Notes of an internal discussion between two senior AIB executives on the extent of its liability for DIRT indicated that the bank was hiding facts from the Revenue, the Public Accounts Committee chairman, Mr Jim Mitchell, said yesterday.
He was referring to a discussion between Mr Ian Howley, head of branch and clearing operations at AIB, and Ms Deirdre Fullen, the bank's tax compliances manager.
He referred in particular to the third paragraph of Ms Fullen's note on the discussion which said:
"I agree with Ian that there is a contingent liability there, but it would be impossible to quantify same without bringing the matter to the attention of the Revenue Commissioners, and obviously we do not wish to go this route."
Ms Fullen recalled that the note referred to October 1991 when Mr Howley had "taken over" and telephoned her. She saw no essential difference between the position then and the situation as summarised by Dr Donal de Buitleir, the group taxation chief, the previous April in a letter to the AIB group financial director, Mr John Keogh.
He had stated: "OK, we have a contingent liability because we're depending on the good faith of the Revenue, but as far as we're concerned, we have an agreement and we don't see it as being an issue."
The chairman pursued the matter, insisting that Ms Fullen's note was unequivocal in its acknowledgment that a contingent liability existed.
"It is contingent on something happening," Ms Fullen said.
"Weren't you deliberately withholding information from the Revenue Commissioners?" Mr Mitchell asked.
Ms Fullen denied this and referred to a meeting in February 1991 between the bank and Mr Tony MacCarthaigh of the Revenue Commissioners. Subsequently, a letter was received from Mr MacCarthaigh "which was somewhat ambiguous in terms of what the position was", she said.
The bank's group taxation manager, Mr Jimmy O'Mahony, telephoned the senior tax inspector on February 26th and discovered that Mr MacCarthaigh had been talking about "a retrospective payment back to April 6th, 1990", which could not be reconciled with what the bank officials believed had been agreed at the Revenue meeting.
Mr O'Mahony spoke to Mr MacCarthaigh again on March 5th, and the situation apparently reverted to the bank believing that a "forward-looking" arrangement was in place.
Asked why AIB had not sought further clarification from the Revenue Commissioners in deciding whether or not they had a contingent liability for DIRT, Ms Fullen replied: "It was probably unimportant to. I mean, why go back to the Revenue? We had a forward-looking arrangement, and why go back and start raising the whole issue all over again?" Counsel for AIB, Mr Dermot Gleeson, intervened to insist that the word "contingent" meant that there might or might not be a liability.
Mr Pat Rabbitte TD interjected to say that "contingent liability" had a specific meaning in the language of accountancy: "That's what is intended in that letter, it seems to me."
Mr Gleeson: "Well then, with respect, I'm not an accountant very obviously, but that's what should be put to the witness, the meaning. She's not an accountant either. The meaning that Deputy Rabbitte said, the special meaning that this has, should be put to the witness. That's the only fair way to do it."
Mr Rabbitte put it to Ms Fullen, that if, as she said, she "agreed with Ian" that would appear to imply that he had put it to her that there was indeed a contingent liability.
She agreed.
"And then you go on to say that the only way you can quantify that is if you were to bring the matter to the attention of the Revenue and `obviously we do not wish to go that route!' What did you mean by that?"
"By the sentence or the exclamation mark?"
"I presume the exclamation mark is the final coup de grace of the sentence," said Mr Rabbitte. "So what did you mean by the sentence?"
In the bank's view, Ms Fullen recalled, they had "entered into an arrangement" with the Revenue in 1991 on a highly sensitive issue. It was understood that the Revenue wanted to take a forward-looking view. The contingent liability referred to in the note "was based on the Revenue not complying with the arrangement we had with them at the time".
Asked to define the role of the tax compliances manager, Ms Fullen said it was to ensure the legislation was complied with. Did that include minimising the tax for which bank was liable? Mr Rabbitte asked.
"It would always be our intention to ensure that the law is applied."
"But we have several examples of where it wasn't done, for whatever reason."
Ms Fullen agreed, but said a significant effort had been made to get it right.