Mr. Niall Cody:

The Deputy mentioned that she appreciates the 1997 Act. Section 851A of that Act is a provision that makes it a criminal offence to speak about the affairs of taxpayers. Every time I appear before this committee or other committees, I always highlight the fact that section 851A limits what I can speak about in the context of individual cases. We have provided a comprehensive reply to the request for information by the committee on the case. I have no problem going through the reply with the committee, but I will bow to the direction of the Chairman on when he wishes to take that. I am sure many of the committee members are interested in a discussion on the case.

As an introductory piece, I refer to the self-assessment system. The original assessment in this case was determined by the taxpayer and the original assessment was a nil liability. That must be borne in mind as well. We then wrote under self-assessment and we would carry out our audit and inquiries. We raise assessments when we believe it is appropriate based on the information we have and having regard to timelines. We are bound by timelines in the context of when we can raise assessments. In the normal course, once the assessment is raised, the taxpayer is entitled to appeal that assessment and provide additional information following the raising of the assessment. In many cases, that gives rise to a settlement before the matter goes to appeal. The background, to the extent I can discuss the case, is set out in the letter. It is important to note that the explanation of how the self-assessment, appeal and assessment systems work is also set out in that letter. I am willing to go through it. I believe there was a bit of a misunderstanding. Originally, the Chairman thought the committee had written to us but we had not responded. I was watching the proceedings. The Chairman was surprised that the committee had not received a reply, but we had not received the request. We replied in line with the request, as we always do.