Without a clear understanding of why Mr Charles Haughey was not required to pay tax on the gifts of money he had admitted receiving, there was a recipe for anarchy, said Ms Avril Doyle (FG).
She said the decision of the appeal commissioner was demonstrably wrong. It was not in line with the decisions taken in, and put on the record of, the House in 1975, when the relevant legislation was being debated.
"This makes the lack of an explanation for the judgment of Mr Haughey's business all the more unacceptable. It would appear to the most informed and fairest in our land that it goes completely contrary to the legislation in question."
Two sections of that Act indicated that whether a disposition was made directly or indirectly, either the receiver or the donor was liable for tax.
"Either Mr Haughey or Mr Dunne is liable for the capital taxes on the money in question. Apparently the tax appeal commissioner has decided this is not so, and we are not entitled to an explanation. I do not accept that, because it flies in the face of the legislation and the express opinion of the Minister for Finance at the time in response to questions in the House on that issue."
Mr Maurice Manning (FG) found himself restored to power yesterday. A misprint in the Seanad order paper had him proposing a Government appropriation motion. The amused former leader of the House sought an explanation for his unexpected elevation. Had power-sharing gone that far? he wondered.
The Cathaoirleach, Mr Brian Mullooly, said the mistake would be corrected in the next order paper. "Of course, it might be an omen of things to come," he added to laughter.