There is a strong argument that the right place for Mr Charles Haughey is in jail. The possibility exists that he could, indeed, serve time if convicted by a jury on charges of obstructing the McCracken Tribunal. More forgiving citizens, on the other hand - probably the majority - take the view that he is no longer young and that public humiliation and the exposure of his untruthfulness, in themselves, are not inconsiderable severities.
But whatever considerations of mercy might be advanced for his untruthfulness, there will be widespread outrage if he is seen to escape the tax consequences of his shady beneficial relationships with big business. The former Taoiseach received £1.3 million from Mr Ben Dunne in the most extraordinary circumstances. (Reports of other gifts and advantages are under inquiry by Mr Justice Moriarty's tribunal.) When Mr Dunne gave evidence of handing over cheques at Mr Haughey's home, Mr Haughey denied it. He told the truth only when his own legal team threatened to disown him.
Yet in spite of McCracken's findings, a revenue appeals commissioner, Mr Ronan Kelly, has determined that there is inadequate proof to support an earlier assessment by the Revenue of a liability of almost £2 million on Mr Haughey's part. It seems probable that the Revenue Commissioners will now appeal this decision to the courts. But as of now, Mr Haughey is scot-free with Mr Dunne's extraordinary gifts, without a penny liability in tax, having first given the Tribunal one version of the truth and then another. It is essential, if the taxation system is to retain any credibility, that the reasons for this decision are fully addressed in the appeal to the courts.
For decades Mr Haughey has lived a life of baronial splendour with his elegant, Gandon-designed mansion, his island retreat, his private yacht and so on. It took a fully-fledged tribunal of inquiry with the full investigative powers of the High Court to establish how it was done on the basis of a public representative's salary and allowances. The question which every taxpayer has asked over the past two years is how Mr Haughey's affairs escaped the scrutiny of the taxation authorities in a climate in which every business and PAYE contributor has been subjected to the most rigorous assessment. Some degree of reassurance that there is not one law for the rich and powerful and another for the ordinary man or woman came about when Mr Haughey was assessed for a liability of almost £2 million on foot of Mr Dunne's largesse. But with the decision of the appeals commissioner to overturn that assessment that reassurance has largely evaporated.
It is a sad parable of contemporary Ireland that the reduction of Mr Haughey's tax bill to zero should be reported on the same day that the wretched Felloni family should be in the High Court, facing the seizure of their property by the Criminal Assets Bureau. Ironically too, the Revenue chose the same day to publish a list of defaulters, mainly small to medium-sized businesses and self-employed individuals, who paid tax arrears and penalties on sums a great deal more modest than those in Mr Haughey's case.
It is not difficult to understand the sentiments of anger, injustice and inequity which are aroused when a self-confessed beneficiary of non-taxed donations, who happens to have held the most powerful political office in the land, happily finds himself absolved of liability or penalty. The fact that the appeals commissioner happens to be a brother-in-law of Mr Bertie Ahern is a cause of further dismay. Where a potential or perceived clash of interests presents itself in such circumstances, the correct course must be to step aside. That it was not done in this instance adds to the sense of public disquiet.