Proes v. Revenue Commissioners

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, born in 1916 in The City to Irish domiciled parents, left The State as a young woman, acquiring British nationality through marriage in 1940. She resided outside The State until her husband's death in 1982, after which she returned to live in a holiday home located in The City, which she and her husband had owned since 1970. The central issue was whether the Plaintiff had acquired a domicile of choice in The State since 1982 for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts.

The Plaintiff was assessed for income tax under the Income Tax Act 1967 for the years 1982/83 through 1989/90. She appealed these assessments, but the Appeal Commissioners and subsequently the Circuit Court judge upheld the assessments, determining that she was domiciled in The State during the relevant periods. The Plaintiff then appealed to the High Court by way of case stated, contending that the lower court's determination was erroneous in law.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff had acquired a domicile of choice in The State by residing there since 1982.
2. Whether the Plaintiff had abandoned her domicile of choice in England upon returning to The State after her husband's death.
3. Whether the Circuit Court judge erred in law by framing the issue as acquisition of a new domicile of choice in The State rather than abandonment of the English domicile of choice.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Plaintiff asserted that she had acquired a domicile of choice in England in 1940 and had not abandoned it by returning to The State in 1982.
• She contended that the burden was on the Revenue Commissioners to prove that she was domiciled in The State, and that she had not abandoned her English domicile.
• She emphasized her intention to return to England permanently, demonstrated by active efforts to find and purchase a residence there, including the acquisition of a house in London in 1992 which was undergoing refurbishment.
• The Plaintiff argued that residence in The State post-1982 was due to necessity and temporary circumstances, not a settled intention to abandon her English domicile.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Revenue Commissioners contended that the Plaintiff had acquired a domicile of choice in The State by residing there indefinitely since 1982.
• They argued that the length of residence in The State was sufficient to establish abandonment of the English domicile and acquisition of a new domicile in The State.
• They maintained that the issue was whether the Plaintiff intended to live indefinitely in The State, which they argued was established.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court emphasized that domicile of choice arises from a combination of residence and intention to reside permanently or indefinitely. The Court clarified that when a person returns to their domicile of origin, the relevant question is whether they have abandoned their domicile of choice, not whether they have acquired a new domicile of choice in the place of return.

The trial judge had framed the issue incorrectly, focusing on acquisition of a new domicile rather than abandonment of the English domicile. This led to a misapplication of legal principles and incorrect inferences from the evidence.

The Court noted compelling evidence that the Plaintiff had not abandoned her English domicile: her initial return to The State was due to lack of alternative accommodation; she intended to return to England if necessary for support; she actively sought a residence in England over several years; and she purchased a London house in 1992, which was being refurbished for her future use.

The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's acts did not contradict her intention to return to England permanently, and that the length of residence in The State alone was insufficient to establish abandonment of her English domicile.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that the trial judge was incorrect in law in determining that the Plaintiff had acquired a domicile of choice in The State.

The Plaintiff had acquired an English domicile of choice which she had not abandoned, and accordingly, at the relevant times, her Irish domicile of origin had not revived.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Plaintiff was not domiciled in The State for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts during the relevant years, impacting her tax liability accordingly. No new precedent beyond the application of established domicile principles was set.