A retired high earner has lost out in a €208,797 tax battle with the Revenue Commissioners over his pension which was valued at €2.56 million.The Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) rejected the taxpayer’s claim that he was not liable for €208,797 in chargeable excess tax on his pension fund as it amounted to double taxation.In 2024, when the man retired after 42 years with a public sector company where he was a member of a public sector defined benefit, occupational pension scheme, he had a pensionable salary of €191,034. That meant he was entitled to a lump-sum payment of €286,551 and an annual pension of €95,517.When the employer applied the provisions of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 to determine the capital value of his defined benefit pension, it exceeded the €2 million standard fund threshold – the maximum size at that time of pension a person can accumulate with tax relief.Anything above that threshold is subject to chargeable excess tax at a rate of 40 per cent. It is also subject to normal income tax at a person’s prevailing rate and USC on drawdown.In the case of this taxpayer, chargeable excess tax was assessed at €208,797.The former worker agreed with his pension scheme that it would pay the tax due to Revenue and he would repay the sum at a rate of €6,960 per annum.However, in December 2024, the retired worker also lodged an appeal with the Tax Appeals Commission, contesting the application of chargeable excess tax on the pension fund.In his submission, the retiree said he was appealing the application of chargeable excess tax “as it effectively amounts to double taxation of my pension which is fully subject to income tax”.“The fund valuation is an implied valuation and does not represent a cash benefit paid to me which would be under my control,” he said. “The fund remains within the pension scheme and is not an asset available to me. Revenue objected to the commission accepting the appeal, arguing the appellant had not identified any erroneous application of the legislative provisions relating to chargeable excess tax by the employer/pension scheme.In her findings, commissioner Clare O’Driscoll agreed with Revenue and dismissed the appeal. As he has not identified a misapplication of statute, whether by Revenue or by the pension scheme, she did not consider that his appeal related to an appealable matter.However, on the substantive issue, Ms O’Driscoll also was not satisfied that the appellant had discharged the burden of proof to establish that the application of the provisions of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 relating to chargeable excess tax to his pension by either the pension scheme or by Revenue was incorrect.In relation to the appellant’s claim that there has been unfair and inequitable application of the tax code and that there has been double taxation of his pension income, Ms O’Driscoll found that he had not discharged the burden of proof to establish this has occurred.