Another Houdini stunt on war’s eve

AT 4.48pm yesterday, on the eve of the biggest news event of the year, the fax machines in newspaper offices across the country whirred into life.

With 250,000 troops massing on the borders of Iraq to fight a war which threatens to change the world order as we know it, it was as the infamous spin doctor Jo Moore inelegantly put it on September 11, 2001, a good day to bury bad news.

The paper that curled out of the fax machines stated baldly that former taoiseach Charles Haughey had settled his outstanding tax liabilities with the Revenue Commissioners.

The sum comprised gift tax of 2.47m, and interest and penalties of 2.53m. It added that the settlement followed long and complex negotiations.

Given that no one can accurately gauge just how much money wealthy clients gave to bankroll Mr Haughey's ostentatious lifestyle, it's also impossible to say just how much money the former taoiseach owes the State.

But the manner in which details of the tax settlement were supplied to the media under cover of darkness will only add to the perception that Haughey has performed another Houdini-like stunt by escaping lightly from an offence that others have gone to jail for.

And what escapes they have been.

A quick canter through some of his business dealings shows Haughey leading AIB a merry dance in the 1970s as the bank sought to claw back a £1m debt.

When he was finally found out before the McCracken Tribunal, and a tax assessment was made of his gift tax liabilities, the estimate was appealed by Mr Haughey and it was reduced to nil in 1998. The Revenue Commissioners later appealed this.

And when he was brought to trial on charges of obstructing the McCracken Tribunal, it seemed the law had finally caught up with him.

Until a loose-lipped Mary Harney prejudiced the trial by saying he should go to jail, that is.

Now that he has settled his tax liabilities for around €5m, it is clear that Haughey has escaped once again.

The boom in the value of his various assets means he will easily absorb the cost.

The Revenue's relationship with Mr Haughey is one which the tax authorities would rather not be reminded of, which is perhaps one explanation why the tax settlement information slipped out last night in such a quiet manner.

For all its authority, which reduced many tax-evading citizens to penury, one of the most influential agencies of the State was reduced to quivering indecision by Mr Haughey.

Its actions over Mr Haughey's £52,330 tax liability in February 1987, when he had just been elected taoiseach for the third time, were a case in point.

It sought a response from him within 10 days to pay up. No response materialised until 10 years later, before the Moriarty Tribunal.

As Séamus Pairceir, the then chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, explained to the tribunal: "As you know, the tax liability in question has been handled sensitively and as quietly as possible on our side. We have no wish to change that position."

More recently, the Revenue appears to have changed its tune and, thanks to increased powers, is chasing down tax evaders from all backgrounds.

It has been more than keen to publicise its vigorous approach towards DIRT tax evaders and rogue financial institutions.

But you have to ask whether the Revenue would have slipped out details of the record amounts of money it re-couped for DIRT tax evaders just before the close of business, on the eve of a major war? Not likely.

The Revenue, which faced a din of criticism in the late 1990s for its approach to both Haughey and tax evasion in general, gave new life to the hackneyed expression of one law for the rich, another for the poor.

Last night's actions won't help to dispel that perception.