16th March 2001

OPENING STATEMENT WAS DELIVERED AS FOLLOWS BY MR HEALY:

MR. HEALY: When the Tribunal sittings were last adjourned, evidence had been given by a number of witnesses from the Revenue Commissioners in connection with the relationship between Mr. Charles Haughey and the Revenue and with particular reference to the collection by the Revenue Commissioners of taxation due on payments found by the McCracken Tribunal to have been made to Mr. Haughey. At the time it was indicated that the Tribunal would also be looking at the collection by the Revenue Commissioners of the taxation due on payments found by the McCracken Tribunal to have been made to Mr. Michael Lowry.

Since these sittings were adjourned, a significant amount of work has been done in private examining a number of other aspects of the relationship between Mr. Haughey and the Revenue Commissioners on the one hand, and the relationship between Mr. Lowry and the Revenue Commissioners on the other. The Tribunal apprehends that there may be certain difficulties in proceeding to elaborate on aspects of the respective relationships between Mr. Haughey and Mr. Lowry and the Revenue Commissioners and on the continuing dealings the Revenue Commissioners are having with each of those taxpayers with a view to collecting taxation which may be due from them. The Tribunal’s apprehension is that it may not be practical in the short term to deal in any real detail with these continuing relationships. I may say something about these practical difficulties at a later point, but because the Tribunal does not propose at this time to deal with these continuing relationships in any detail, it may be appropriate that the Tribunal should endeavour, and that the Revenue Commissioners should be afforded an opportunity of endeavouring, to give some overview of the approach the Revenue has taken to dealing with taxation due or which may be due by Mr. Haughey and Mr. Lowry.

Following the evidence given at and the Report of the McCracken Tribunal, the Revenue Commissioners, in the light of the new information which then became available, set about ascertaining to what extent Mr. Haughey had complied with his obligations under the tax code with a view to identifying whether there had been any failure on his part to comply with those obligations.

Now, in Mr. Lowry’s case, as I may mention in a moment, the approach of the Revenue was slightly different because, in fact, the Revenue’s dealings with Mr. Lowry in connection with monies referred to in the McCracken Report, in fact, preceded the establishment of that Tribunal. Eventually, of course, after the Tribunal had reported, the Revenue was relying not just on information which it had prior to the establishment of the Tribunal, but on new information which became available in the course of the public hearings of and as a result of the Report of the Tribunal.

In general, the approach of the Revenue involved establishing whether there was a liability to pay tax; whether, in other words, there was an exposure on the part of either Mr. Haughey or Mr. Lowry to a monetary liability to pay tax. The Revenue evaluation of these matters also involved a consideration as to whether there was any culpability on the part of Mr. Haughey or Mr. Lowry which might warrant the institution of or an assessment as to whether the Revenue Commissioners ought to recommend the institution of, criminal proceedings. In short, the Revenue had to decide whether tax was due and whether, in approaching the collection of that tax, they shouldn’t, in addition, consider whether there was any criminal culpability for failure to comply with obligations under the tax code.

Now, the Revenue Commissioners have provided the Tribunal with information concerning the way the Revenue approached these twin aspects of tax compliance over the years and the Tribunal has been informed that while historically the prosecution and the establishment of criminal liability was not a major feature of the activities of the Revenue Commissioners, a new approach to criminal liability has evolved over recent years and, indeed, at an ever accelerating pace since in or about 1996. It would appear that up until the early 1990s only a small number of prosecutions were processed for tax evasion and it seems that between 1985 and 1995, for instance, there were only two successful prosecutions for tax evasion. That is not to say that, during that time, there weren’t a far greater number of prosecutions, presumably in the District Court, for failure to make returns.

Since 1996, however, the Revenue has become more active in what I call the criminal arena and has played a more intensive role in the process involved in the establishment of criminal liability. It has now developed a systematic approach to the prosecution of offences under the Income Tax Code and the other tax headings under which taxpayers may become liable to criminal penalties for failure to pay tax or make returns.

Prior to the development of this new approach, prosecutions were handled in the main by the Garda authorities and ultimately, of course, by the DPP. With the development of a new policy since 1996 (since indeed in or about the time that the issues which ultimately led to the McCracken Tribunal and, prior to that, the Buchanan Report came into the public domain), the Revenue carries out most of the investigatory work itself and prepares cases for processing through the criminal system. This systematic approach involves the processing of the investigation and the sending of the results of that investigation to the DPP. It is, of course, the DPP who makes the final decision as to prosecution. Notwithstanding that it is the DPP who makes the final decision, the Revenue, it appears, continues to be involved in the presentation of cases as the investigating authority, as it were. In other words, the Revenue has replaced the role formerly played by the Gardai as part of the criminal investigation process in the context of offences under the tax code.

In the cases of Mr. Michael Lowry and Mr. Charles Haughey, the Revenue Commissioners have given consideration to both civil and criminal responsibility on the part of the taxpayers. As I mentioned earlier, in Mr. Lowry’s case, the Revenue investigation in fact preceded the institution of the two Inquiries with which the work of this Tribunal is related; i.e., the Inquiry carried out by His Honour Judge Buchanan and the later inquiry carried out by Mr. Justice Brian McCracken. Since prior to the Buchanan Inquiry in the case of Mr. Lowry, and since the Report of the McCracken Tribunal in the case of Mr. Haughey, the Revenue has an ongoing relationship with both Mr. Haughey and Mr. Lowry. I do not propose, in the course of this Opening Statement, to deal with aspects of the Revenue’s continuing relationship with Mr. Lowry as this will be the subject of a further Opening Statement some time next week prior to the giving of evidence in connection with that ongoing relationship.

Mr. Haughey’s relationship with the Revenue Commissioners has already, in part, crystallised in the form of the settlement reached by the Revenue Commissioners in March 2000, whereby Mr. Haughey paid the sum of £1,009,435.00 in respect of assessments totalling £1,165,000.00. While the Tribunal has been made aware of the extent of and the various strands in the continuing relationship between the Revenue Commissioners and Mr. Haughey, it would be preferable to avoid, so far as this is practicable within a reasonable time, leading evidence in connection with dealings which are, as it were, “live” between Mr. Haughey and the Revenue Commissioners. That is not to say that the Tribunal will avoid dealing with those issues or will avoid going into those areas or that there is any risk that the Tribunal would report without dealing with them.

The same applies and will apply when the Tribunal comes to deal with Mr. Lowry’s affairs next week. They may be dealt with in a somewhat summary form, at least as long as it is practicable for the Tribunal to leave these “live” dealings out of account in its public sittings until the various parties involved have made more progress.

In these sittings, therefore, in so far as Mr. Haughey is concerned, the Tribunal proposes to deal with the outstanding details of one aspect of the Revenue relationship with Mr. Haughey which appears to have more or less concluded, that is to say the collection of tax due on the payments found to have been made to Mr. Haughey in the Report of the McCracken Tribunal. This will involve further evidence from Mr. Brian McCabe, the official of the Revenue Commissioners or one of the officials of the Revenue Commissioners who was involved on a day-to-day basis with Mr. Haughey’s advisers in connection with assessments which ultimately resulted in the settlement in March 2000. Evidence has already been given by Mr. McCabe and at the last sittings he referred to the course of his dealings with Mr. Haughey’s advisers. Reference was made to correspondence between Mr. McCabe and Mr. Haughey and also to correspondence with Mr. Haughey’s tax agents. There was also reference to a number of meetings between Mr. McCabe and Mr. Haughey’s agents and to the notes or memoranda of the contents of those meetings.

You recall, Sir, that in the evidence of Mr. Quigley, Chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, reference was made to the ultimate settlement and to the terms of settlement and to the overall basis upon which the Revenue Commissioners felt justified in reaching a settlement in the terms agreed in March 2000. In neither Mr. McCabe’s evidence, however, nor in Mr. Quigley’s evidence, were the details of the considerations which prompted the Revenue to agree a settlement referred to. Now, there is no suggestion that the Revenue Commissioners had in any way failed to provide the Tribunal with details of those considerations; in fact, the documentation which was available to the Tribunal and which was appended to the earlier Memorandum of Evidence of Mr. McCabe included references to those detailed considerations of the matters which informed the Revenue approach to the settlement. In the course of Mr. McCabe’s evidence on the 13th February 2001, you will recall that I mentioned that certain documents and certain material made available by Mr. McCabe would not be referred to at that stage, but that ultimately it would be necessary to revisit those areas and to recall him to give evidence in relation to them. It is in relation to those documents that he is to be recalled to give evidence at these sittings.

In order to understand the details of the dealings between the Revenue and Mr. Haughey’s agents which ultimately led to the settlement of Mr. Haughey’s liabilities, a number of key dates should be borne in mind.

The first of these is the date of the Revenue Commissioners’ first formal communications to Mr. Haughey concerning his liability for Capital Acquisitions Tax. This was a letter of the 28th August 1997 from Mr. McCabe to Deloitte & Touche for the attention of Mr. Pat Kenny. This letter may have been mentioned at the last sittings. Very briefly, it says that, going onto the second paragraph:

“It has come to our attention that your client has received substantial sums by way of gifts. As donee, your client is primarily accountable for the payment of Gift Tax under section 35(1) of the Capital Acquisitions Tax Act 1976. According to our records, however, no gift tax returns have been filed, nor tax payments made in respect of any gifts received.

In light of the foregoing, I am to ask for an explanation as to why gift tax returns have not been delivered in accordance with section 36(2) of the Capital Acquisition Tax Act, 1976. This request relates to all gifts received by your client.”

And then a time for a reply was given.

I think as I mentioned, or as was mentioned certainly by Mr. McCabe when he last gave evidence, Mr. Kenny replied indicating that he was no longer acting as Mr. Haughey’s tax agent and that Mr. Paul Moore was acting, with the result that a letter was sent to Mr. Paul Moore in similar terms on the 25th September 1997. And there the second paragraph is the material paragraph and it’s more or less the same as the paragraph that I have just read out in the letter to Deloitte & Touche.

That seems to have been the opening communication which led to a series of dealings which ultimately culminated in a settlement of the Revenue Commissioners appeal to the Circuit Court. Sometime shortly following that letter, by letter of the 10th December 1997 from Mr. McCabe to Mr. Haughey, Mr. Haughey was given formal notice of assessments to Capital Acquisitions Tax. Now, those notices were accompanied by a letter. The notices were dated 10th December 1997. In total they amounted to £1,164,739.00. In the letter which is on the overhead projector, it was pointed out that the accrual of further interest on the assessments would be prevented if they were discharged within 30 days from the date of the notices. You can see that, at the end of the first paragraph on the overhead projector, the Revenue informed the taxpayer that the accrual of further interest would be prevented if the notices of the assessments were discharged within 30 days, that is to say, sometime in or about the middle of January, I suppose.

By letter of the 7th January 1998, Mr. Paul Moore, on behalf of Mr. Haughey, indicated that he wished to notify the Revenue Commissioners of his client’s intention to appeal against the assessments. Mr. Haughey’s advisers asserted that the assessments were incorrect; in particular, it was intimated by Mr. Moore that it would be argued on behalf of Mr. Haughey that there were no chargeable dispositions within the meaning of the Capital Acquisition Tax Acts on the grounds that the identity of the disponers and the date of the dispositions could not be ascertained. He went on to inform the Revenue, perhaps somewhat unusually, that he nevertheless was continuing to attempt to identify the disponers; in other words, that he was continuing to endeavour to identify the persons who made the gifts and the dates of the dispositions, that is, the dates on which the gifts were made.

And if you go to the second page of the letter, in the last paragraph he said:

“As mentioned in my previous letter, I am giving urgent attention to this case and am attempting to identify the disponers and the dates of the dispositions. The appropriate returns will be made as soon as the identity of the disponer or disponers are clear.”

There were continuing dealings between both Mr. McCabe on behalf of Capital Acquisitions Taxes Branch, and Mr. Moore in relation to the assessments, and it appears that during or at the same time, there were also continuing dealings between the separate Investigations Branch of the Revenue Commissioners and Mr. Haughey with respect to other aspects of Mr. Haughey’s affairs. In the course of these various dealings under different tax heads, Mr. Haughey made a payment on account of tax due of £100,000.00. This was paid to the Revenue Commissioners in or about the 24th June 1998.

The formal process of making assessments and appeals continued during all of these various dealings and it will be recalled that, on the last occasion he gave evidence, Mr. McCabe also mentioned that Mr. Haughey was aware that there were potential criminal liabilities involved in failure to comply with the relevant tax obligations which were the subject of these dealings.

On the 29th July 1998, there was an appeal hearing before the Appeal Commissioner, Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kelly’s determination was not given until December of 1998. In the meantime, the Revenue Commissioners continued to deal with Mr. Haughey’s tax agents and I have already made reference, and I think Mr. McCabe has made reference in his evidence, to the nature of those dealings.

I now want to come to some of the aspects of those dealings which were not mentioned in detail in the course of Mr. McCabe’s last testimony to the Tribunal.

In that period between the appeal hearing and the determination by the Appeal Commissioner, Mr. Kelly, there were a number of meetings and one of these meetings took place on the 5th August of 1998 between Mr. McCabe and a colleague, Ms. Anne Sheridan, from the Capital Taxes Division, Mr. Stephen Treacy from the Investigations Branch of the Revenue Commissioners, and on Mr. Haughey’s side, as it were, Mr. Paul Moore and Mr. Terry Cooney. Now, in the course of that meeting, the question of prosecution was mentioned. Mr. McCabe has provided the Tribunal with a minute of this meeting. If you go to the second page of that memo and the paragraph which begins, “They indicated…”; this is a reference to what was indicated by Messrs. Moore and Cooney. This is document number 33, Sir, in the documents provided by Mr. McCabe. Mr. McCabe’s documents are not paginated but they are numbered. And the minute says:

“They indicated that traditionally there has always been an opportunity in tax cases to settle the case – settlement is part of the system. They said that they had been chosen precisely because they are the type of people who “would not fight every inch of the way” but rather would get the tax paid. Ultimately the case would have to be settled and they were working towards that. They wanted to continue to talk and deal. If, however, there was always the threat of criminal prosecution – which had been flagged on a number of occasions – then it may be that they were the wrong people to be dealing with the case. They were trying to avoid getting into a situation where the fear of incriminating the client became so strong that the legal people would say “back off”. If, however, Revenue were simply putting down a marker then they would be anxious to continue talking to us. At this point in the meeting, it was indicated that Revenue were in the process of investigating the case and that effectively nothing had been ruled in or out. Revenue were happy to talk to the agents in progressing that investigation but were not prepared to talk in terms of settlement.”

As we know, the Appeal Commissioner, Mr. Kelly, made his determination in December. He reduced the assessments to nil. The Revenue Commissioners decided to appeal. Pending the appeal they continued, as before, to deal with Mr. Haughey’s advisers. Obviously, there was a qualitative difference between the nature of the relationship in the pre and post Appeal Commissioners’ determination periods. I think as Mr. Quigley has pointed out in evidence, in the period prior to the determination of Mr. Kelly, the Revenue Commissioners were dealing with a significant assessment and the potential liability on Mr. Haughey’s part to pay substantial interest from the 12th December of 1997. From the time of the determination of Mr. Kelly in December of 1998, the Revenue Commissioners were faced with a nil assessment unless they could overturn the determination of Mr. Kelly.

Throughout all this period there was, of course, the potential for prosecution. Both the question of prosecution and the question of civil liability featured in the continuing relationship between the Revenue Commissioners and Mr. Haughey’s agents. Although the question of prosecution is not expressly mentioned in the ultimate settlement that was reached, it was, nevertheless, a feature of the negotiations which led to that settlement. In particular, it featured in dealings between the Revenue and Mr. Haughey’s agents in two meetings, on the 13th March 2000, and on the 21st March 2000, respectively. Mr. McCabe was in attendance at each of these meetings and kept a minute of what transpired.

The minutes in each case, in the main, dealt with the monetary terms of any settlement, with the question of the confidentiality, if any, which would attach to the ultimate terms of settlement and with the question of securing payment of any amount agreed to be paid as part of any settlement. The meetings, as I said, also dealt with the question of prosecution.

In his minute of the meeting of the 13th March, in dealing with the question of prosecution, paragraph Roman numeral 5, Mr. McCabe said:

“As far as prosecution was concerned, Revenue indicated. That because of evidential difficulties they were not in a position to initiate prosecution proceedings in respect of the payments currently assessed to Gift Tax and interest. It was made clear, however, that the Revenue position in this regard would not bind any other agency including the DPP.”

Now, that meeting was one which was attended by Mr. McCabe, Ms. Maureen Moore from the Capital Taxes Division, Mr. Paddy Donnelly from the Chief Inspectors Office, all on the Revenue side, and in attendance on Mr. Haughey’s side were Mr. Paul Moore and Mr. Terry Cooney. That meeting was very close to the finalisation of the ultimate settlement.

The next meeting of the 21st March, in fact, just preceded the finalisation of the settlement. At the meeting of the 21st March, the overall implications of the settlement were discussed and extensive consideration appears to have been given to the question of criminal liability.

On the first page of the minute, in the last paragraph, the minute says:

“Revenue indicated that the agreement under s942(8), related to the civil liability for the tax and interest as assessed. S942(8) provided a statutory basis for varying the assessments, without recourse to the Circuit Court. In effect under the agreement, four of the assessments would be amended to limit the interest element to 100% of the tax, while the remaining three assessments would stand good. If all sides were agreed and it was otherwise considered appropriate, the CCJ could be asked to accept the assessments so revised on the 4th April. Settlement under s942(8) would not and could not be used for any other purpose such as an admission of guilt for the purposes of criminal proceedings. Effectively under s942(8) the client was accepting that a tax liability existed which he would have to discharge, but such acceptance did not amount to an admission by him that he had “knowingly or wilfully” failed to deliver returns within the statutory time limits. The Revenue indicated that when the client’s legal advisers were brought on board, they would undoubtedly give him comfort in that regard.

“On the question of prosecution generally for failure to deliver returns, Revenue again indicated that, “referring no doubt to the meeting of the 13th March” that, due to evidential difficulties in the case they were of the view that there was insufficient evidence for them to initiate a criminal prosecution. When asked about the position of other agencies in that regard, Revenue stressed that their position in regard to prosecution could not bind the DPP or any other agency. For example, as a result of some inquiry from “John Citizen”, the Gardai might decide to undertake a criminal investigation of their client. Such inquiry could lead to a file being sent to the DPP, and if this occurred, Revenue could not preclude the possibility that they would be asked to assist any such investigation and would clearly do so.

“On the question of whether or not the position on prosecution,” — i.e., the position which had just been outlined obviously — “would be included in the terms of the agreement, Revenue made it clear that to do so would give the false impression that the prospect of prosecution was traded against a monetary settlement, which was not the position. Revenue’s right of action in this case related to (criminal) prosecution proceedings for failure to file returns and the separate matter of (civil) monetary liability arising on the payments as assessed. The facts were, that prosecution had been discussed and had been ruled out because of the legal advice relating to evidential difficulties. Had the evidence been sufficiently strong to sustain a case, Revenue would already have initiated (criminal) prosecution proceedings in this case.”

The advantages of the settlement which was ultimately agreed have already been mentioned by Mr. Quigley in his evidence and, in particular, the fact that the settlement provided for a substantial payment by Mr. Haughey, which included interest amounting to approximately 100% of the tax due. It did, of course, involve the Revenue in foregoing interest for a substantial period, but as Mr. Quigley has pointed out in evidence, there were important questions which tied the Revenue’s hands in seeking to obtain any larger sums from Mr. Haughey; in particular, as by the time of the settlement, the assessments had been reduced to nil by the Appeal Commissioner.

The effect of the settlement was to provide for a simple money payment by Mr. Haughey. By that I mean that it did not involve any admission on the part of Mr. Haughey that any other payments of the same kind as, or sharing any of the characteristics of, the payments referred to in the McCracken Tribunal, could also be taxed or would give rise to any taxation liability in his part. In other words, it was a payment on Mr. Haughey’s part which did not involve an admission of liability, leaving him free, as it were, to dispute liability in relation to any other payments that might be found to be due. This is clear from the terms of the settlement, and in particular from the terms of paragraphs 4 and 5. The settlement was made, in fact, as far as I can see, on the 3rd April. I have been describing it as the March settlement. The negotiations which led to the settlement obviously took place in March. But the document incorporating the settlement was not, in fact, perfected until the 3rd April.

The settlement refers to the assessments that were raised and eventually, in the material part, describes what has actually been agreed and what sum is to be paid by Mr. Haughey; that is the sum mentioned in the end of paragraph 1, the material part of the settlement, of £1,164,739.00. It says that:

“The Taxpayer accepts, pursuant to this Agreement, he is liable for the payment of this Revenue debt and undertakes to discharge this debt in full not later than the first day of October 2000.”

He agrees to pay interest after that date in default of payment. Paragraph 4 says that:

“The Taxpayer accepts that this agreement is only in respect of the seven assessments to Gift Tax set out in the Schedule hereto and amended herein raised on him by the Revenue on the 10th day of December, 1997, arising out of the payments identified as having been received by him in the McCracken Tribunal, and has no application to, or implications for, liabilities, if any, that may arise in respect of those payments under any other tax head.”

It goes on to say that:

“The Taxpayer accepts that this agreement has no application to liabilities, if any, that exist, or may arise, under any tax head in respect of other payments or income received by him, including payments that have been, or may be, identified by the Moriarty Tribunal or otherwise, or to tax arising on the sale of assets to facilitate the disposal of the Revenue debt.”

Those are the paragraphs which, as I said, indicate that the agreement effectively amounts to an agreement to pay money and not an agreement which could be used to justify the characterisation by the Revenue Commissioners of any other payments as giving rise to a tax liability.

An important aspect of the agreement I think mentioned by Mr. Quigley, but not mentioned in detail, was the fact that it afforded the Revenue Commissioners the liberty of commenting in public on the terms of the settlement which would otherwise have been private. In the ordinary way, settlements between the Revenue and taxpayers are private, although they may in certain circumstances involve publication of the amounts actually paid. In this case, the Revenue Commissioners secured Mr. Haughey’s agreement not merely to the publication of a press release, but to any other requirement the Revenue might have for public disclosure. This is provided for in Paragraph 7 of the agreement, which says that:

“The Taxpayer further agrees that the matter of this agreement between the Taxpayer and the Revenue, will be made public by the Revenue by way of a Press Release, to be agreed by Taxpayer, and it is further hereby acknowledged by him that in the event of the said Revenue being required to comment publicly on any aspect of these matters, they may to do freely so as to meet their public accountability function.”

This is something that has already arisen in the course of the proceedings of this Tribunal and will continue to arise.

The settlement, however, as is clear from the portions I have put on the overhead projector and from an examination of it, makes no reference to the question of any criminal prosecution. At the same time, it seems, from the minutes of the two meetings to which I have just referred, that the taxpayer was left with what is sometimes described as comfort that there would be no prosecution, or at least comfort that any prosecution likely to be instituted could not succeed for lack of sufficient evidence. In referring to these matters in the course of an Opening Statement and in proposing to lead evidence in relation to them, it is not being suggested that the Revenue Commissioners were showing any particular favour towards Mr. Haughey. The Tribunal is obliged to examine the conduct of the Revenue Commissioners under Term of Reference (j) of the Terms of Reference which requires the Tribunal to inquire whether the Revenue Commissioners availed fully, properly and in a timely manner, in exercising the powers available to them in collecting or seeking to collect the taxation due by Mr. Michael Lowry and Mr. Charles Haughey.

It seems that in the collection of taxation due by Mr. Haughey, implicit representations were made and it may be, and indeed Mr. Quigley has so suggested, had to be made, concerning a potential exposure to prosecution. It seems that the Revenue may have had a role in relation to any such potential prosecution by way of what I think might be called a “trade off” in return for a very substantial payment of tax — a very substantial payment of tax which the Revenue might have lost if the nil assessment of the Appeal Commissioner could not be overturned on appeal to the Circuit Court.

In addition to the evidence of Mr. McCabe, the Tribunal will also be re-examining one or two outstanding aspects of the Revenue treatment of the disposition by Mr. and Mrs. Haughey of part of the lands of Abbeville in 1989 to their four children. It will be recalled that one of the issues the Tribunal sought to examine in the course of the last sittings was how the Revenue approached the stark differences between the valuation of Abbeville in 1980 in the context of what has come to be known as the Gallagher deal and its valuation in 1989 in the context of the family disposition. Evidence will be given in relation to this by Mr. Harrington of the Revenue Commissioners, and by Mr. Rogers of the Valuation Office.

I think I should say that in focusing on the very marked discrepancy between the Gallagher contract valuation in 1980 and the valuation for Capital Acquisitions Tax purposes placed on the lands by the Revenue Commissioners in 1989, the Tribunal is not suggesting that the 1980 valuation should have been adopted by the Revenue. The matter which the Tribunal will wish to scrutinize is whether the magnitude of the discrepancy between the two valuations ought to have alerted the Revenue to the possibility of some irregularity in Mr. Haughey’s financial arrangements and prompted them to review their entire relationship with Mr. Haughey and, if necessary, to re-examine the arrangements which led to the 1980 transaction and the forfeiture of the deposit for £300,000 under the guise, or what may have been the guise, of a purported sale of the lands of Abbeville at what, in 1989, would have been an enormously high valuation and in 1980 was a staggeringly high valuation.