Former chief explains lack of writing

The former ACC chief executive, Mr John McCloskey, told the inquiry he had a style of management which did not include written…

The former ACC chief executive, Mr John McCloskey, told the inquiry he had a style of management which did not include written instructions but instead involved sitting down with people in their offices and giving directions on reports which they initiated.

Responding to Mr Pat Rabbitte, who said the lack of paperwork emanating from the former head of ACC was intriguing, Mr McCloskey said he gave verbal directions to his immediate sub ordinates in head office. "That was my style of management."

Mr Rabbitte asked whether there was any precedent "for nothing, absolutely nothing, bearing the signature of the chief executive".

Mr McCloskey replied that there was nothing on paper in relation to DIRT because Mr Billy Moore, deputy chief executive, was given responsibility for tax compliance. In relation to correspondence with branch managers, the general manager, retail banking, would have dealt with that.

READ MORE

Mr Moore had also played a key role in setting up an ACC branch in the Isle of Man.

Mr Rabbitte put it to Mr McCloskey that his "fingerprints" were on nothing relating to the long form report draft, an audit of ACC prepared in December, 1992, for a possible privatisation.

Mr McCloskey said a full long form report was never produced but he would have given general directions on the draft report at management committee meetings.

Asked why the draft report, which suggested that ACC could have a DIRT liability of £17 million in a year when the bank had an £8 million profit, did not cause him "to spring into writing", he said he was left in no doubt by Mr Moore that it was not a real liability.

Mr Moore's understanding on this issue followed a meeting with the Revenue Commissioners in February 1993. That interpretation was disputed by the Revenue Commissioners yesterday.

"We had an understanding with the Revenue arising from that meeting that if we put our house in order there would be no back dating.

"The Revenue did not at any subsequent time bill us arising out of that meeting," said Mr McCloskey.

He added that the £17 million liability figure was arrived at by treating non-resident accounts which did not have declarations as bogus. In some cases the correct declaration procedure was subsequently followed.

One charitable State institution, he said, had a £13 million account in Westmoreland Street, Dublin, and "what I call a global declaration" which was "substantially correct".

"In that charity there was more than one account and we did not have a declaration for each account. We subsequently got that, and the institution concerned is not subject to any tax."