Lodgements to the bank account of a former Limerick alderman totalled nearly three times his declared net income for the same year, a court has heard.
Mr Michael Kelly (47) is before Limerick District Court charged with eight VAT and income tax offences, seven summonses against his company, Crestwin Ltd, and 12 summonses alleging breaches of the Social Welfare Act.
Mr Kelly, St Francis John House, Ballyneety, Co Limerick, is contesting all the charges bar eight of the 12 alleged social welfare breaches.
An officer for the Criminal Assets Bureau told Judge Michael Reilly that a detailed investigation revealed recorded lodgements to Mr Kelly's bank account for the financial year ending April 5th, 2001, in excess of £61,000. He said Mr Kelly's declared gross income for the same period - based on a P60 supplied to the Revenue Commissioners - was just £24,000.
The CAB officer, known to the court only as agent No 30, said the defendant's tax deductions amounted to £3,201 for the year. There were a number of substantial lodgements to the former alderman's bank account which gave rise for concern, the officer said. These included records of one lodgement of £25,000, one of £7,900 and two of £5,000, made over a seven-month period.
On the basis of these recorded lodgements, the officer said he had reason to believe that Mr Kelly had income other than that declared through his company, Crestwin Ltd, for the same financial year.
The court also heard that the P60 details of Mr Kelly's wife, Ms Majella Kelly, for the same period may become relevant to the case.
Defence counsel, Mr Brian McInerney, put it to officer No 30 that "certain entities" did not have an obligation to pay VAT. The agent conceded that, in theory, that was correct.
Defence counsel then asked the CAB agent if there were circumstances where certain bank lodgements did not have any bearing on an individual's tax returns.
"If a person borrowed money to go to a pigeon fancier's convention, should it be included in the individual's tax returns?" queried Mr McInerney. "No it should not," replied officer No 30.
The case was adjourned until February 26th.