Politician draws distinction between him and his firm

* So he accepts what he did was wrong?

Yes, “in hindsight”. Wallace said the under-declaration of Vat was “indefensible” and he apologised profusely for it, conceding he had let people down. He said he would hand over half his €92,000-a-year Dáil salary to Revenue in a bid to repay some of the money owed. However, he continued to make the distinction between himself and his company, M&J Wallace Ltd.

“Some members of this Dáil have suggested that I should resign the seat for a mistake made by the company, M&J Wallace Ltd, before I was elected.”

A mistake made by M&J Wallace? Wallace himself ran the company, therefore, it was he who took the deliberate decision to under-declare VAT — a point he still seems very reluctant to concede.

* So he won’t resign then?

No, he will not. He said he had considered doing so, but quickly added that he had “never been very good at quitting”.

He then talked about the reasons he went into politics and listed all the issues on which he had worked with his constituents in Wexford — such as opposing social welfare and education cuts — in a seeming attempt to justify his continued presence in the Dáil. He played the sympathy card — “I’m just another human being who is very far from being perfect and will remain so.”

And then he defiantly stated that only the people of Wexford could get rid of him, and only then at the next general election.

“They will discard me when they see fit; it is their seat not mine. In the meantime, I will strive to serve them, and all the people of Ireland, as well as I can.”

In other words, he’s going nowhere.

* Any sympathy for him in the Dáil?

There was a smattering of applause, but sympathy will be in short demand.

For a start, Wallace broke the law — and not in a minor way.

Secondly, he took a swipe at the political profession — “I want to apologise to the members of this Dáil for bringing any dishonour on a profession which hardly needed it” — and many TDs will think this a bit rich from a tax defaulter who sees no reason to resign.

Thirdly, Wallace’s statement didn’t answer all the outstanding questions.

* Such as?

As revealed by the Irish Examiner this week, Revenue documentation firmly suggests Wallace revealed the under-declaration only after Revenue had signalled its intention to audit his company.

In other words, he knew he was going to be found out, so confessed. Yet Wallace had previously given the impression that he had come clean to Revenue of his own accord.

He failed to clarify this yesterday, instead opting for carefully vague language.

“The following year, 2010, the situation had continued to deteriorate and the company made a full declaration to the Revenue and opened its books. The Revenue then proceeded to carry out a full audit of the company’s books.”

* What will happen next?

A Dáil committee will seek to establish whether it has jurisdiction to investigate the case. That depends largely on whether Mr Wallace’s interactions with Revenue post-dated or pre-dated his election to the Dáil. If the latter, the committee is unlikely to find it has jurisdiction.

In his statement yesterday, Mr Wallace said he had arrived at the settlement with Revenue prior to his election; therefore, both he and his company had tax clearance certificates at the time.

On face value, that suggests the committee will back off. But again, not every question was answered by Wallace’s statement, so the committee will first seek further information from both him and Revenue. It will meet next week to assess whether it can take the matter further.

* And the Dáil censure motion?

It’s still on the cards, but the main parties will let the committee do its work before tabling it. But a censure is only that — and there is no way Wallace could be forced from the Dáil, unless he is declared bankrupt. But politicians have no role in that — it depends on the banks to whom his company still owes money.

— Paul O’Brien, Political Editor