There is an emptiness about the things that would otherwise absorb us. We await the impending calamity to befall Afghanistan and perhaps other countries. Yes, the patience has been impressive and the coalition of allies seems to have stayed the hand of America. But there is the imperious demand for Osama bin Laden, no discussion, no negotiation, dead or alive. No production of evidence, he must be extradited now or terrible retribution will surely follow.
But as we wait, some little light relief.
Any month now, the Garda report on crime for 2000 will be published. It will catalogue the usual crimes committed by citizens during that year, including larceny of bicycles, fraud by bogus salespersons, cheating, public mischief, pedal cycle offences, simple drunkenness and urinating in a public place. But a crime far more serious will not be listed, a crime of the rich, showing that it is not just in international relations is society a conspiracy of the strong against the poor. The crime is tax fraud.
There is an irritation when an issue is made of this, as though the point is a mere technicality deployed just to trip up the Garda. Anyway, they say, the Revenue Commissioners are responsible for initiating prosecutions for tax fraud, not the Garda. But how are we to judge the level of crime if a major and prevalent crime is left out of the crime statistics? Yes, yes, there are almost no prosecutions but that couldn't explain the absence of tax fraud from the crime statistics. There is no perjury but at least it gets a mention. Honest, no perjury, no reported instances of perjury and of course no prosecutions for perjury - difficult to prove, you understand. Like tax fraud.
The Comptroller and Auditor General would hardly agree with the "difficult to prove" excuse. In his report for 2000 published last week, he writes there were 56 "agreed settlements" between the Revenue Commissioners and taxpayers of over £100,000 each. One of these settlements was for £1,222,870 for income tax and another was for £1,046,088 for corporation tax.
Now it could be that some of these settlements arose from misunderstandings about the tax owed and that there was no intention to defraud. But could this be so in every one of the 56 cases? Could it be that in not one of these cases there was an intention to defraud? So it would seem the Revenue Commissioners want it to appear, for not a single prosecution was taken in any one of these instances.
The report refers to the 120 individuals named by Mary Harney's authorised officer who examined the Ansbacher caper. Payments to the Revenue Commissioners totalling £4.64 million were made by 24 individuals, an average of nearly £200,000 each.
How come none of these was prosecuted? The banks engaged in massive tax fraud for years, amounting to close to £200 million. Nobody from the banks was prosecuted, even though they knowingly colluded in massive tax fraud. Why?
But there's more.
The political parties colluded in tax fraud as well through the notorious "pick-me-up" schemes, whereby financial donors to parties, instead of making a straightforward contribution, would pay for goods or services obtained by the parties as though they had got these goods or services themselves. The fraud involved the donor claiming back the VAT involved in the transaction and offsetting the expense against their own or their companies' tax liabilities, which they were not entitled to do.
The parties have become very coy about this, claiming that any fraud perpetrated was by the donor and not by them and they would not have known that the donor would not treat the transaction properly.
Amazingly, it seems that some of the donors did pay the due tax but, in general, what possible reason would a donor have for making a payment in such a way other than to commit a fraud on tax?
It is suggested that a reason for this device could have been that they might have wished to conceal within their companies that they were making a donation but, if the concealment were to be effective, isn't it obvious that the tax fraud would have had to have taken place?
The Comptroller and Auditor General reports that there were settlements in 34 of the "smaller" cases of the "pick-me-up" scam involving an average donation of about £17,300 (pretty substantial for a small donation). Payments on account totalling in excess of £350,000 have been received in 16 "larger" cases.
How is it there is no hue and cry over this complicity by the political parties in criminality? All the huffing and puffing about crime and they are implicated in it themselves up to their necks. And as for the admonitions to pay our due taxes . . . give us a break.
On an entirely different note, I have been attempting to get answers to a few simple questions from D·n Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council over the last six weeks about chaos in the road system.
Why was the direction of traffic on a one-way road changed without any signs or notification; why is the completion of the works on the main street months overdue; was there a penalty clause agreed with the construction company and if not why not; why were "improvements" to another road in the area undone within a few months at undoubtedly substantial cost?
Can't get answers.
vbrowne@irish-times.ie