Questions Raised About Absence Of Tax Evasion Statistics In Irish Crime Reports

by Jason Gorringe, Tax-News.com, London

05 October 2001

As the nation awaits the latest crime statistics report, questions have been raised in the Irish media regarding the consistent absence of tax evasion data from Garda reports.

The Irish law enforcement agency has responded with irritation, stating that it is the responsibility of the Revenue Commissioners to initiate prosecutions for tax fraud, not of the police, but in the wake of the recent government crackdown on tax evasion, for example the drive to flush out non-resident account holders dodging Irish taxes, there is disbelief that no prosecutions are likely to be recorded in official crime figures. 'How are we to judge the level of crime if a major and prevalent crime is left out of the crime figures?' asked Vincent Browne, a reporter for the Dublin based Irish Times.

According to the report from the Irish Comptroller and Auditor General published last week, there were 56 agreed settlements between the Revenue Department and delinquent taxpayers which amounted to over £100,000 each, with some comprising a great deal more than that in evaded tax, penalties, and interest. However, not a single prosecution for 'intention to defraud' was taken in these cases, a fact which has raised eyebrows in Ireland.

Certain sectors of the media, again most notably the Irish Times, have posited their own reasons for the absence of tax evasion statistics in the annual crime reports, alleging foul play and political collusion in tax evasion cases such as 'pick-me-up' schemes involving financial donors to political parties, whereby goods and services are obtained for parties in lieu of straightforward contributions, thus allowing the donor to claim back the VAT involved in the transaction and offset the expense against their own or their company's tax liabilities.

However, all of the country's major political parties have denied knowledge of this loophole in Irish tax law, claiming that the fraud, where it was committed, was perpetrated by the donor, and not by them.

Recommended