Man loses challenge to Cab tax demand

A MAN who leased land from Geraldine Gilligan, ex-wife of drug dealer John Gilligan, has lost a High Court challenge to "bare…

A MAN who leased land from Geraldine Gilligan, ex-wife of drug dealer John Gilligan, has lost a High Court challenge to "bare and unexplained" tax assessments issued against him by the Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab).

Troy Jordan said he wanted to appeal the assessments, details of which were not revealed to the court. He said Cab had failed to give him the necessary information for the appeal.

Given Cab's statutory function, Mr Jordan said he expected it to allege during his appeal that his income derived from criminal activity. However, he had been given no information to prepare a meaningful appeal and this amounted to "invidious and arbitrary discrimination".

Cab denied the claims and argued Mr Jordan could proceed with his appeal using his own books and records.

READ MORE

In unrelated proceedings last January involving a successful application by Cab to have a receiver appointed to take control of the Gilligan family's assets, including Jessbrook Equestrian Centre in Enfield, Co Meath, the court heard Ms Gilligan had an agreement with Mr Jordan to pay her €5,000 per year for grazing rights for his horses on the land attached to Jessbrook.

Mr Jordan had offered to give Cab €9,000 per year if it allowed him to continue to use the lands, but this was rejected because of concern that the grass was being over-grazed and because Mr Jordan was the subject of a Cab investigation himself.

Yesterday, the High Court heard Cab had carried out an investigation of Mr Jordan's tax affairs.

In February 2005, he was served with a tax bill for 1992 to 2003.

Dismissing Mr Jordan's application, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan said a tax appeal is a civil matter and there was no question of Mr Jordan facing any criminal charge which might require the constitutional protections afforded in criminal trials. Mr Jordan had also not put forward any grounds to show he would be prejudiced in his appeal. He did not accept Mr Jordan had been put in an impossible situation, or that there was any substance to claims he would not have any notice of any allegations of criminal wrongdoing.