Revelations will leave judge red-faced

THIS morning’s revelations that Judge Alan Mahon made a £20,000 tax settlement with the Revenue Commissioners over 10 years ago will be acutely embarrassing for the new chairman of the Mahon Tribunal.

As The Phoenix magazine, which published the revelations, pointed out, Judge Mahon, who replaced Fergus Flood in July, is overseeing an investigation into allegations of tax evasion. Whatever about embarrassment, irony seldom comes so complete.

According to The Phoenix, Judge Mahon paid a total of £20,000 to the Revenue Commissioners in 1992 after a tax audit confirmed he had underpaid his tax bill in a previous year.

The year Mr Mahon made his payment he was one of 400 who paid up to avoid prosecution. However, his payment of £16,006 in underpaid tax and £3,994 in interest was among the smaller settlements with the average figure that year closer to the £50,000 mark.

Judge Mahon was one of three barristers at the time who featured on the defaulters list.

Yesterday evening, Judge Mahon promptly issued a statement on the matter, confirming that he had made the settlement, full details of which had been published at the time.

In his statement, Judge Mahon denied having been contacted by The Phoenix despite the magazine's insistences that attempts had been made to contact him.

According to Mr Mahon his tax settlement "was made as a result of a miscalculation of my tax liability in one year in the late 1980's which became evident following upon a subsequent Revenue audit."

Judge Mahon's statement added that his tax shortfall did not involve or arise from the use of any undisclosed bank accounts or records.

The settlement, which was made when Mr Mahon was a senior counsel, was disclosed to the Judicial Appointments Commission the independent body charged with vetting potential judges when Mr Mahon was appointed as a Judge to the then Flood Tribunal in October 2002.

Following the controversial retirement of Justice Flood this summer the Government passed emergency legislation to allow for the appointment of Mr Mahon as the new tribunal chairman.

Although Judge Mahon is almost certainly the victim of someone intent on undermining the authority of the Planning Tribunal, the Phoenix article makes a point of stressing how much of the tribunal focuses on the evasion of tax.

According to the Revenue Commissioner's annual report for 1992: "It must be recognised that there will always be a small minority who will try to evade their tax liabilities ... It should always be remembered that tax evasion is not a victimless crime.

"The tax evader not alone deprives the Exchequer of revenue and places a greater burden on other tax payers but also undermines legitimate business by obtaining an unfair commercial advantage."

Although Judge Mahon has paid his penalty and explained the circumstances surrounding his past tax problems, there are those, not without tax issues of their own, who will no doubt appreciate the irony of it all.