Michael Lowry (Tipperary North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 19, to delete lines 10 to 28.

I refer to section 29(9) of the Bill, which provides that the High Court may direct that an appeal may be reheard by the new Appeal Commissioners in circumstances where a case stated is completed and signed by one of the incoming Appeal Commissioners. This does not make any sense. The very same commissioners who completed and signed the case stated are being asked to rehear the appeal. If the High Court has a problem with a case stated, there is an existing remedy which is to remit it to the Appeal Commissioners for amendment, not rehearing. This is the normal procedure and it is catered for in the proposed section 949AR(2). The Minister of State should understand that appeal hearings are hugely time consuming and take months and sometimes years of preparation. They are hugely expensive for the taxpayer and the Revenue alike. As such, section 949AR(2) already provides for the appropriate mechanism for the High Court to remit a case stated without the requirement to restart the whole process again. The Bill should not expose the taxpayer to the time and cost of having an appeal reheard in circumstances where the appeal has already been determined. The principal point is that any appeal determination already made should stand and not be capable of being reversed whether it was won or lost under any circumstances. Appeals that have been adjudicated on and in respect of which determinations have been made should not, under any circumstances, be reversed. I ask for confirmation that it is the intention of the Bill that this situation remains the same. In other words, where an appeal is still in the process but has been adjudicated upon by the outgoing commissioners, the decision should stand and not be impacted by the measures within the Bill.

It is all very fine for the Revenue Commissioners, with the huge resources at their disposal, to wish to undertake an appeal rehearing but the imposition on the taxpayer is enormous. Anyone who has had any dealings with an appeal, whether a business, private entity or anyone else, will understand that the process is hugely expensive. It is fine for the Revenue Commissioners who are, in effect, dealing with public money but individuals and company must find their own resources and that can be an enormous imposition on them. Once a decision has been made by the Appeal Commissioners, it should be sacrosanct. Section 29(8) and section 29(9) should be deleted from the Bill.

See this speech in context