Confusion remains over Ahern tax issues

BERTIE AHERN has answered the outstanding questions to Michael McDowell’s satisfaction — but not to Pat Rabbitte’s.

In the Labour leader’s mind, at least one central question remains and it concerns tax.

Mr Ahern gave an interview and summary of hisaffairs to the Sunday Independent yesterday. He followed this byreleasing a full statement, as demanded by Mr McDowell, shortly before 2pm.

At 2.30pm, Mr Rabbitte was hosting a Labour press event to highlight public transport deficiencies in Dublin. He wished to talk about Labour’s plans to increase the Dublin Bus fleet and introduce a flat €1 fare for passengers. Inevitably, however, he was first asked about Mr Ahern’s affairs.

Mr Rabbitte replied it was a source of regret that the general election campaign had been overshadowed by the matter. Nonetheless, he proceeded to say confusion still remained.

While stressing he had seen only the newspaper material and not the full statement, he said: “Mr Ahern assured Dáil Eireann that there were no questions of taxation arising. He now seems to be saying that there are indeed tax issues.”

On October 3 last year, when making a statement on the payments controversy, Mr Ahern told the Dáil he did not believe gift tax was owed on the “dig-outs” he received in Manchester.

“I have been separately advised by two eminent tax advisers that I have no tax liability in respect of the Manchester moneys,” he said. “The funds were from persons based in the Manchester area who are not based in Ireland and, therefore, the sums were not chargeable to gift tax.”

Yesterday, however, he told the newspaper he had subsequently decided to hire a tax adviser and make a provisional payment to the Revenue Commissioners.

“As I explained last September, I was professionally advised on possible tax issues relating to the payments. To avoid any ambiguities or misinterpretations, I have since ensured that an independent tax adviser, on my behalf, has provided all details to the Revenue,” he said. “Indeed, on his advice, I made a provisional payment to cover any liability which could arise.

“I understand this was accepted by the Revenue, pending final agreement as to any such liability.”

The questions now are the size of that payment, the reasons it was deemed necessary, and why Mr Ahern did not properly consider potential tax liabilities when he received the money.

As for the rest of the issues — the payment Mr Ahern received from Michael Wall in respect of the house in Drumcondra, the exact amount, whether it corresponded to $45,000, the cost of the refurbishments on the house, and eventual purchase of the property by the Taoiseach — he has provided substantial detail.

There was disagreement yesterday as to whether the statement was “credible and comprehensive”. Mr McDowell certainly thought so. The Government ploughs on and Mr Ahern goes into the election with his chances of being elected for a third term intact.

But Mr McDowell won’t have the final say. That will rest with the Mahon Tribunal. If any of Mr Ahern’s account is to be forensically challenged, the tribunal will do this.

Mr Ahern is listed as a witness to appear once the tribunal resumes. So too is Celia Larkin. It will be seen then what questions remain.

This issue started with the Mahon Tribunal. It will end there, too.