The Irish tax appeals system is at a crossroads.

For many years, the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) has primarily operated as a private forum, one in which tax disputes have been resolved away from the public gaze. However, a Supreme

Court ruling, unrelated to taxes, is driving change. In Zalewski v. The Workplace Relations Commission [2021] IESC 24, the Supreme Court held that the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) was engaged in the administration of justice within the meaning of Article 37 of the Constitution.

The Court reasoned that a body exercising limited judicial functions must do so in accordance with the requirements of openness, independence and impartiality.

The Attorney General’s subsequent advice to Government – that the TAC is likely to be engaged in the administration of justice – has triggered a proposed formal legislative response.

The intention is to amend the Tax Appeals Act 2015 to remove the entitlement to a private hearing.

This would make all hearings public unless an Appeal Commissioner, at the request of a party to an appeal, exercises discretion to hold the hearing ‘in camera’.

This article examines:

• the constitutional foundations of the proposed reform;

• its practical consequences for taxpayers and practitioners; and

• the critical question of whether the reform, as currently framed, strikes the correct balance between the principle of open justice and the legitimate privacy interests of those who bring tax appeals.

This article argues that the proposed shift to public hearings, if introduced without a robust alternative dispute resolution (ADR) framework, risks discouraging meritorious appeals and undermining the effective operation of the tax appeals system.

TAC: role, transparency and success rates A key part of Irish tax administration, the TAC resolves thousands of disputes between taxpayers and the Revenue Commissioners (Revenue) ranging from simple claims to complex statutory matters.

The TAC handles a wide range of taxpayer cases, with most involving genuine disputes over statutory interpretation, evidential disputes and entitlement to reliefs rather than aggressive tax avoidance schemes or disputes with large multinationals.

As such, the TAC serves as an independent check on Revenue’s assessments, which are not always correct. In its 2025 annual report, TAC recorded an eight percent taxpayer success rate, down from 14 percent in 2024. While this headline figure appears stark, it is essential to consider the underlying factors that contribute to these statistics.

A significant proportion of appeals are statute-barred repayment claims. These cases are governed by a strict four-year limitation rule, which TAC has consistently interpreted as leaving no room for discretion in granting relief. As a result, such appeals are structurally unwinnable and cannot succeed regardless of their merits.

Further, many decisions hinge not on the legal merits of a case but on evidentiary insufficiency.

As such, the outcome of an appeal often depends on the quality of pre-hearing preparation rather than the strength of the taxpayer’s legal position. Properly prepared cases stand a much better chance of success.

When these types of cases are excluded from the statistics, the success rate for viable appeals is considerably higher than the headline figure suggests.

Therefore, practitioners and taxpayers should not be discouraged by the overall success rate and are encouraged to pursue well-founded cases with confidence.

The butterfly and the hurricane

The proposed reform of the private hearings sparked by the Zalewski decision originated from an unfair dismissal claim brought before the WRC by a Mr Tomasz Zalewski. His challenge raised constitutional questions about statutory bodies deciding disputes outside the formal court setting.

There is a certain resonance to the chaos theory concept that a butterfly’s wings can set off a chain of events powerful enough to generate a hurricane halfway across the world.

What began as an employment dispute has become a landmark constitutional decision of the Irish Supreme Court.

In delivering the judgment of behalf of the majority, Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell, as he then was, found that the WRC was exercising “the administration of justice” under Article 37 of the Constitution. This permits the exercise of “limited functions and powers of a judicial nature” by non-judicial bodies authorised by law.

The Court therefore mandated that those bodies must conduct themselves in accordance with the standards of independence, impartiality, openness and fairness corresponding with those of the courts under Article 34.

The Zalewski case was the butterfly. The hurricane has now arrived at the TAC.

Government response: amending

Tax Appeals Act 2015 Following the Zalewski decision, the Attorney General advised Government that the TAC is likely to be involved in administering justice, prompting a proposal to amend the Tax Appeals Act 2015 for constitutional compliance.

A Joint Oireachtas Committee reviewed the changes, questioning the need for change with Deputy Shay Brennan, TD, concluding, “If it is not broken, don’t fix it”.

While the TAC is generally well regarded, the debate generated by the Zalewski case centres on the constitutional integrity of the quasi-judicial process, not just on outcomes.

Open justice must protect the public and requires transparency when exercising judicial functions.

The system must not only be fair; it must be seen to be fair.

Proposed reform: reversing in-camera default

Currently, TAC hearings are public by default, but taxpayers can request private hearings. This makes privacy the norm.

The proposed reform would make all hearings public unless a taxpayer can satisfy the Appeal Commissioner that the matter be held ‘in camera’.

One would assume that the current grounds for an ‘in camera’ hearing will be retained including where the Appeal Commissioner is satisfied that the protection of an individual’s right to respect for his or her private and family life is necessary.

Interestingly, a TAC spokesperson– commenting on the position adopted by the equivalent tribunal in England and Wales – expressed the view that, “’your financial affairs are personal’ is not enough” to displace the obligation for a public hearing.

In a recent survey, 87 percent of tax advisers said they believed public hearings would prompt more taxpayers to settle or abandon disputes rather than contest them.

The Joint Oireachtas Committee concurred, warning that a move to public hearings could deter taxpayers from pursuing independent reviews, given the risk of exposing personal and commercially sensitive information.

While the proposal to introduce default public hearings would not be entirely without precedent, it would be introduced without the counterbalancing infrastructure that underpins comparable systems in other jurisdictions.

Quiet casualty: case management conferences

A lesser-known consequence of the proposed reform is the abolition of the TAC’s case management conference process.

Introduced in 2015 as a flexible procedural mechanism, this process was designed to enable cases to progress efficiently or, where possible, ensure they could be resolved without recourse to a full hearing.

The value of the process was demonstrated in 2016, when the TAC faced a significant backlog of complex legacy appeals, many of which were quickly resolved through case management conferences rather than proceeding to a hearing.

In resolving these legacy appeals, the case management conference offered three key benefits by:

1. helping taxpayers unfamiliar with tax appeals to understand the process and realistically assess their cases;

2. enabling the parties to clarify issues and resolve disputes in a confidential setting; and

3. informing taxpayers about the evidential requirements needed for success, improving the overall quality of proceedings.

The Heads of Bill, the precursor to the Finance (Tax Appeals and Fiscal Responsibility) Bill 2024, recommends repealing the case management conference provision.

The Department of Finance argues that the TAC’s decisions, as part of justice administration, require public hearings. This position makes private case management processes constitutionally questionable.

Ironically – as privacy concerns for taxpayers grow – the Government is eliminating the TAC process most similar to ADR, the very model stakeholders seek for greater privacy.

The way forward: ADR as essential counterweight

If appeal hearings are to become public, there should be a credible and accessible alternative pathway for taxpayers that have legitimate disputes but specific reasons for keeping their financial affairs private.

The ADR pathway would enable disputes to be resolved without any formal hearing at all, thereby removing entirely the risk of personal or commercially sensitive financial information entering the public domain.

ADR could also serve as a facts-filtration mechanism, allowing parties to privately agree on relevant facts, even if the dispute is not resolved.

A Statement of Facts agreed during the ADR process could be presented at a public hearing, ensuring legal arguments are open while keeping personal financial details confidential.

Open justice is maintained by legal reasoning in the public domain, not by revealing individual taxpayers’ financial data.

Legal determinations remain transparent and authoritative regardless of whether specific figures are disclosed.

The current tax appeals system aligns with international standards. Moving to a public-hearing default, without ADR, would make Ireland unusual, as most countries pair public hearings with strong ADR options.

ADR is essential to keep Ireland in line with global practices for tax dispute resolution.

Open justice v public risk The proposed amendments to the Tax Appeals Act 2015 reflect a constitutional response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Zalewski case.

Open justice v public risk

The principle of open justice is not merely procedural; it is a constitutional imperative.

Where a statutory body exercises functions of a limited judicial nature, it must do so in a manner that is – and is seen to be – open and fair. The Attorney General’s view that the TAC is most likely to be engaged in the administration of justice and legislative reform is not only appropriate but necessary.

The way reform is implemented matters profoundly, however. The proposed shift to a default public hearing, without a fully developed ADR alternative, risks producing outcomes that are the opposite of those intended.

Taxpayers with legitimate disputes, alongside legitimate privacy concerns, may choose not to appeal at all.

The result would be a system that is formally more open but substantively less accessible – one in which Revenue assessments, not always correct, go unchallenged not because of their legal merit but because of the reputational and commercial risk of public exposure.