Mr. Brian Duffy:

The example of family law matters is a good one. The reason restricted reporting was introduced in that arena was basically because plaintiffs, defendants and practitioners had no idea of the basis of decisions made by the family courts. It was decided that limited reporting would be introduced. Reporters are allowed into certain sessions but must report under very restrictive conditions. This was only introduced in 2013 but what has happened slowly is that there is more transparency with reports published. While names and other details would be redacted, people are able to see the basis of the legal decisions made.

That is a good example of how one can get transparency in the system while protecting the privacy of taxpayers. At the moment, there is a legislative basis for the Appeal Commissioners to publish their determinations. I suspect that because they have a big enough workload, they cannot get around to this or that they do not have the resources to delegate that function. The only party that actually knows about the jurisprudence value of the Appeal Commissioners is the Revenue Commissioners because they are on the side of all tax appeal cases. They have the knowledge but do not share it necessarily with the taxpayer. A taxpayer can go down the route of an appeal without knowing a case similar to theirs has already been determined and lost. By taking a leaf out of the family law book, it would be helpful to set up a precedent bank.

It also seems the Office of the Appeal Commissioners will have the power to increase its staffing levels. Currently there are only two Appeal Commissioners but that number will increase to three. Perhaps the office might envisage court reporters doing technical analysis of and research into cases. If it will now be the job of the Appeal Commissioner to draft a case stated document, it sounds like the process is moving in the right direction in producing a proper jurisprudence to which taxpayers will have access.