A Wexford man is liable for a tax and interest bill of just over €2 million following an assessment by a Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab) inspector of taxes that he owed unpaid tax for an 11-year period, the High Court ruled.
Christopher Moorehouse (56), who says he lives at Saville Road, Enniscorthy, but who Cab says lives at Esmond Road, Enniscorthy, contested a judgment application for €2,026,454 brought by Revenue. Some €968,900 is due in tax for 2004-2015 while another €1,057,520 is interest payable on that sum.
Mr Moorehouse, who describes himself as a retired agricultural painter and a settled member of the Traveller community, claimed the tax assessments raised against him were not issued until July 2022.
This meant Revenue unreasonably delayed in pursuing the debt and allowing the interest to accrue. Revenue was, therefore, disentitled from getting judgment in the full sum claimed, it was argued.
Actor Armie Hammer resurfaces as host of celebrity podcast
Heart-stopping Halloween terror: 13 of cinema’s greatest jump scares
Doctor Odyssey’s core message: just imagine Pacey from Dawson’s Creek holding you tight and saying, ‘Shhh, it’s okay’
Conor Niland’s The Racket nominated for William Hill Sports Book of the Year
He also said the law afforded him an opportunity to regularise his tax affairs and that any orders the court made in his favour should allow him “liberty to apply” again to the court if he was successful in any late appeal he may bring over the bill to the Tax Appeal Commission (TAC).
Revenue argued the assessments had been properly raised. Mr Moorehouse had already been refused an appeal by the TAC which meant the amount became “final and conclusive”, including interest.
He had no defence to the judgment application, it was argued.
Mr Justice Anthony Barr rejected Mr Moorehouse’s arguments and entered final judgment against him for just over €2 million.
Earlier, the judge said Mr Moorehouse claimed he had very limited literacy and writing skills and estimated his yearly income from agricultural painting was about €60,000. He claimed it was “completely absurd” to suggest that he enjoyed the level of income over the years as assessed by Revenue.
He stated that he was a horse trader who had always enjoyed a modest income. He had never been served with the tax assessments because Cab served them on Esmond Road, where his nephew Christopher Moorehouse lives, not where he lives.
He said that because Cab seized his accounts, he had been deprived of access to them in order to contest the tax assessments and to bring an appeal to the TAC.
He also said there had been a four-year delay between the raising of the tax assessments and the issuing of the summons for judgment. It was, therefore, unfair to burden him with the interest on such a large debt due to Revenue’s inaction, he contended.
Revenue said the assessments were served in February 2018 on him personally at his home by a Cab officer, who identified him from a photo.
He used a number of addresses as his official business addresses and attempted to create confusion where none existed, Revenue said. He used the Esmond Road address in his official correspondence with Revenue.
No documents had been seized from him, Revenue said. The information used to raise the assessments came from financial institutions that held accounts in his name, it said.
Mr Justice Barr said Mr Moorehouse had not pointed to any detriment or loss due to the fact that the judgment summons was not issued until more than four years after the assessments were first raised.
“If the defendant had wished to avoid the accrual of interest on the unpaid taxes, he could have made his returns and paid the amount of tax due, at any time,” he said. He did not need to await the arrival of a summons to do so and thereby avoid interest accruing.
The court did not accept his assertion that documents had been seized. The court accepted Revenue’s submission that there was almost no possibility he would be successful in bringing a late appeal to the TAC.
The argument that he should be given liberty to apply again to the court depending on the outcome of such an appeal was untenable, the judge said.
