon achomharc iarmharach ó 2,758 go 1,159 trí mheasúnuithe ó bhlianta cánach a chur ina ngrúpa maidir leis na hachomharcóirí céanna agus trí ghrúpaí a dhéanamh de shaincheisteanna bainteacha.

Ina lán cásanna, déanfaidh achomharcóir achomharc faoin gceist chéanna thar thréimhse blianta cánach agus sna cásanna sin, is mar aon achomharc amháin a chaitear leis na hachomhairc seo. In achomhairc ina ndearna cáiníocóir achomharc leis na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim roimh bhunú an TAC (‘achomharc iarmharach’) agus achomharc arís i mbliain mheasúnaithe tar éis bunaithe, is féidir go ndéanfaí aon ghrúpa amháin de na hachomhairc seo. Chun críche an riaracháin, déantar achomhairc a chur i ngrúpaí más iomchuí sin, ach mar sin féin ní fhóireann gach achomharc bainteach don ghrúpáil seo.

** Rinneadh athbhreithniú in 2019 ar gach cás a osclaíodh agus a dúnadh ar an gCóras Bainistithe Cásanna ó 21 Márta 2016. Rinneadh athbhreithniú faoi leith ar gach achomharc aonair. Rinneadh anailís ar aon mhíréir nó aon dúbailt agus leasaíodh sin dá réir, rud a fhágann nach ionann go díreach na figiúirí thuas agus an figiúr i dTuarascáil Bhliantúil 2018.

Nithe le tabhairt faoi deara maidir le gach achomharc:

• Gníomhaire ar son achomharcóra a láimhseáil breis agus 50% d’achomhairc (idir oscailte agus dhúnta) in 2019

• Tá ilbhlianta measúnaithe cánach nó iltréimhsí measúnaithe faoi dhíospóid i dtimpeall an ceathrú cuid de na hachomhairc.

• De na hachomhairc atá idir lámha, aithnítear breis agus 700 mar chuid de ghrúpa achomharc ina bhfuil saincheist(eanna) á n-achomharc.

49

Achomhairc a Fuarthas in 2019

Tháinig 1,495 achomharc faoi bhráid an TAC le linn 2019, nó 194 níos lú ná an líon a tháinig in 2018. Tá athbhreithniú déanta ar gach achomharc a fuarthas agus tá siad á bpróiseáil ina gcéimeanna. Tá léargas ar achomhairc a fuarthas agus ar an gcandam cánach atá faoi dhíospóid in 2019 briste síos mar seo a leanas:

2019 Mí

Líon Achomharc

a fuarthas

Candam*€000

Ean 162 27,742

Fea 114 5,582

Már 117 8,325

Aib 101 6,582

Bea 116 16,746

Mei 97 13,258

Iúil 128 87,348

Lún 130 3,263

MF 109 6,825

DF 113 4,934

Sam 143 14,522

Noll** 165 183,798

IOMLÁN 1,495 378,925

Cineál Cánach sna

hAchomhairc***

Líon Achomharc

a fuarthas

% den iomlán

Candam*€000

IT 625 42 43,759

CBL 311 21 30,074

VRT 184 12 542

CT 90 6 263,445

Eile**** 153 10 16,839

CGT 81 6 10,558

CAT 51 3 13,708

IOMLÁN 1,495 100 378,925

* Féach nóta 1 ar lch 47 a leagann amach conas a ríomhtar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhíospóid

** Seacht n-achomharc faighte sa tseachtain deiridh de Nollaig 2019 agus luach timpeall €170 milliún acu. Dá mbainfí na hachomhairc den tsuim iomlán don bhliain, is é €209 milliún an candam le haghaidh achomharc in 2019.

*** Chun críche na hanailíse ar cheannteideal cánach rinneadh achomharc ina bhfuil níos mó ná ceannteideal amháin a ríomh mar aon achomharc arna chatagóiriú faoina phríomh-cheannteideal cánach. Is féidir teacht ar anailís ar ilchineálacha cánach níos faide anonn sa chaibidil seo.

****Cuimsíonn ‘Eile’ C&E, DIRT, DWT, LPT, RCT agus Dleacht Stampaí.

50

2019 Mí

Líon Achomharc

a Dúnadh

Candam*€000

Ean 91 206,647Fea 59 121,786Már 107 51,709Aib 92 23,450Bea 120 45,157Mei 149 27,648Iúil 153 16,289Lún 110 15,664MF 174 11,893DF 216 6,619Sam 176 87,095Noll** 137 51,137IOMLÁN 1,584 665,094

Cineál Cánach sna hAchomhairc

a Dúnadh**

Líon Achomharc

a Dúnadh

% Candam*€000

IT 777 49 117,638CBL 256 16 80,712VRT 175 11 409CT 78 5 362,686Eile*** 116 8 18,746CGT 146 9 81,730CAT 36 2 3,173IOMLÁN 1,584 100 665,094

Catagóir / Bliain a fuarthas

Líon Achomharc a Dúnadh

Candam*€000

Iarmharach 205 182,010Roimh Bhunú 74 55,6902016 86 20,6912017 204 330,5052018 357 54,5142019 658 21,684IOMLÁN 1,584 665,094

Dhún an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach 1,584 achomharc in 2019 trí shocrú, glanadh, aistarraingt, diúltú, nó achomhairc a chur le chéile nó a dhíbheadh. Anois agus méadú ar an líon foirne agus feabhas ar na próisis, ba mhó an líon achomharc a dúnadh in 2019 ná an 1438 a dúnadh in 2018. Is é 2019 an chéad bhliain a dhún TAC níos mó achomharc ná a tháinig faoina bhráid, rud is cúis le titim 89 ar an líon achomharc atá ar láimh i ndeireadh na bliana. Tá léargas thíos ar na hachomhairc a dúnadh in 2019.

Achomhairc a Dúnadh in 2019

Fáth le Dúnadh an Achomhairc Líon Achomharc a Dúnadh Candam* €000Rinneadh socrú**** 119 59,442Díbheadh 95 12,645Tugadh le chéile / Comhdhlúite 4 800Diúltaíodh 184 8,358Glanadh 730 351,253D’aistarraing an tAchomharcóir 452 232,596IOMLÁN 1,584 665,094

* Féach Nóta 1 ar leathanach 47 a leagann amach conas a dhéantar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhiospóid’ a ríomh.

** Chun críche na hanailíse ar cheannteidil chánach rinneadh achomharc ina bhfuil níos mó ná ceannteideal amháin a ríomh mar aon achomharc arna chatagórú faoina phríomh-cheannteideal cánach. Is féidir teacht ar anailís ar ilchineálacha cánach níos faide anonn sa chaibidil seo.

*** Cuimsíonn ‘Eile’ C&E, DIRT, DWT, LPT, RCT agus Dleacht Stampaí.**** Bhí socrú amháin ann in 2019 a bhain le 32 achomharc aonair. De réir na

reachtaíochta, eisíodh 32 socrú aonair. 51

Achomhairc – Príomhchineálacha Cánach

Tá cuid mhór achomharc ann ina bhfuil níos mó ná aon chineál amháin cánach i gceist, nó níos mó ná cineál amháin creidmheasa, asbhainte, faoisimh nó díolúine. Tá eolas sa tábla thíos maidir leis na príomhchineálacha cánach a tháinig faoi dhíospóid thar na hachomhairc a osclaíodh agus a dúnadh in 2019:

* Chun críche na hanailíse ar cheannteideal cánach rinneadh achomharc ina bhfuil níos mó ná ceannteideal amháin a ríomh mar aon achomharc arna chatagóiriú faoina phríomhcheannteideal cánach. Is féidir teacht ar anailís ar ilchineálacha cánach níos faide anonn sa chaibidil seo.

** Féach nóta 1 ar lch 47 a leagann amach conas a ríomhtar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhíospóid.*** Seacht n-achomharc faighte sa tseachtain deiridh de Nollaig 2019 agus luach timpeall

€170 milliún acu. Dá mbainfí na hachomhairc den tsuim iomlán don bhliain, is é €209 milliún an candam le haghaidh achomharc in 2019.

**** Cuimsíonn ‘Eile’ C&E, DIRT, DWT, LPT, RCT agus Dleacht Stampaí.

Príomhchineál Cánach nó Saincheist Achomharc a Osclaíodh / Dúnadh in 2019

Cineál Cánach*

Líon Achomharc a Fuarthas

Candam**€000

Líon Achomharc a Dúnadh

Candam**€000

IT 625 43,760 777 117,638

CBL 311 30,074 256 80,712

VRT 184 542 175 409

CT*** 90 263,445 78 362,686

Eile**** 153 16,838 116 18,746

CGT 81 10,558 146 81,730

CAT 51 13,708 36 3,173

IOMLÁN 1,495 378,925 1,584 665,094

Le linn 2019, ba í an cháin ioncaim arís an cineál cánach is mó a spreag achomhairc – is léi a bhain 42% de na hachomhairc a fuarthas. Is CBL, VRT, CT agus CGT ba chúis le 45% eile de na hachomhairc idir lámha.

Bhí titim 281 ar an líon achomharc faoi cháin ioncaim a fuair an TAC, rud a d’fhág titim iomlán sa chéatadán ó 54% go 42%. San am céanna, tháinig fás 115 ar an líon achomharc CBL, rud a d’fhág méadú ar an gcéatadán iomlán don CBL ó 12% go 21%. Is cosúil a bheag nó a mhór na ceannteidil chánach sna hachomhairc a fuarthas in 2019 agus iad siúd a tháinig in 2018.

In 2019, fuair TAC 142 achomharc a thagair do ÍMAT, PRSI nó MSU. Idir na cineálacha seo cánach bhí 9% de gach cineál cánach i ndáil le hachomhairc a fuarthas in 2019. Cé go mbaineann cuid de na hachomhairc seo le ceisteanna inachomhairc, bhain cuid eile le dliteanas cánach seachas le hachomharc ar mheasúnuithe cánach nó socruithe. Is fearr a phléifí le ceisteanna den sórt trí chainéil seirbhíse custaiméara na gCoimisinéirí Ioncaim.

52

Leagann an tábla a leanas amach na 4 chineál cánach is mó dar tagraíodh in achomhairc ó 21 Márta 2016. Bhí méadú ar an líon achomharc tar éis 2016, rud ba chúis le méadú ar an líon achomharc faoi gach ceann de na 4 phríomhchineál cánach agus faoi na cineálacha cánach eile.

* Chun críche na hanailíse ar cheannteideal cánach rinneadh achomharc ina bhfuil níos mó ná ceannteideal amháin a ríomh mar aon achomharc arna chatagóiriú faoina phríomh-cheannteideal cánach. Is féidir teacht ar anailís ar ilchineálacha cánach níos faide anonn sa chaibidil seo.

Leagann an tábla a leanas amach na príomhchineálacha cánach faoi dhíospóid sna hachomhairc a osclaíodh agus a dúnadh ó bunaíodh an TAC in 2016:

Ceithre chineál cánach ar mó ar tagraíodh dóibh ó 2016 anall*

Líon Achomharc a Fuarthas (sa bhliain)

Líon Iomlán Achomharc a Fuarthas

IT CBL VRT CT

2016 901 472 87 104 522017 1,747 1,116 141 129 1262018 1,689 906 196 205 1312019 1,495 625 311 184 90

Príomhchineál cánach Achomharc a Osclaíodh / Dúnadh ó bhí 2016 ann*

Iomlán IT CT CGT CBL CAT VRT Eile**2016

Achomhairc Faighte 2,357 1,495 139 226 174 57 112 154Achomhairc Dúnta (206) (102) (14) (7) (9) (6) (31) (37)Iarmhéid 2,151 1,393 125 219 165 51 81 117

2017Achomhairc Faighte 1,747 1,116 126 97 141 35 129 103Achomhairc Dúnta (690) (409) (44) (72) (55) (11) (48) (51)Iarmhéid 3,208 2,100 207 244 251 75 162 169

2018Achomhairc Faighte 1,689 906 131 99 196 40 205 112Achomhairc Dúnta (1,438) (823) (95) (93) (107) (34) (169) (117)Iarmhéid 3,459 2,183 243 250 340 81 198 164

2019Achomhairc Faighte 1,495 625 90 81 311 51 184 153Achomhairc Dúnta (1,584) (777) (78) (146) (256) (36) (175) (116)Iarmhéid 3,370 2,031 255 185 395 96 207 201

53

Príomhchineálacha Cánach sna hAchomhairc a Osclaíodh / Dúnadh ó 2016 de réir Candaim*

Iomlán IT CT CGT CBL CAT VRT Eile**€m €m €m €m €m €m €m €m

2016Achomhairc faighte 1,476.68 482.57 511.23 224.53 97.98 67.35 0.17 92.85Achomhairc dúnta (10.99) (7.85) (0.13) (0.15) (0.27) (0.28) (0.06) (2.25)Iarmhéid 1,465.69 474.72 511.10 224.38 97.71 67.07 0.11 90.60

2017Achomhairc faighte 849.13 82.39 605.84 22.44 118.39 6.92 0.65 12.50Achomhairc dúnta (240.63) (35.51) (147.60) (44.63) (9.89) (1.34) (0.13) (1.53)Iarmhéid 2,074.19 521.60 969.34 202.19 206.21 72.65 0.63 101.57

2018Achomhairc faighte 2,532.25 91.74 2,333.75 17.10 71.11 9.62 1.82 7.11Achomhairc dúnta (569.01) (263.86) (188.55) (18.65) (23.04) (64.10) (0.37) (10.44)Iarmhéid 4,037.43 349.48 3,114.54 200.64 254.28 18.17 2.08 98.24

2019***Achomhairc faighte 378.93 43.76 263.45 10.56 30.07 13.71 0.54 16.84Achomhairc dúnta (665.1) (117.64) (362.69) (81.73) (80.71) (3.17) (0.41) (18.75)Iarmhéid 3,751.26 275.60 3,015.30 129.47 203.64 28.71 2.21 96.33

* Chun críche na hanailíse ar cheannteideal cánach rinneadh achomharc ina bhfuil níos mó ná ceannteideal amháin a ríomh mar aon achomharc arna chatagóiriú faoina phríomh-cheannteideal cánach. Is féidir teacht ar anailís ar ilchineálacha cánach níos faide anonn sa chaibidil seo

** Cuimsíonn ‘Eile’ RCT, LPT, C&E, DIRT, PSWT, Dleacht Stampa agus DWT

Leagann an tábla a leanas amach na príomhchineálacha cánach faoi dhíospóid sna hachomhairc a osclaíodh agus a dúnadh ó bunaíodh an TAC in 2016:

* Féach Nóta 1 ar leathanach 47 a leagann amach conas a dhéantar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhiospóid’ a ríomh. Chun críche na hanailíse ar cheannteidil chánach rinneadh achomharc ina bhfuil níos mó ná ceannteideal amháin a ríomh mar aon achomharc arna chatagórú faoina phríomh-cheannteideal cánach. Is féidir teacht ar anailís ar ilchineálacha cánach níos faide anonn sa chaibidil seo.

** Cuimsíonn ‘Eile’ RCT, LPT, C&E, DIRT, PSWT, Dleacht Stampa agus DWT*** Bhí seacht n-achomharc sa dá sheachtain dheireanacha de mhí na Nollag 2019 agus suim

timpeall €170 milliún in gceist iontu. Sa chás go bhfágfaí na hachomhairc sin as an iomlán don bhliain, ba é €209 milliún an figiúr candaim do na hachomhairc a fuarthas in 2019.

54

Ilchineálacha Cánach

Tugann an tábla thíos le fios an líon iomlán achomharc a phróiseáil an TAC thar cheithre chatagóir achomhairc (achomhairc 2016, 2017, 2018 agus 2019) inar mó ná aon chineál amháin cánach a bhí á achomharc.

In 2018, bhain 6.6% de gach achomharc le hilchineálacha cánach. Tháinig laghdú go 5.5% in 2019 ar an gcéatadán achomharc a bhain le hilchineálacha cánach. Tugann an tábla thíos le fios na príomhchineálacha cánach dar tagraíodh in achomhairc in 2019.

* Féach nóta 1 ar lch 47 a leagann amach conas a ríomhtar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhíospóid’.

Líon Achomharc le hIlchineálacha Cánach ó 21 Márta 2016

Líon Cineálacha Cánach

2019 2018 2017 2016

2 72 79 150 58

3 10 24 35 13

4 9 14 2

5 5 1

IOMLÁN 82 112 204 74

Achoimre ar phríomh-ilchineálacha cánach dar tagraíodh in achomhairc a fuarthas in 2019

Cineálacha Cánach Achomhairc le 2 Chineál

Cánach

Achomhairc le 3 Chineál

Cánach

Candam€000*

IT (ÍMAT/ÁSPC/MSU) 32 7 3,844

IT (CBL) 16 3,812

IT (LPT) 2 8

IT (CAT) 6 3,764

Eile 16 3 782

IOMLÁN 72 10 12,210

55

Achomhairc a liostaíodh le héisteacht in 2019

Le linn 2019, bhí i gceist 224 éisteacht a reáchtáil, a bhain do 624 achomharc lenar bhain candam iomlán €851m, thar 377 lá. In 2018, bhí i gceist 167 éisteacht a reáchtáil i ndáil le 248 achomhairc aonair le candam €58m. Mhair na héisteachtaí idir leath lae agus trí seachtaine.

Tugann an méid seo a leanas eolas ar thorthaí na n-éisteachtaí:

Toradh* 2019 Candam** 2018 Candam**

Le héisteacht ach curtha ar athló nó aistarraingte roimh éisteacht:Glanta / Aistarraingte roimh éisteacht 25 348,831 17 12,250Curtha ar athló roimh éisteacht 127 350,456 90 35,468

Fo-iomlán 152 699,287 107 47,718A chuaigh ar aghaidh:

S949AA – aistarraingte as neamhláithreacht 4 65 5 133Glanta tar éis éisteachta 9 14,820Tosaíodh an éisteacht ach cuireadh ar athló í 30 38,427 14 4,412Críochnaíodh éisteacht le haghaidh socrú a dhéanamh

29 98,753 41 5,452

Fo-iomlán 72 152,065 60 9,997IOMLÁN 224 851,352 167 57,715

* Is féidir gur tháinig athrú ar stádas achomhairc a luaitear thuas e.g. is féidir i gcás achomharc atá ‘críochnaithe le haghaidh socrú a dhéanamh’ go bhfuil siad sin socraithe faoi thráth foilsithe na tuarascála seo. Ar aon dul leis sin, tá achomhairc ann a cuireadh ar athlá ach atá faoin am seo ‘críochnaithe le haghaidh socrú a dhéanamh’

** Féach nóta 1 ar lch 47 a leagann amach conas a ríomhtar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhíospóid’.

Tá roinnt fáthanna a gcuirfí éisteacht ar athlá, e.g, le cead a thabhairt fianaise bhreise a chur isteach nó le leanúint den éisteacht ar lá eile mura mbíonn sé críochnaithe ar an gcéad lá. Chomh maith leis sin, ag brath ar imthosca, is féidir go gcuirfí éisteachtaí ar athlá chun fanacht le himeachtaí Cúirte atá le glacadh san áireamh ag Coimisinéir.

Cé go raibh 224 éisteacht le reáchtáil in 2019, cuireadh 127 éisteacht ar athlá sula raibh éisteacht ann, ainneoin go raibh páirtithe ar an eolas faoin infhaighteacht dátaí roimh ré. Bhí sé seo ina chúis le méadú ar éisteachtaí a cuireadh ar athlá i gcomparáid le 2018. I ngeall ar an méadú ar an gcur ar athlá, rinne an TAC athbhreithniú ar a nósanna imeachta i dtaca le héisteachtaí a reáchtáil agus thóg na céimeanna a leanas;

56

• Eisíonn an TAC fógraí faoi éisteachtaí idir 3 agus 6 mhí roimh ré, sa chaoi go mbeidh an t-am ann, má bhíonn cúrsaí le cur ar athlá, achomharc eile a reáchtáil ar lá an achomhairc a bhí le cur ar athlá

• Mhéadaigh an TAC an líon achomharc a sceidealaíodh le héisteacht le súil go gcuirfí cuid de na achomhairc ar athlá

Faoi dheireadh 2019, bhí 112 achomharc breise ar sceideal 2020. Baineann na hachomhairc seo le 208 achomharc aonair le candam iomlán €181m i gceist, agus meastar go mbeidh 200 lá ag teastáil le hiad a éisteacht. Cuirfear éisteachtaí eile ar an sceideal in imeacht na bliana.

Tugann an tábla eolas maidir leis an gcandam cánach atá i gceist, i ndáil le hachomhairc a bhí le héisteacht in 2019;

Toradh* Catagóir / Bliain a osclaíodh Iomlán

2019Candam**

2019€000

Iarmharach Roimh bhunú

2016 2017 2018

Le héisteacht ach curtha ar athló roimh éisteachtGlanta / Aistarraingte roimh éisteacht

13 3 4 5 25 348,831

Curtha ar athló roimh éisteacht- Ag Achomharcóir 35 8 15 16 1 75 270,777- Ag Ioncam 24 4 7 11 2 48 76,625- Ag an TAC 3 1 4 3,054

Fo-iomlán 72 15 29 33 3 152 699,287A chuaigh ar aghaidh:**Socraithe 2 2 9Glanta tar éis éisteachta 5 1 3 9 14,820S949AA – Aistarraingte as neamhláithreacht

1 1 2 4 65

Tosaíodh an éisteacht ach cuireadh ar athló í

20 3 1 3 3 30 38,427

Críochnaíodh éisteacht le haghaidh socrú a dhéanamh

11 3 2 5 6 27 98,744

Fo-iomlán 37 8 8 10 9 72 152,065Iomlán 109 23 37 43 12 224 851,352

* Is féidir go mbeadh athrú tagtha ar stádas achomhairc luaite thuas e.g. is féidir i gcás achomharc atá luaite thuas mar ‘críochnaithe le haghaidh socrú a dhéanamh’ go mbeadh an socrú déanta faoi thráth foilsithe na tuarascála seo.

** Féach nóta 1 ar lch 47 a leagann amach conas a ríomhtar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhíospóid’.

57

Socruithe

Líon socruithe a eisíodh in 2019

Líon Achomharc a Socraíodh Líon Achomharc lenar bhain

2019 2018 2017 2019 2018 2017

Socruithe a eisíodh gan gá le héisteacht (s. 949U)

48 17 8 49 17 8

Socruithe a eisíodh bainteach le hachomhairc a éisteadh in 2019

16 21

Socruithe a eisíodh bainteach le hachomhairc a éisteadh in 2018

3 18 4 18

Socruithe a eisíodh bainteach le hachomhairc a éisteadh in 2017*

41 3 11 42 5 13

Socruithe a eisíodh bainteach le hachomhairc a éisteadh in 2016

3 4 15 3 4 19

IOMLÁN 111 42 34 119 44 40

I gCuid 40A, Caibidil 5 de TCA 1997 tá foráil déanta i dtaobh fógra agus foilsiú ar shocruithe ag an TAC. Cuireann alt 949AO ceangal ar na Coimisinéirí Achomhairc tuarascáil a fhoilsiú faoi gach ceann dá socruithe ar shuíomh gréasáin an TAC tráth nach déanaí ná 90 lá tar éis do na páirtithe a bheith ar an eolas faoi sin. Tá leagtha amach thíos na mionsonruithe ar gach socrú a rinneadh in 2019 agus an tréimhse ábhartha foilsithe.

* Bhí socrú amháin ann in 2019 a bhain le 32 achomharc aonair. De réir na reachtaíochta, eisíodh 32 socrú aonair.

San iomlán foilsíodh 71 socrú a eisíodh in 2019 ar shuíomh gréasáin an TAC roimh dheireadh na bliana. Foilsíodh 40 socrú ar an suíomh gréasáin go luath in 2020. Mar sin féin, bhí 8 socrú fanta ann a chuir deireadh 5 huaire le 5 achomharc breise agus bhí socrú amháin ann a chuir deireadh le 3 cinn d’achomhairc aonair.

Níl macalla sa tábla thuas ar chastacht gach achomhairc ná an t-am a bhí ag teastáil chun iad a éisteacht agus a shocrú. Leis an éifeachtúlacht a mhéadú agus le dícheall úsáide a bhaint as acmhainní an TAC, déantar Comhdhálacha Bainistithe Cásanna a sceidealú nuair is dealraitheach go mbeadh siad mar chabhair le hachomharc a chur chun cinn. Sa chás gur cuí, iarrtar ar pháirtithe leas a bhaint as an áis in alt 949U go n-eiseofaí socrú gan gá le héisteacht.

58

Tugann an tábla a leanas eolas faoin gcandam cánach faoi dhíospóid i ndáil le socruithe a eisíodh in 2019 agus an catagóir/bliain a bhfuair TAC an t-achomharc:

Catagóir / Bliain a fuarthas Iomlán 2019

Candam*2019€000

Iarmharach Roimh bhunú

2016 2017 2018 2019

Socruithe a eisíodh gan gá le héisteacht (s. 949U)

1 7 14 19 8 49 430

Socruithe a eisíodh bainteach le hachomhairc a éisteadh in 2019

12 2 2 5 21 40,226

Socruithe a eisíodh bainteach le hachomhairc a éisteadh in 2018

2 1 1 4 757

Socruithe a eisíodh bainteach le hachomhairc a éisteadh in 2017**

39 2 1 42 17,906

Socruithe a eisíodh bainteach le hachomhairc a éisteadh in 2016

3 3 123

IOMLÁN 14 45 9 18 25 8 119 59,442

* Féach nóta 1 ar lch 47 a leagann amach conas a ríomhtar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhíospóid’.** Bhí socrú amháin ann in 2019 a bhain le 32 achomharc aonair. De réir na reachtaíochta,

eisíodh 32 socrú aonair.

59

Achoimre ar Shocruithe a eisíodh in 2019 de réir cineál cánach

2019 2018Cineál Cánach* Líon Achomharc

a SocraíodhCandam**

€000Líon Achomharc

a SocraíodhCandam**

€000IT 67 14,670 26 1,220CBL 10 21,493 5 1,855VRT 30 138 10 21CT 4 6,562 1 188Eile*** 6 16,521CGT 1 21CAT 1 37 2 237

IOMLÁN 119 59,442 44 3,521

* Chun críche na hanailíse ar cheannteideal cánach rinneadh achomharc ina bhfuil níos mó ná ceannteideal amháin a ríomh mar aon le hachomharc arna chatagórú faoina phríomh-cheannteideal cánach. Is féidir teacht ar anailís ar ilchineálacha cánach níos faide anonn sa chaibidil seo.

** Féach nóta 1 ar lch 47 a leagann amach conas a ríomhtar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhíospóid’. *** Cuimsíonn ‘Eile’ RCT, LPT, C&E, DIRT, PSWT, Dleacht Stampa agus DWT

Tugann an tábla a leanas léargas ar an líon iomlán achomharc a dúnadh in 2019:

* Féach nóta 1 ar lch 47 a leagann amach conas a ríomhtar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhíospóid’.** Bhí socrú amháin ann in 2019 a bhain le 32 achomharc aonair. De réir na reachtaíochta,

eisíodh 32 socrú aonair.

Fáth ar Dúnadh Achomharc Líon Achomharc a Dúnadh

Candam*€000

Socruithe Déanta** 119 59,442

Díbheadh 95 12,645

Tugadh le chéile 4 800

Diúltaithe 184 8,358

Glanta 730 351,253

Aistarraingte ag an Achomharcóir 452 232,596

IOMLÁN 1,584 665,094

60

Comhdhálacha Bainistithe Cásanna in 2019

Le linn 2019, sceidealaíodh 39 Comhdhálacha Bainistithe Cásanna (CBC), a bhain do 65 achomharc. Bhain 23 de na CBCanna seo le 47 cás aonair. Mhair na CBCanna idir níos lú ná uair an chloig agus dhá lá; níos lú ná lá a mhair a mbunús. Fuarthas gur mó an leas a bhí le CBCanna maidir le seanachomhairc a chur chun cinn nó sa chás go raibh constaic gan sárú in achomharc.

D’fhéadfaí na nithe seo a leanas a phlé ag CBC:

• soiléiriú a dhéanamh ar na saincheisteanna idir na páirtithe agus teacht ar réimsí inarbh fhéidir teacht ar chomhaontú;

• aon ábhar scríofa breise a aithint a bheadh le tabhairt isteach ag ceachtar páirtí roimh an éisteacht;

• an t-am a bheadh de dhíth ar an dá pháirtí ábhar breise scríofa a réiteach a bheidh riachtanach don éisteacht;

• cé acu a bheadh, nó nach mbeadh sé úsáideach roimh an éisteacht leagan comhaontaithe de na fíricí a bheith scríofa nó aon chur chuige comhaontaithe eile maidir le fianaise scríofa nó argóintí dlíthiúla a tharraingt le chéile a bheadh le cur faoi bhráid na héisteachta;

• a dhearbhú go bhfuil na treoracha ar fad a d’eisigh na Coimisinéirí Achomhairc san achomharc comhlíonta;

• an gá, chomh maith le soláthar an ábhair scríofa, aon chéim eile a thógáil roimh an éisteacht;

• meastachán a dhéanamh ar an am is gá don éisteacht; • teacht ar am agus dáta le haghaidh na héisteachta atá oiriúnach do gach páirtí;• déileáil le saincheisteanna tosaigh an cháis.

61

Ainneoin gur 39 a bhí ar an sceideal in 2019, cuireadh 14 ar athlá sular tionóladh CBC. I ngeall ar an méadú ar an gcur ar athlá, rinne TAC athbhreithniú ar a nósanna imeachta ó thaobh CBCanna a sceidealú agus thóg na céimeanna a leanas;

• Eisíonn TAC fógraí faoi CBC anois idir 3 agus 6 mhí roimh ré sa chaoi gur féidir, más rud é go gcuirfear ar athlá é, CBC nó éisteacht eile a sceidealú nó in ionad an CBC a chuirfí ar athlá.

• Mhéadaigh TAC an líon CBCanna a sceidealaíodh ar an tuiscint go mbeadh roinnt curtha ar athlá.

Líon CBC a tionóladh Líon Achomharc dar bhain

Toradh 2019 2018 2019 2018

Sceidealaithe ach ar athló roimh CBC:Glanta / Aistarraingte roimh CBC 2 13 2 28

Ar athló roimh CBC 14 36 16 186

Fo-iomlán 16 49 18 214

Chuaigh ar aghaidh

Glanta / Aistarraingte tar éis CBC 1 10 1 28

Díbheadh 17 18

Socrú le teacht gan gá dul chun éisteachta

1 3 4 4

CBC le sceidealú arís 2 28 2 114

Éisteacht le sceidealú arís 5 39 22 195

Ag dul ar aghaidh 14 13 18 27

Fo-iomlán 23 110 47 386

IOMLÁN 39 159 65 600

Tugann an méid seo a leanas eolas faoi thorthaí na CBCanna a bhí le reáchtáil in 2019:

62

Toradh* Catagóir / Bliain a Fuarthas Iomlán do

2019

Candam**2019€000

Legacy Pre- Est’t

2016 2017 2018

Sceidealaithe ach ar athló roimh CBC:Glanta / Aistarraingte roimh CBC

1 1 2 19,130

Ar athló roimh CBC 3 4 6 1 14 49,770Fo-iomlán 3 5 6 2 16 68,900

Chuaigh ar aghaidhGlanta / Aistarraingte tar éis CBC

1 1 190

Socrú le teacht gan gá dul chun éisteachta

1 1 20,568

CBC le sceidealú arís 2 2Éisteacht le sceidealú arís 3 2 5 46,289Ag dul ar aghaidh 2 2 1 3 6 14 12,061

Fo-iomlán 7 4 3 3 6 23 79,108

IOMLÁN 10 9 9 5 6 39 148,008

Tugann an tábla a leanas eolas faoi chatagóir/bliain a sceidealaigh an TAC CBC in 2019:

* Is féidir go mbeadh athrú tagtha ar stádas achomhairc luaite thuas e.g. is féidir i gcás achomharc atá luaite thuas mar ‘críochnaithe le haghaidh socrú a dhéanamh’ go mbeadh an socrú déanta faoi thráth foilsithe na tuarascála seo.

** Féach nóta 1 ar lch 47 a leagann amach conas a ríomhtar an figiúr ‘candam faoi dhíospóid’.

63

Chomh maith le 1,584 achomharc a dhúnadh in 2019, rinne TAC na nithe seo a leanas:

• D’eisigh 552 iarratas ar Ráiteas Cáis ó Achomharcóirí i ndáil le 484 achomharc agus 528 ó na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim, i ndáil le 480 achomharc aonair

• D’eisigh 39 iarratas ar Imlíne Argóna ón Achomharcóir i ndáil le 35 achomharc aonair agus 38 iarratas ó Ioncam, i ndáil le 35 achomharc aonair

• Chomhlíon 349 iarratas (a rinne Coimisinéirí Ioncaim nó Achomharcóirí) ar shíneadh ama le teacht le treoir ón TAC, i ndáil le 228 achomharc

• Chomhlíon iarratas ar bhac sa phróiseas 39 babhta, i ndáil le 36 achomharc• Thionóil 39 Comhdháil Bainistithe Cáis, i ndáil le 65 achomharc• Liostaigh 224 éisteacht i ndáil le 624 achomharc• D’eisigh 111 socrú i ndáil le 119 achomharc.

Seo thíos mar atá cúrsaí ag deireadh na bliana:

* Rinneadh athbhreithniú in 2019 ar gach cás a osclaíodh agus a dúnadh ar an gCóras Bainistithe Cásanna ó 21 Márta 2016. Rinneadh athbhreithniú faoi leith ar gach achomharc aonair. Rinneadh anailís ar aon mhíréir nó aon dúbailt agus leasaíodh sin dá réir, rud a fhágann nach ionann go díreach na figiúirí thuas agus an figiúr i dTuarascáil Bhliantúil 2018.

Dul chun Cinn ar Achomhairc le linn 2019

Catagóir Líon Achomharc ar Láimh Difear

Deireadh 2018* Deireadh 2019

Iarmharach 731 526 (205)Roimh Bhunú 170 96 (74)2016 278 192 (86)2017 1,082 878 (204)2018 1,198 841 (357)2019 837 837IOMLÁN 3,459 3,370 (89)

Comhfhreagras an TAC maidir le hachomhairc a chur chun cinn in 2019

Achomharcóir Ioncam Iomlán

Líon síntí dar toilíodh 180 169 349Líon iarratas ar eolas breise 259 87 346Líon iarratas ar bhac dar toilíodh 22 17 39Líon ráiteas faoi chás a iarradh 552 528 1,080Líon imlínte argóna a iarradh 39 38 77

64

Rialachas agus Riarachán

Tiocfaidh athrú in 2020 ar struchtúr rialachais an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach nuair a cheapfar Cathaoirleach de réir an Achta Airgeadais (Rialacháin Achomharc Cánach agus Réamheolaire) 2019. Tosaíodh ar earcaíocht don phost seo in Eanáir 2020.

Faoi láthair, tá beirt Choimisinéirí Achomhairc sa Choimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach. Luaitear go sonrach a bpríomhfheidhmeanna in alt 6 den Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015. Anuas ar a gcuid oibre i ndáil le próiseáil, moltóireacht agus socrú na n-achomharc, tá na Coimisinéirí Achomhairc freagrach as reáchtáil chuí, éifeachtach éifeachtúil an Choimisiúin.

Faoin Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015, bíonn seal seacht mbliana ag na Coimisinéirí um Achomhairc agus tá siad cuntasach don Aire Airgeadais agus, tríd an Aire sin, don Oireachtas maidir lena bhfeidhmiú. Mar sin de, ní mór dóibh tuarascáil bhliantúil a leagan faoi bhráid an Aire ar an 31 Márta gach bliain, nó roimhe sin, ar ghnóthaí na bliana roimhe; is ag comhlíonadh an dualgais sin atáthar leis an tuarascáil seo. Tá na Coimisinéirí cuntasach chomh maith i ndáil le haon tuarascálacha eile a d’iarrfadh an tAire de bhun alt 21 d’Acht 2015.

Is comhlacht de chuid na Státseirbhíse é an Coimisiún, faoi choimirce na Roinne Airgeadais agus dá réir sin, ó thaobh a bhainistíochta agus a oibríochtaí de, tá sé faoi threoir ag Cód Caighdeán agus Iompair na Státseirbhíse. Déanfar an Cód Rialachais, atá bunaithe ar an gCód Caighdeán, a nuashonrú tar éis cheapachán an Chathaoirligh de réir mar a fheidhmeofar na moltaí atá i dTuarascáil O’Donoghue.

Córas Bainistithe CásannaI Meán Fómhair 2019, cheap an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach (TAC) bainisteoir nua TEF agus dualgas air an córas reatha bainistithe cásanna (CMS) a leasú agus a chothabháil. In R4 2019, thosaigh an Coimisiún ar thionscnamh a dhéanfadh luacháil ar an bhféidearthacht córas nua bainistithe cásanna a fhorbairt a d’fhéadfadh tacú leis an TAC agus é ag iarraidh a chuid cuspóirí straitéiseacha a bhaint amach, de réir mar a moladh i dTuarascáil O’Donoghue.

In 2019, rinneadh leasú agus cothabháil ar an gcóras bainistithe cásanna a úsáidtear sa TAC sna réimsí tábhachtacha seo a leanas:

• Tuairisciú: Leasú ar staidreamh, ar am seachadta, éascaíocht úsáide agus soláthar tuairiscí.

• Leasuithe ar phróiseas: uathoibriú leasaithe ar bhainistiú cásanna. • Slándáil.

Díríodh go sonrach ar an tuairisciú le linn 2019, óir is fearr i ngeall ar chruinntuairisciú a bheas an táirgiúlacht, an anailís agus an déanamh cinntí, agus an chumarsáid eagraíochta. Úsáidtear

65

tuairiscí a ghintear chun monatóireacht agus feabhsú a dhéanamh ar an soláthar laistigh den TAC agus chun faisnéis a ghiniúint is gá chun tuairisciú do chomhlachtaí eile rialtais, m.sh. an Roinn Airgeadais nó comhaltaí Oireachtais.

Tá de chuspóir ag an bhforbairt ar chóras bainistithe cásanna an TAC ná feabhsú a dhéanamh ar an soláthar seirbhísí do pháirtithe leasmhara, tuilleadh céimeanna sa phróiseas achomhairc a dhéanamh go huathoibríoch, faisnéis níos cothroime le dáta a chur ar fáil, staidreamh iontaofa agus tráthúla a chur ar fáil chun bainistíocht an phróisis achomharc a éascú, agus chun an tuairisciú a éascú do pháirtithe leasmhara seachtracha.

Tá roinnt leasuithe eile beartaithe i réimse an TEF in 2020, mar atá Bonneagar, Líonra, Teileachumarsáid, Slándáil agus Crua-Earraí.

Bainistíocht Cásanna agus SceidealúI Meán Fómhair 2019, ceapadh beirt Choimisinéirí Sealadacha Achomhairc sa Choimisiún Achomhairc um Chánach (duine amháin acu páirtaimseartha). Thosaigh Coimisinéir eile Sealadach Achomhairc ina phost i Nollaig 2019. Dá bharr sin bhí deis tuilleadh éisteachtaí a reáchtáil agus socruithe a chur chun cinn faoi ghnás alt 949U (moltóireacht gan éisteacht).

Le linn 2019, bhí i gceist 224 éisteacht a reáchtáil i ndáil le 624 achomharc agus candam iomlán €851 milliún ann, thar 377 lá d’éisteachtaí. In 2018, bhí i gceist 167 éisteacht i ndáil le 248 achomharc agus candam iomlán €58 milliún ann, agus sin thar 202 lá d’éisteachtaí. Cé go raibh ganntanas seomraí éisteachta ann in 2018, ba mhó an líon éisteachtaí casta a sceidealaíodh in 2019, rud ab fhíor chomh maith i dtaca leis an gcandam iomlán airgid a bhí faoi achomhairc i ndáil leis na hachomhairc in 2019. Is idir leathlae agus trí seachtaine a mhair na héisteachtaí.

Tionóladh 39 Comhdháil Bainistithe Cásanna (CBC) maidir le 65 achomharc in 2019 agus candam €148 i gceist. I gcomparáid leis sin, bhí i gceist 159 CBC a reáchtáil in 2018. Fuarthas gur mó an leas a bhí le CBCanna maidir le seanachomhairc a chur chun cinn nó sa chás go raibh constaic gan sárú in achomharc. Dá thoradh sin, bhí líon mór achomharc iarmharach ar an sceideal do 2018. Ní raibh an call céanna ann CBCanna a reáchtáil in 2019. Ó dheireadh 2019 amach, tá i gceist 110 éisteacht bhreise a reáchtáil in 2020 i ndáil le 188 achomharc aonair le candam €188 milliún. Tá spás cruthaithe ag an aonad sceidealaithe sa sceideal tar éis na héisteachta, le go mbeidh deis ag na Coimisinéirí a gcuid socruithe scríofa a dhréachtú. Sa chás go nglantar achomharc sceidealaithe, tá pleanáil déanta ag an aonad sceidealaithe a dhéanann foráil ar achomhairc eile a sceidealú más gearr féin an fógra.

Cód Rialachais agus Ráiteas Straitéise D’fhoilsigh an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach Ráiteas Straitéise trí bliana in 2017 agus

66

clúdaítear ann tréimhse 2017-2020. Déanfar athbhreithniú ar an Ráiteas Straitéise i gcomhar le hathleasú ar an gCód Rialachais tar éis cheapachán an Chathaoirligh

Bainistiú Riosca agus Iniúchadh Inmheánach Bainistiú Riosca

Le linn 2019, bhunaigh an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach (TAC) Coiste Iniúchta agus Riosca. Ba é an Príomh-Oifigeach Oibríochtaí a rinne comhordú ar an bpróiseas. Bhí a chéad chruinniú ag an gcoiste i nDeireadh Fómhair 2019.

Réitíodh dréacht-chlár rioscaí corparáideacha roimh chruinniú na Nollag den ARC. Sainaithníodh na rioscaí straitéiseacha agus oibríochtúla agus rinneadh luacháil orthu i bhfianaise chuspóirí an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach mar atá leagtha amach sa Ráiteas Straitéise 2017-2020.

Sainaithníonn an clár rioscaí na rioscaí is tábhachtaí atá os comhair an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach. Tá luacháil agus grádú déanta ar na rioscaí seo de réir a dhóchúla atá siad agus a dtionchair. Tá mionsonraí sa chlár rioscaí ar na gníomhartha is gá chun na rioscaí a mhaolú.

Tar éis a athbhreithnithe ag an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach, cuireadh an dréacht-chlár rioscaí faoi bhráid an ARC. Rinne an ARC athbhreithniú ar an gclár rioscaí i Nollaig 2019 agus thug aiseolas don Choimisiún.

Tá an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach faoi láthair ag ceapadh agus ag bailchríochnú Polasaí agus Córas Bainistithe Riosca. Ach a mbeidh sin críochnaithe amach, cuirfear i bhfeidhm é chun monatóireacht agus uasdátú a dhéanamh ar chlár riosca an TAC lena chinntiú go ndéantar bearta oiriúnacha chun rioscaí a mhaolú a d’fhéadfadh dul i dtionchar ar chuspóirí an TAC.

In 2019 cláraíodh Oifigeach um Chosaint Sonraí leis an gCoimisiún um Chosaint Sonraí chun an Rialachán Ginearálta um Chosaint Sonraí (GDPR) a chomhlíonadh. Cuireadh oiliúint bhreise ar an Oifigeach um Chosaint Sonraí. Chuir duine ar iasacht ón Roinn Airgeadais tacaíocht ar fáil maidir le polasaithe agus próisis chosanta sonraí, lena n-áirítear Polasaí Cosanta Sonraí. Cuireadh oiliúint ar an bhfoireann ar fad ag an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach i dtaca le GDPR agus tá siad ar fad ar an eolas faoi phróisis an pholasaí.

Iniúchadh InmheánachLe linn 2019 d’eisigh na hiniúchóirí inmheánacha tuarascálacha i ndáil leis na nithe seo a leanas:

67

• Athbhreithniú ar bhainistiú Taifead agus ar chórais, pholasaithe agus phróisis maidir leis an tSaoráil Faisnéise.

• Athbhreithniú ar a Éifeachtaí atá Rialúcháin Inmheánacha

I mí Mheán Fómhair 2019, rinneadh próiseas tairisceana le haghaidh seirbhísí iniúchta inmheánacha tríd an Oifig Soláthair Rialtais (OGP). Bronnadh an conradh agus cuirfidh na hIniúchóirí a bplean trí bliana faoi bhráid an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach agus an ARC go luath in 2020.

Ard-Reachtaire Cuntas agus CisteTar éis iniúchadh eatramhach agus iniúchadh deiridh a dhéanamh i ndáil leis an mbliain dar críoch 31 Nollaig 2018, d’eisigh an tArd-Reachtaire Cuntas agus Ciste a thuairim ar an gCuntas Leithreasaithe, an Ráiteas faoi Smacht Airgeadais Inmheánach, agus cúrsaí eile ar 23 Meán Fómhair 2019.

Bhí an ARCC ar aon intinn go bhfuil ionadaíocht chuí sna Cuntais Leithreasaithe a réitigh an Coimisiún ar na hAdmhálacha agus Caiteachas Vóta 10 – Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach don bhliain dar críoch 31 Nollaig 2018. Thug ARCC an tuairim uathu go bhfuair siad dóthain fianaise cuí agus iad i mbun iniúchta. Maidir leis an Ráiteas faoi Smacht Airgeadais Inmheánach, níl de dhualgas ar an ARCC tuairisciú a dhéanamh i ndáil leis an bhfaisnéis laistigh den ráiteas sin ach amháin i gcás eisceachta. Don bhliain dar críoch 31 Nollaig 2018 dúirt an ARCC ‘nach raibh aon bhlas le tuairisciú i ndáil leis sin’.

Tharla iniúchadh an ARCC i ndáil leis an mbliain dar críoch 31 Nollaig 2019 in Eanáir/Feabhra 2020 agus beidh an t-iniúchadh deiridh ag an ARCC ar siúl tar éis 31 Márta 2020.

Acmhainní Daonna Tá dualgas ar an Oifigeach Acmhainní Daonna maidir le soláthar an róil Acmhainní Daonna (HR) sa Choimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach. Déantar é seo i gcomhar le seirbhísí eile a sholáthraíonn na Coimisinéirí Ioncaim faoi Chomhaontú Leibhéal Seirbhíse (SLA). Forálann an SLA go dtabharfaidh Ioncam tacaíocht riaracháin don ról HR sa Choimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach.

In 2019, thacaigh an tOifigeach HR leis an bpróiseas PMDS a fheidhmiú agus a riachtanais oiliúna agus forbartha a chomhlíonadh. Seo a leanas na réimsí inar cuireadh oiliúint ar fáil: TEF, bainistiú riosca, GDPR, HR, agallamh a chur, cumarsáid, bainistiú tionscnaimh agus ionduchtú. Thug na Bainisteoirí Cáis sa TAC modúil oiliúna istigh sa teach ar shainréimsí cánach. Thug an Roinn Airgeadais tacaíocht bhreise don TAC maidir lena chuspóirí oiliúna a chur chun cinn trína éascú d’fhoireann an TAC freastal ar an gcúrsa Dioplóma i mBeartas agus i gCleachtas Cánach.

68

I mí an Mhárta 2019 ghlac an TAC córas coimeádta ama agus freastail de láimh do na gráid Ard-Oifigeach Feidhmiúcháin agus faoi sin. Tacaíonn an córas leis an gCoimisiún an tAcht um Eagrú Ama Oibre. Tá conradh socraithe anois chun córas leictreonach a chur isteach go luath in 2020.

In 2019 ní raibh teacht fós ag an gCoimisiún ar an ardán Seirbhísí Comhroinnte HR. Mar sin féin, tá nasc cumarsáide idir Seirbhísí Comhroinnte HR agus an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach agus déantar taifid a nuashonrú de láimh. Déanann Ionad Seirbhísí Comhroinnte Pá-rolla bainistiú ar phá-rolla an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach.

EarcaíochtIn 2019, d’iarr an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach (TAC) lena fhoireann a mhéadú tríd an earcaíocht de réir na moltaí a bhí i dTuarascáil O’Donoghue. Dhearbhaigh an tAire Airgeadais, an tUas. Pascal Donohoe T.D. ceapachán triúr Coimisinéirí Achomhairc Sealadacha. Tar éis an dearbhaithe sin, ceapadh beirt Choimisinéirí lánaimseartha agus Coimisinéir amháin páirtaimseartha sa TAC in R3 agus R4 de 2019.

Thosaigh Príomh-Oifigeach Oibríochtaí ag leibhéal Príomh-Oifigigh ag obair sa TAC Feabhra 2019. Roimhe sin bhí beirt Phríomh-Oifigeach ar iasacht sa ról ón Roinn Airgeadais ar bhonn conartha téarma sheasta.

In 2019, mhéadaigh an TAC a líon foirne tríd an earcaíocht ó phainéil Ceapachán Seirbhíse Poiblí. Ceapadh triúr Príomh-Oifigeach Cúnta, duine amháin ina Bhainisteoir TEF, ó Phainéil Ceapachán Seirbhíse Poiblí (PAS). Rinneadh Ard-Oifigeach Feidhmiúcháin, ceathrar Oifigeach Feidhmiúcháin agus ceathrar Oifigeach Cléireachais a earcú chomh maith tríd an PAS.

Reáchtáladh dhá chomórtas inmheánacha sa TAC in 2019, ceann le haghaidh ardú céime ó Oifigeach Cléireachais go hOifigeach Feidhmiúcháin agus rinneadh ceapachán amháin ón gcomórtas seo. Reáchtáladh comórtas eile le haghaidh ardú céime ó Oifigeach Feidhmiúcháin go hArd-Oifigeach Feidhmiúcháin agus rinneadh dhá cheapachán ón bpainéal seo. Reáchtáladh an dá chomórtas seo de réir threoirlínte Oifig an Choimisiúin um Cheapacháin sa tSeirbhís Phoiblí (CCSP).

Bhí foráil san Acht Airgeadais (Rialacháin Achomharc Cánach agus Réamheolaire) 2019, a tháinig i bhfeidhm i mí na Nollag 2019, ar Chathaoirleach a cheapadh sa TAC. Tosaíodh ar an bpróiseas earcaíochta i mí Eanáir 2020. Tá súil ag an TAC go mbeidh a líon iomlán foirne ann faoin 2020.

69

Tuarascálacha Alt 21Chuir na Coimisinéirí um Achomhairc Tuarascáil Bhliantúil 2018 i láthair an Aire Airgeadais i Márta 2019, mar chomhlíonadh alt 21(1) den Acht Airgeadais (Achomhairc Chánach) 2015.

Le linn 2019 ní dhearna na Coimisinéirí aon tuarascáil don Aire Airgeadais de bhun alt 21(5) d’Acht 2015, agus níor iarr an tAire go gcuirfí aon tuarascáil isteach de bhun alt 21(6) den Acht.

Teagmháil le 3ú PáirtitheBhí teagmháil shuntasach ag an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach le 3ú Páirtithe le linn 2019, lena n-áirítear na dreamanna seo:

• Oifig na gCoimisinéirí Ioncaim;• Oifig na nOibreacha Poiblí;• Oifig an tSoláthair Phoiblí;• Oifig an Ard-Reachtaire Cuntais agus Ciste;• Seirbhís na gCeapachán Poiblí;• Institiúid Chánach na hÉireann;• Binse Cánach na Ríochta Aontaithe;• Gníomhaireacht Chánach Náisiúnta na Seapáine;• Cumann Idirnáisiúnta na mBreithiúna Cánach;• An Chartlann Náisiúnta;

Bhí an-toradh ar na caidrimh oibre seo agus leanadh dóibh sa chaoi go mbeidh bunús níos láidre ag an gCoimisiún ónar féidir a oibríochtaí a leasú in 2020. Leanfaimid den obair i gcomhar leis na forais seo le torthaí atá le leas na ndreamanna ar fad a chur chun cinn.

SolátharRinne an Coimisiún roinnt gníomhartha soláthair le linn 2019. Orthu sin bhí na nithe seo a leanas:

• Seirbhísí Dlíthiúla;• Seirbhísí Iniúchta Inmheánaigh; • Córas Ama agus Tinrimh; • Bogearraí/Crua-earraí TFC;• Tuarascáil Bhliantúil a Dhearadh agus a Chló

70

Rinneadh gach iarratas ar fhreastal de réir Chreat Soláthair an Rialtais, an córas ríomhfhreastail, nó de réir treoracha soláthair sa chás gur lú ná an tairseach mholta a bhí luach an fhreastail.

Athbhreithniú ar Ualach Oibre agus ar Oibríochtaí an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc ChánachFoilsíodh tuarascáil ar ualach oibre agus ar oibríochtaí an Choimisiúin um Achomhairc Chánach le Niamh O’Donoghue, iar-Ard-Rúnaí ar an Roinn Coimirce Sóisialaí, i nDeireadh Fómhair 2018. Bhí líon moltaí sa Tuarascáil i ndáil le foireann, le hacmhainní, le rialachas agus le hoibríochtaí. Chuir an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach fáilte roimh an tuarascáil agus rinneadh dul chun cinn suntasach le linn 2019 chun na moltaí ann a chur i bhfeidhm le tacaíocht an Aire agus na Roinne Airgeadais.

De réir mholtaí na Tuarascála, rinneadh leasuithe i réimsí an rialachais, struchtúr na heagraíochta, bainistiú cásanna, tacaíochtaí corparáideacha agus oibríochtaí. In 2020, leanfaidh an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach de bheith ag obair i dtreo na leasuithe a moladh sa Tuarascáil a a chur i gcrích, go háirithe maidir leis an TEF agus an próiseas a leasú.

71

Cistiú agus Caiteachas

Maoinítear an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach trí Vóta 10 na Meastachán faofa ag Dáil Éireann. Tá méadú suntasach le blianta beaga anuas ar na leithdháiltí don Choimisiún agus dá réamhtheachtaí, an OAC, i ngeall go príomha ar chaiteachas méadaithe ar fhoireann agus ar chóras TF a tháinig leis an athchóiriú ar an gcóras achomharc cánach. Ba iad €1.605 milliún agus €1.626 milliún agus €3.208 milliún faoi seach na leithdháiltí (‘na Meastacháin’) don Choimisiún in 2017 agus 2018 agus 2019.

Leagann an tábla seo thíos amach anailís ar chaiteachas an TAC ar riaracháin in 2019.

De réir fhorálacha an Achta um Ard-Reachtaire Ciste agus Cuntais (Leasú) 1993, tá Oifigeach Cuntais an Choimisiúin freagrach as an gCuntas Dílsithe do Vóta 10 a réiteach agus a chur isteach chuig an Ard-Reachtaire Cuntais agus Ciste faoin 31 Márta gach bliain. Tá sé seo déanta i leith 2019 agus táthar ag súil go mbeidh cuntais iniúchta an Choimisiúin foilsithe ag an Ard-Reachtaire Ciste agus Cuntais níos déanaí sa bhliain mar chuid dá thuarascáil do 2019 ar chuntais na seirbhíse poiblí.

Ábhar an Chaiteachais 2019 Measta

2019 Fíor

2018 Fíor

2017 Fíor

€000 €000 €000 €000

Tuarastal, pá agus liúntais 2,508 1,407 1,148 753

Taisteal agus cothú 40 2 4 1

Oiliúint agus forbairt agus costais theagmhasacha 100 73 98 91

Seirbhísí poist agus teileachumarsáide 20 13 8 9

Trealamh oifige agus seirbhísí seachtracha TEF 420 162 117 252

Caiteachas ar áitreabh oifige 50 23 4 16

Comhairleoireacht agus seirbhísí eile 70 93 48 0

Caiteachas Iomlán 3,208 1,773 1,426 1,122

72

Aguisín - Cairt Seirbhíse do Chustaiméirí

Tá an Coimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach tiomanta do chaighdeán ard seirbhíse a chur ar fáil de réir na bprionsabal, na gcleachtas agus na nósanna imeachta atá leagtha amach sa Chaighdeán don Rialachas Corparáideach sa Státseirbhís agus, go sonrach, leis an gCód Cleachtais do Rialachas Comhlachtaí Stáit. Oibríonn an TAC de réir na bprionsabal i dtaca le Seirbhísí Ardchaighdeáin do Chustaiméirí atá faofa ag an Rialtas.

Cuireann an oifig seo próiseas achomharc neamhspleách ar fáil maidir le díospóidí cánach a éisteacht agus moltóireacht a dhéanamh orthu, sa chaoi go n-éistimid agus go socraímid achomhairc ar chinntí agus ar shocruithe na gCoimisinéirí Ioncaim, maidir le cáin agus dleacht.

Leagann an Chairt seo amach na caighdeáin is rún dúinn a chomhlíonadh maidir lenár bhfeidhm dhleachtach. Déanfaimid ár bhfeidhmiú a thomhas agus a luacháil agus déanfaimid tuarascáil ar na torthaí gach bliain sa Tuarascáil Bhliantúil.

Teagmháil Teileafóin Sa chás go ndéanfaidh tú teagmháil teileafóin le TAC, déanfaimid tréaniarracht na nithe seo a leanas a dhéanamh:

• do ghlao a fhreagairt chomh luath agus is féidir;• ár n-ainm agus ár réimse oibre a thabhairt ar fhreagairt do ghlao dúinn;• bheith cúirtéiseach cuidiúil i rith ama;• do cheist a fhreagairt go hiomlán nó, sa chás nach féidir sin, do mhionsonraí a thógáil

agus glaoch ar ais ort chomh luath agus is féidir;• gach teachtaireacht ghlórphoist a fhreagairt go pras.

Comhfhreagras ScríofaMá chuireann tú litir, facs nó ríomhphost chugainn, déanfaimid tréaniarracht na nithe a leanas a dhéanamh:

• a chinntiú go bhfaighidh tú freagra iomlán tráth nach déanaí ná 20 lá oibre;• ainm teagmhála, uimhir thagartha (más cuí) agus sonraí eile teagmhála a chur leis

(teileafón, facs, r-phost);• scríobh chugat i dteanga shimplí shoiléir gan téarmaí teicniúla a úsáid, seachas nuair

is gá.

Gearáin leis an TACMá dhéanann tú gearán leis an TAC, faoinár ngníomhartha, déanfaimid iarracht na nithe a leanas a dhéanamh:

73

• do ghearán a admháil tráth nach déanaí ná seacht lá;• a insint duit cá fhad a d’fhéadfadh sé glacadh orainn an gearán a scrúdú;• tú a choinneáil ar an eolas maidir le dul chun cinn an scrúdaithe;• tú a chur ar an eolas chomh pras agus chomh soiléir agus is féidir faoi thoradh an

scrúdaithe.

Cuairteoirí ar an TACMá thagann tú ar cuairt chuig an TAC, déanfaimid na nithe seo:

• caitheamh leat go cúirtéiseach, i gcead do do phríobháideacht, oiread agus is féidir, agus a bheith cothrom sa phlé a bheidh againn leat;

• bualadh leat ag an am comhaontaithe, sa chás go mbeidh coinne agat;• ár ndícheall a dhéanamh áiseanna cuí a chur ar fáil le haghaidh éisteachta nó

cruinnithe, sa chás;• ár n-oifigí poiblí a choinneáil néata glan, á chinntiú go bhfuil siad ag teacht le

caighdeáin sláinte agus sábháilteachta.

Cothromas/Éagsúlacht• Táimid tiomanta do chaighdeán ardcháilíochta a chur ar fáil a thacaíonn le cearta duine

aonair go gcaithfí go cothrom leis de réir reachtaíochta um chothromas; beidh sé mar sprioc againn a chinntiú go mbeidh seirbhísí agus saoráidí inrochtana ag cách, iad siúd a bhfuil sainriachtanais acu san áireamh.

Seirbhís as GaeilgeMá iarrann duine a dhéanann teagmháil leis an gCoimisiún um Achomhairc Chánach seirbhís trí Ghaeilge, déanfaimid ár ndícheall teagmháil as Gaeilge a dhéanamh leis an duine; sa chás nach mbeimid ábalta, déanfaimid ár ndícheall seirbhísí ateangaire a fháil.

Nós Imeachta AthbhreithnitheBíonn beartas agus nósanna imeachta an TAC faoi athbhreithniú leanúnach ag an mbainistíocht laistigh den eagraíocht agus tá siad faoi réir ag iniúchadh seachtrach an ARCC.

74

75

76

www.taxappeals.ie