The former chairman of the Revenue Commissioners never considered referring the Haughey family to the Revenue's investigative branch, the Moriarty tribunal heard.
Mr Seamus Pairceir said he never thought of doing such a thing. "Even now I don't see why I should have," he said. This was despite Mr and Mrs Charles Haughey not disclosing £300,000 income for the tax year to April 1980, allegedly given as a deposit on lands at Kinsealy by the Gallagher Group Ltd.
The sale was never completed as the Gallagher Group went into receivership and under the terms of a contract, the bone fides of which Mr Pairceir said were in question, the deposit was non-refundable.
Questioned by Mr John Coughlan SC, for the tribunal, Mr Pairceir said the criteria for referring matters to the Revenue's investigative branch included non-disclosure of income or assets. Counsel suggested that based on these criteria consideration should have been given to referring the Haugheys to it.
Mr Pairceir said he did not "lean down" on those in the branch and tell them who to investigate. "It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable. We were aware of an asset which had passed to the Haugheys on the basis of the agreement (with the Gallagher Group Ltd).
"The tax liability on that is dealt with in the capital gains tax legislation. Every time an asset passes around you don't launch an investigation branch inquiry," he said.
Counsel asked what was the sensitivity on the matter and why he had liaised with the chief inspector of taxes, Mr Christopher Clayton, on the matter. He wondered if it was because of Mr Haughey's identity.
Mr Pairceir said first it was because Mr Haughey was a prominent person and later said it wasn't because of Mr Haughey's identity. He said he was curious to see what the reaction would be when the Haughey family was asked to pay tax on income they had not disclosed.
He also wanted to give Mr Clayton "cover" and assurance that the chairman was aware of what action he was taking in the event of there being a complaint. Mr Pairceir was adamant he did not supervise Mr Clayton's dealings with the Haugheys. The receiver appointed to the Gallagher Group was Mr Laurence Crowley.
Mr Crowley's solicitor suggested the Revenue Commissioners appoint a liquidator, as it would be the only way in which the "true facts" surrounding the contract would emerge.
It would enable company director Mr Patrick Gallagher to be examined on the bone fides of the contract.
Mr Pairceir said he considered the option but decided against it.
Among the reasons for not proceeding were court action costs which would have been substantial and the likelihood that the action would succeed was "a long shot". It was a "hazardous route" and resources were scarce at the time, he said.
He said he had not allowed Mr Haughey's status to influence his decision.