Ms Josephine Feehily:

There was no consensus in Revenue as to the likelihood of success in litigation in that case. That is not, and it was not, documented. We have reviewed it and that is the view of the anti-avoidance network. There was no consensus that we would succeed if we went any further. It was very clear that in order to succeed and to begin to approach those figures we would have to go further. That is one of the biggest judgment points in very large cases because they are always complex. People may or may not be familiar with our anti-avoidance provision which took about 20 years to be tested all the way to the Supreme Court. In this particular case we did not have the confidence to insist, and that was a confidence based on consultation, which we acknowledge fully was not properly documented on the audit file. For that consultation to take place, there was not the confidence that we could actually collect the money. If the taxpayer was right it was zero and that is the problem we are faced with, and an auditor could be faced with. If the taxpayer is right and prevails, through the appeals system, it was zero.