The Revenue Commissioners have appealed to the Supreme Court against a decision that millionaire developer Robert Pino Harris is entitled - before the courts decide legal issues relating to the interpretation of tax laws - to some €9 million in tax refunds arising from his expenditure on a luxury yacht.
The appeal was heard yesterday by a three-judge Supreme Court, presided over by Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan, and the court reserved its decision.
The proceedings arose after Mr Harris, in the income tax year to April 5th, 2001, claimed certain income-tax reliefs arising from his status as a member of a limited partnership registered under the law of the Cook islands, the Christina O Limited Partnership.
He claimed the partnership was established for the purpose of acquiring and operating high-class luxury yachts and that in the course of its business, the partnership acquired the Christina O, originally owned by Greek shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis
In his tax return filed in January 2002, Mr Harris claimed relief for trading losses, capital allowances and interest arising from the purchase and refurbishment of the Christina O by the partnership.
In October 2004, the Appeal Commissioners decided Mr Harris was entitled to set off against his entire income capital allowances and interest payments arising from the partnership.
The Revenue Commissioners then asked the Appeal Commissioners to ask the High Court to determine a point of law. Pending a decision, the Revenue argued Mr Harris was not entitled to a tax refund.
Mr Harris argued that he had been successful before the Appeal Commissioners and was entitled to be refunded.
The legal issue for determination was whether a taxpayer is entitled to a tax refund consequent on the decision of the Appeal Commissioners notwithstanding that the Revenue Commissioners' High Court proceedings regarding the point of law had yet to be decided.
The proceedings turned on interpretation of provisions of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997.
In a judgment delivered on March 18th, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan held that while the Revenue had a statutory entitlement to appeal the Appeal Commissioners' decision to the High Court, there was no provision, in the event of such an appeal being taken, for a stay to be placed on the payment out of monies overpaid by Mr Harris. He held that Mr Harris was entitled to a refund of the monies.
It was against that finding that the Revenue appealed yesterday to the Supreme Court.