O'Sullivan v Revenue Commissioners (Approved)

2.������ The parties proffered detailed written submissions in advance of the hearing, and the written submissions made on behalf of the appellant at the hearing before the Commissioner were also made available to the court.� The appellant also sought, at the commencement of the hearing before the court, to have certain further documentation admitted which had not been made available at the hearing before the Commissioner.� This application was opposed by Revenue, and I will refer to the application in this regard in more detail below.

3.������ The case stated states that the issue in the appeal � was to determine whether the Appellant could satisfy the burden of proof to support his assertion that he invested �700,000 in the Santa Maria Property Partnership (SMP) and as a consequence seek to avail of loss relief pursuant to Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (TCA) section 381.� [Paragraph 3].

4.������ The factual background to the matter is set out comprehensively in both the determination and the case stated.� In the following paragraphs, I will summarise the �material findings of fact� as set out in the latter document.

6.������ In his tax returns for 2009 and 2010, the appellant claimed an offset of losses incurred against the appellant�s PAYE income in accordance with s.381 of the TCA.� The Commissioner records that � this loss offset triggered a tax refund which was immediately taken by the Bank�.�

7.������ On or about 12th December, 2014, Revenue wrote to the appellant querying his claimed entitlement to offset trading losses for 2009 and 2010.� Ultimately, the respondent issued amended notices of assessments for those years disallowing the entitlement to loss relief, which gave rise to tax liabilities of �31,557 and �31,923 for the periods ending 31st December, 2009 and 31st December, 2010 respectively.� The assessments accordingly gave rise to a tax liability of �63,480.�