Questions are ‘beyond common decency’

THE Taoiseach yesterday rounded on the Mahon Tribunal and defended at length his tax dealings, but was forced to admit the Revenue Commissioners are still examining his affairs.

Here’s what he said:

ON THE TAX ISSUE: “Correspondence with the Revenue [is] continuing in the normal way. I made a provisional payment to the Revenue Commissioners, but this does not mean there was any liability arising.

“I believe I have no tax liabilities on the loans and the Manchester monies. That is my professional advice and that advice has not changed.

“I have provided full details to the Revenue and was advised to make a provisional payment to cover any possible liability that could arise. I understand this is normal practice in such circumstances.

“I have to express some concern about the continuous leaking of documents. It happened at the general election and it happened last week with the Revenue correspondence. The dogs in the street know that when documents are circulated by the tribunal they were [in turn] being leaked to the same journalist in the same newspaper. This has happened time and again.

“Details of my tax affairs, no less than those of anyone else, whatever their profession, are confidential between myself and the Revenue Commissioners. Those who have been demanding that this long-standing practice and expectation should be set aside because of the position I hold are taking us into uncharted territory and challenging the foundations for confidence in our tax system.

“I will not, therefore, discuss the details of my tax affairs with anybody other than the Revenue Commissioners. I am fully satisfied that no details of my dealings with them have been made public by the Revenue Commissioners…

“Like all deputies elected to the Dáil on May 24 last, I am required under section 21 of the Standards in Public Office Act to furnish to the Standards in Public Office Commission either a tax clearance certificate or an application statement issued to me by the Revenue Commissioners.

“As the commission have noted, these are documents of equal stature under section 21.

“The application statement is issued where the Revenue Commissioners have not decided whether to issue or to refuse a tax clearance certificate.

“This could arise, for example, where there is an aspect of a taxpayer’s affairs that are still the subject of discussion between Revenue and the taxpayer.

“A person who provides an application statement to the Standards in Public Office Commission is not in breach of the requirement under section 25 of the act.

“This position applies until such time as a decision on the issue of a tax clearance certificate is made.

“In addition to the matters which are the subject of continuing discussion between my tax adviser and the Revenue Commissioners, I would expect that the Revenue Commissioners, acting prudently, would wish to take account of matters raised at the Mahon Tribunal insofar as they may have any bearing on tax issues.

“None the less, I made a statutory declaration under section 21 (1) (b) of the Standards in Public Office Act to the effect that I was — and I am — to the best of my knowledge and belief in compliance with my tax obligations.

“That is my position. That will, I am confident, be evidenced in due course by the issue of a tax clearance certificate.

“In the meantime, I continue to comply fully with my obligations as an elected representative and an office holder insofar as the Standards in Public Office Commission is concerned, as a taxpayer insofar as the Revenue Commissioners are concerned, and as a fully co-operating citizen [where the] tribunal is concerned.

“Attempts to misrepresent or otherwise hijack these procedures for political gain, and with total disregard for the implications in the long term, should be seen for the political opportunism they are.”

ON THE TRIBUNAL’S QUESTIONING: “The tribunal is not beyond question or reproach. It is not a sacred cow. It has gone on for years at considerable expense and some of the questioning of me in recent days went beyond the bounds of common decency. Questioning about who is or is not entitled into my bedroom is not appropriate.

“Questions about what friends stayed loyal to me and which ones to Miriam at the time of our separation has nothing to do with planning in Dublin. Questions about when I formed a second personal relationship following my separation also have nothing to do with (tribunal witness) Mr Gilmartin’s charges.

“This questioning is prying. It is prurient and it is nothing to do with what a planning tribunal should be dealing with. I said in evidence that [tribunal lawyer] Mr O’Neill was looking for headlines.

ON HIS MINISTERS’ CRITICISM OF THE TRIBUNAL: “Ministers, like any citizen, are perfectly entitled in a democratic society to have a point of view. If we are saying that people are not allowed to say anything negative about the tribunal, then we are living in an era of the Star Chamber.

“There is a lot of hypocrisy going on here. Senator [Eugene] Regan and other members of the opposition are saying ministers are interfering or intimidating the tribunal by talking about it. Yet Senator Regan is the opposition’s self-styled spokesperson on tribunals. He does interviews and issues statements at the drop of a hat. He seems to think that he is the only person in the Oireachtas entitled to express an opinion on the tribunal.

“Senator Regan has gone on record saying the tribunal do not believe me. He used Senate privilege to say I have perjured myself. This is a serious issue and scurrilous abuse.

“Fine Gael is trying to call the verdict of the tribunal before it has heard all the evidence.”