The Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) has dismissed an appeal by a civil servant and remote worker that €3,355 in radon remediation works at his home cannot be written off against his taxable income.
The civil servant used the family home as his place of work due to Government restrictions during the pandemic in 2020.
The PAYE employee of a Government department had purchased the family home in February 2020 and was aware that the area had high levels of radon when he bought it.
The TAC report records that his employer refused to reimburse the cost of the radon remediation works and the civil servant then claimed the deduction of the expense against his taxable income. In response, Revenue refused the worker’s claim and he appealed the decision to the TAC.
File being prepared for DPP over insider trading
Christmas tech for kids: great gift ideas with safety features for parental peace of mind
MenoPal app offers proactive support to women going through menopause
Ezviz RE4 Plus review: Efficient budget robot cleaner but can suffer from wanderlust under the wrong conditions
However, in finding against the man’s appeal, appeals commissioner Conor O’Higgins ruled that the radon remediation works were not incurred wholly and exclusively in the performance claim of the man’s duties as a civil servant.
Mr O’Higgins stated that consequently, Revenue’s decision refusing the deduction of the sum of €3,355 against his taxable income for that year “was correct in law and must stand”.
As part of his case, the worker argued that the level of radon in the home was significantly higher than the maximum safe level in respect of workplaces. The worker argued that as the property was used during the period as his workplace as well as his home, part of the performance of his duties was to ensure that he had a safe working environment.
As part of its case, Revenue pointed to the man’s evidence where he said that he would have carried out the remediation works regardless of work-from-home protocols.
Counsel for Revenue stated that this represented a duality of purpose that precluded the worker from being allowed the deduction claimed against his taxable income.
In a separate ruling, a “sophisticated investor” has lost his €65,796 Capital Gains Tax (CGT) battle with Revenue concerning the years 2015, 2016 and 2017.
The investor had argued that he should have been entitled to set losses of €230,000 against his 2015 CGT tax bill. The €230,000 losses included a loss of €200,800 on investments which consisted of zero loan coupons and “A” share capital in a public limited company.
However, appeals commissioner Andrew Feighery has upheld the Revenue assessment that the investor is required to discharge the sum of €65,796 plus interest and penalties to Revenue.
Mr Feighery found that the loan notes acquired by the appellant could not be considered to be a “debt on security” and as such his appeal must fail.
