Not even Charlie could help Ben with a non-existent tax problem

THE recent disclosures at the Moriarty Tribunal would hardly have been newsworthy if Charlie Haughey had not accepted money from Ben Dunne.

That was a politically reckless act for somebody in his position because it inevitably exposed him to inference of impropriety even if there was none.

This was one of the conclusions of Judge Brian McCracken in his tribunal report, which was a devastating indictment of Haughey. The judge made little effort to hide his annoyance at the way Haughey had prevaricated and lied to the tribunal. McCracken stopped short of accusing the former Taoiseach of perjury, or obstructing the tribunal, but there was little doubt he believed the Short Fellow was guilty of such behaviour.

"The tribunal considers Mr Charles Haughey's evidence to be unacceptable and untrue," he wrote, citing eleven different instances in which he described the former Taoiseach's testimony as "not believable", "quite unbelievable", "most unlikely", "beyond all credibility", or "incomprehensible".

McCracken said it was not for the tribunal to determine whether Haughey should be prosecuted. "This is a matter for the Director of Public Prosecutions." He added rather pointedly, however, "that the circumstances warrant the papers in the matter being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for his consideration as to whether there ought to be a prosecution".

Haughey was charged with obstructing the McCracken Tribunal in 1999, but the courts ruled that the case could not proceed because of prejudicial publicity, especially with the ongoing Moriarty Tribunal, which had been set up following the McCracken report.

In recent weeks the publicity has become even more prejudicial. For instance, RTÉ News mistakenly reported that Dunne gave Haughey £8.5 million, which was nearly four times the actual figure. Some commentators have since been accusing RTÉ of supposedly trying to rehabilitate Haughey with the TV series, even while he was actually being torn to shreds by some of the distorted commentaries on developments at the Moriarty Tribunal.

Despite the whitewash smears, the TV series was generally balanced, but it was trying to cover 40 years of controversy in just four hours. In the midst of all the hype about the programmes, the shock and horror being expressed by the media at what was coming out of the Moriarty Tribunal reflected very poorly on those commentators who were expressing astonishment and dismay because there was really very little that was significantly new about the latest disclosures.

We have long known that Haughey made representations for Philip Curran, chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, to meet Ben Dunne in 1988.

What we learned in recent weeks was that he had previously made similar arrangements for Dunne to meet Curran's predecessor, Séamus Paircéir, in 1987.

In Britain there would be horror if a politicians intervened in such a way, but in this country we expect our politicians to facilitate such meetings.

Indeed, when the late Hugh Coveney went to Finance Minister Alan Dukes for Ben Dunne before Haughey came to power, Dukes helped to arrange a meeting with Paircéir.

There was absolutely nothing improper with that, or with either of the meetings that Haughey helped to arrange for Dunne with Paircéir and Curran. If Ben Dunne had got what he was looking for from Paircéir, there would have been no need for the meeting with Curran, which was therefore the more important one.

The McCracken Tribunal was told about Haughey's involvement in arranging the Curran meeting. Nothing developed from it and Mr Justice McCracken who was not sparing in his criticism of Haughey's overall conduct noted that no improper actions were discovered in relation to arranging that 1988 meeting.

Yet you would think that the recent disclosure of the earlier futile meeting that Haughey had arranged for Dunne with Paircéir was evidence of one of the greatest pieces of financial skulduggery ever.

At the time the Dunnes were facing a bill for £38.8m in capital gains tax as a result of legislative changes since Ben Dunne Snr set up the family trust in 1964 to ensure the financial security of his six children.

REVENUE realised the Dunnes would likely contest this tax assessment, with the result that it was inflated to provide leeway for the taxmen to settle for something significantly lower. After consultations with Ben Dunne and his representatives, Paircéir offered to settle for £16m on behalf of the Revenue Commissioners.

Reading and listening to some of the commentators one would think that this saved Ben Dunne over £22m, and hence he could not possibly have forgotten such a saving when he failed to mention it at the McCracken Tribunal. If that was what occurred, one could well question Ben's forgetfulness, but it was far from what actually happened.

Fortunately for everybody the Dunnes decided not to accept the £16m settlement offer. Paircéir retired from the Revenue in September 1987, and Dunnes hired him as a tax consultant for a year. In November they appealed against the capital gains tax, and the Appeals Commissioners a totally different body from the Revenue Commissioners ruled that Dunnes did not owe any of the money.

Thus, any intervention by Haughey or Paircéir on Ben Dunne's behalf in relation to the capital gains issue was of no significance whatever. Yet, with all the ballyhoo in recent days, you would think that Haughey had actually saved Ben a fortune at the expense of the exchequer. That is crap, as Albert Reynolds might say; the £38.8m was not owed in the first place.

This reminds one of the story of the boy who asked his father to explain the difference between theory and reality. The father told the lad to ask his mother and his sister if they would sleep with the milkman for a million euro.

The boy returned to say that both had said, yes. "Well," said the father, "in theory we're sitting on a goldmine, but in reality we're sharing the house with a couple of hookers!"

It is time we faced reality. In theory the Moriarty Tribunal is uncovering vital new information, but in reality it's flogging the proverbial dead horse at enormous public expense. The much-hyped disclosures of recent weeks added little of significance to what we already knew. If the Dunnes had accepted the £16m settlement offered by Paircéir, this would now be unfairly depicted as proof of a sleazy deal that cost the exchequer £22.8m.

The whole thing would be blamed on that mighty midget from Kinsealy. In reality, of course, Dunnes would have paid £16m that they did not owe.

Investigating Haughey further is only a distraction because, for all his real achievements, we already know he betrayed the public trust, lied shamelessly, misappropriated money, evaded tax and compromised himself by pocketing millions in dubious gifts. Gathering more information is just overkill. But it would be useful if the

Moriarty Tribunal served the interests of justice by getting to the truth about the antics of some of the other politicians before they are at death's door. Otherwise the tribunal should be shut down and the money used for some useful purpose.