Witnesses who blow the whistle on corruption before the planning and Moriarty tribunals will not be able to claim tax immunity on any payments they may have received, according to the Revenue Commissioners.
However, the Revenue Commissioners have significant powers to agree a "generous" deal on any penalties due from would-be whistle-blowers, tax experts say.
With the cross-examination of Mr James Gogarty due to begin at the Flood tribunal tomorrow, there has been considerable speculation that key witnesses could be offered criminal or tax immunity in return for fresh information on political or business corruption in planning.
Much of the attention has centred on the former assistant Dublin city and county manager, Mr George Redmond, who has begun to talk formally to tribunal lawyers in the past week. Mr Redmond is said to be in possession of "explosive" information about planning matters in Dublin county. However, he told a newspaper at the weekend he would not be "singing" at the tribunal.
A spokeswoman for the Revenue said yesterday they had no powers to bargain with taxpayers over the amount of tax due.
The chairman of the tribunal, Mr Justice Flood, does not have the power to offer a witness immunity from prosecution; only the Director of Public Prosecutions can do this.
The Revenue do not have the power to discharge a liability to tax, even if the person provides them with valuable information, according to Ms Suzanne Kelly, a tax lawyer with Tax Chambers. However, they can still "cut a deal which with is considerably less vicious than it might be", she said. "The core tax would still be due, but the penalties and interest could still be bargained for." Mr Redmond (74) told The Irish Times he was under a lot of stress from Mr Gogarty's allegations. Much of his anxiety stems from a legal bill of £100,000 he says he was presented with last month. Mr Redmond was involved in a costly and unsuccessful application to the Supreme Court to have the allegations against him heard in private.
Describing legal costs as "obscene", he said: "I used to think that doctor's bills were high, but when I think about these I get sick".
Under the rules of the tribunal, he said, if he was judged not to have co-operated, he would not get his costs. But in addition to this, he could have to pay the legal costs of the tribunal.
"Between the two teams of lawyers, that could add up to £7,000 a day. That might be alright for a company, but it's far more than a normal person could endure."
