Judicial Modification of Case Stated: High Court’s Remit and Amendment Powers under Sections 949AQ–AR TCA 1997

Judicial Modification of Case Stated: High Court’s Remit and Amendment Powers under Sections 949AQ–AR TCA 1997

Introduction

Revenue Commissioners v Getty Images International ULC ([2025] IEHC 268) is a procedural judgment in which the High Court of Ireland addressed the scope of its power to amend a “case stated” under the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (TCA 1997) and its inherent jurisdiction. The dispute arose from a case-stated procedure under sections 949AP–AR TCA 1997, invoked by the Revenue Commissioners (“Revenue”) after an adverse determination by the Tax Appeals Commissioner (“Commissioner”). Getty Images International ULC (“Getty”) had successfully argued before the Commissioner that foreign royalty withholding tax (“RWHT”) was deductible under section 81 TCA 1997. Dissatisfied with certain aspects of the drafted case stated, Revenue sought to revise the questions posed and to include portions of the hearing transcript. Mr Justice Mulcahy had to decide which amendments to permit, how to reconcile the statutory drafting role of the Commissioner with the appellant’s right to have its grounds fully stated, and under what circumstances transcript extracts should be appended.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court held that:

  • The court possesses express power under section 949AR(2) TCA 1997, and an inherent jurisdiction, to amend a case stated when it is necessary to ensure that points of law properly raised by the appellant are included.
  • Amendments to questions III and IV of the case stated—reflecting Getty’s suggested wording—were within the Commissioner’s discretion and did not warrant judicial alteration.
  • Most proposed new questions regarding the appellant’s challenge to factual findings were either superfluous, impermissibly expanded beyond the original 949AP notice, or did not reflect actual findings in the Determination.
  • One subset of the appellant’s factual‐challenge ground (that Getty could not trade in certain jurisdictions without incurring RWHT) was properly contained in the original notice and its omission was an error: the High Court ordered the insertion of that specific question.
  • Because the appellant was allowed to impugn that finding, the court remitted the case stated to the Commissioner to select and append only the relevant portions of the hearing transcript required to determine whether evidence supported the finding.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Several Superior Court authorities were pivotal in delineating the case‐stated procedure and the court’s amendment powers:

  • Emerson v McGinley: Established that a party dissatisfied with a Tax Appeals Commissioner’s determination on a point of law must set out in its 949AP notice the specific errors alleged, and that the Commissioner, in drafting the case stated, may “distil” but not diverge from those points of law.
  • O'Sullivan v Revenue Commissioners [2021] IEHC 118: Recognized the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under section 949AR(1)(c) to amend a case stated where justice so requires.
  • Glynn v Revenue Commissioners [2021] IEHC 780: Affirmed that although transcript inclusion is exceptional, where an appellant challenges a finding of fact as unsupported by evidence, relevant extracts must be appended. It also emphasized that the appellant bears initial responsibility for framing questions of law.
  • McNamara v Revenue Commissioners [2021] IEHC 485: Clarified that an appellant’s notice under section 949AP(2) must identify each point of law with sufficient detail and that any such point, once properly raised, must be reflected in the case stated pursuant to section 949AQ(1)(a)(v).

2. Legal Reasoning

The judgment unfolds in three core strands:

  1. Commissioner’s Drafting Role vs. Appellant’s Rights: Sections 949AQ(2)–(4) mandate that the Commissioner draft the case stated and consider parties’ representations. Nevertheless, section 949AQ(1)(a)(v) requires inclusion of “the point of law as set out in the notice referred to in section 949AP(2).” The court held that while the Commissioner may recast and package those points for clarity, she cannot omit a properly pleaded point of law.
  2. Scope of Amendment Powers: Under section 949AR(2), the High Court may remit a case stated for amendment. The court confirmed that it also has an inherent jurisdiction to intervene directly when the Commissioner has omitted a valid ground of law or improperly drafted a question, provided the point originates in the 949AP notice.
  3. Inclusion of Evidence Transcripts: Transcript exhibits are generally unnecessary; but where an appellant challenges a finding as “made without any evidential basis,” the court must ensure the High Court can evaluate whether evidence exists. The judgment directs the Commissioner, on remittal, to select only those transcript extracts necessary to address the specific factual‐evidence dispute.

3. Impact

This decision crystallizes the boundaries between the appellant’s entitlement to have all points of law properly pleaded and the Commissioner’s drafting discretion. Tax practitioners should note:

  • Appellants must carefully articulate every legal question in the 949AP notice; failure to do so risks exclusion at the case stated stage.
  • Commissioners may rephrase or package questions for precision but cannot excise a validly raised issue.
  • The High Court will require transcript extracts only where an appellant contests the evidential foundation of a finding, and will remit to the TAC to choose pertinent passages.

More broadly, the ruling reinforces judicial oversight of the case‐stated mechanism, ensuring a balance between efficient drafting and the appellant’s right to a full hearing of its legal points.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Case Stated: A procedural device under sections 949AP–AR TCA 1997 whereby a taxpayer can challenge a Tax Appeals Commissioner’s decision on a point of law by having the Commissioner prepare a written “case stated” for the High Court’s review.
  • Points of Law vs. Findings of Fact: A point of law is a question about legal interpretation or application. A finding of fact concerns what actually happened or what evidence establishes. An appellant may, in limited circumstances, ask the High Court to rule that a Commissioner erred in law by making a factual finding unsupported by evidence, but must identify specific findings and show how they were pleaded in the original 949AP notice.
  • Section 949AR(2) Remittal: The statutory power allowing the High Court to send a case stated back to the Commissioner for amendment—used here both to insert a missing question of law and to direct careful inclusion of transcript extracts.

Conclusion

In Revenue Commissioners v Getty Images, the High Court clarified its role in supervising the case‐stated process. It confirmed that while the Commissioner drafts and refines the questions, she must include any legal issue properly raised by the appellant. The court may itself amend or remit the document under section 949AR(2) where necessary to protect the appellant’s rights. Finally, it provided practical guidance on when hearing transcripts must accompany the case stated. This judgment will guide both Revenue and taxpayers in framing and resolving future case‐stated appeals under the TCA 1997.

Case Details

Comments