THE wife of Mr John Gilligan yesterday began her High Court case to determine if she is a liable person under tax laws following the seizure of her property by the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB).
Ms Geraldine Gilligan claims she is not liable for the estimated £1.6 million tax bill as the result of an assessment for the tax year ended April 1995.
Ms Gilligan, whose husband is detained in England, claims she is not a chargeable person and her property should not have been seized from the equestrian centre at Jessbrook House, Mucklon, Enfield, Co Meath, last November.
She is taking the action against the CAB; Mr Barry Galvin, Inspector of Taxes and Chief Legal Officer, CAB; Mr Frank Lanigan, Revenue Sheriff for Co Kildare, and the Revenue Commissioners.
They are claiming that Ms Gilligan is a chargeable person. One of the reasons being claimed is that she separated from her husband in July 1995 and the return was not due in until the end of January 1996.
Yesterday, Mr Adrian Hardiman SC, for Ms Gilligan, said the assessment was raised on September 16th, the day Mr Galvin was appointed inspector of taxes. The demand was made on November 14th and the certificate was issued - the removal of property was on November 20th, within six days of the demand.
Ms Gilligan went to the High Court to prevent the disposal of her goods. She lost her case but, on appeal to the Supreme Court, the CAB gave an undertaking not to dispose of the remainder of her properly.
Mr Hardiman said the taxing term in question was for the year ended April 30th, 1995, and at the relevant time, Ms Gilligan was a married woman living as husband and wife. It was her husband who would be chargeable under the tax laws. Neither had opted for a separate tax assessment.
An assessment was therefore made on Ms Gilligan, which the CAB claimed to be hers, when she was living as a married woman. For the income tax acts, the wife's total income was deemed to be the income of the husband. Any tax deemed to be income tax of the husband was assessable on him.
Mr Justice Morris asked if that precluded Ms Gilligan from also being chargeable. Mr Hardiman said it did. The law was specific it was assessable on him "instead" of her.
He said the obligation to make a return only fell on the chargeable person. As Ms Gilligan was not a chargeable person, she was under no duty to make a return and therefore, all other steps fell.
When she wanted to appeal the assessment, she was refused as she had not made the return. It was a catch-22 situation. The assessment was wrong as it was an assessment on a married woman.
Even if the court found she was a chargeable person, she was not liable to be assessed as the law said the assessment should be made on the husband.
Mr Hardiman said from the time the assessment was issued, the constitutional system was held but she was not in the system at all.
Mr Richard Nesbitt SC, for the defendants, said Ms Gilligan was a chargeable person, claiming that in the period of assessment, Ms Gilligan had bank accounts in her own name with substantial sums. This was income in her own hands.
A person who was chargeable was a person "receiving or entitled to" income. The person receiving or entitled to the income was Ms Gilligan.
A date was given by which the return had to be made and this was January 31st, 1996. In July 1995, Ms Gilligan legally separated from her husband and the inspector was waiting for her to make the return as she was then legally separated.
Mr Nesbitt said profits or gains were charged to tax and described in law as miscellaneous income even if that was from an unknown or illegal source. It was the source of that income which was the important issue.
Mr Justice Morris said Mr Nesbitt was saying that if the inspector was satisfied that there was some source available to Ms Gilligan, and that rendered her chargeable, on being chargeable to what was she under an obligation?
Mr Nesbitt replied that she was obliged to make the return. If the return was not made, then she ran the risk of getting an assessment.
The case continues.