The Criminal Assets Bureau yesterday secured a High Court judgment for £103,350 against George Mitchell, currently held in a jail in the Netherlands.
Mitchell, who was described at an earlier court hearing as being known for complicity in unlawful killings and drugs importation, was assessed as owing monies to the Revenue authorities for unpaid VAT and interest.
Ms Justice Laffoy put a stay on her order for four weeks to allow Mitchell an opportunity to lodge an appeal against the Revenue assessment, to lodge £25,000 with the Revenue and lodge a sum for interest on that amount. She fixed the interest at 1.25 per cent a month from September 1993 to February this year and 1 per cent a month to date.
Chief Supt Fachtna Murphy, the head of CAB, said in an affidavit he believed the VAT and interest followed an investigation by the bureau into the identification of Mitchell's assets which derived or were suspected to derive from criminal activities.
The date of the assessment was March 26th 1997. The VAT period was from March-April 1992 to July-August 1993 and related to a Dublin licensed premises, the Spinning Wheel, Mary Street, in which it was alleged Mitchell had had an interest.
Mr Shane Murphy for CAB, read letters from Mitchell and his son Paul which claimed that Mitchell had not owned the licensed premises. Mitchell claimed the pub had been owned during the assessment period by a company called Delta Inns Ltd. He wished to appeal the tax assessment. He stated he had tried to buy the pub but because of "disastrous trading results the banking fraternity would advance no loan facilities".
Mr Murphy challenged Mitchell's claim. He produced an affidavit from 1993 Circuit Court proceedings in which he alleged Mitchell had sworn an affidavit in which he stated: "When I took over the pub in the month of June, 1992 . . ." The affidavit had also asked the Circuit Court to transfer the licence to a Mr William Conway as nominee for Delta Inns or alternatively to Mr Conway as Mitchell's nominee.
Mitchell, in affidavits sworn last March, said he did not deny "any association with the Spinning Wheel public house" but maintained for the purposes of VAT legislation he was not a person engaged in the supply of taxable goods or services in the business. He said he never held shares in Delta Inns. He alleged CAB only raised the VAT assessment four years after the pub closed and CAB had never sought to justify their assessment.
Mr Murphy said the legislation was clear. If Mitchell wished to appeal he had to pay monies which he said he owed. Mitchell had not done that and was still reserving his position.
Mr Con Pendred, solicitor for Mitchell, said in an affidavit that his client wished to appeal the assessment and was willing to file appropriate returns and make payment in accordance with those returns.
Mr Fintan Hurley, for Mitchell, said if his client had a liability for VAT, the appropriate thing was for him to submit returns. If the Revenue did not accept them, the matter should go to an the Appeals Commissioners. If they decided Mitchell had a liability, he would have to pay.
Ms Justice Laffoy said Mitchell had not complied with the preconditions of the tax code even though he had said he wanted to appeal the assessment. As a matter of strict law, CAB was entitled to get judgment and she would make that order but put a stay on it on certain conditions.
If Mitchell was the taxable person on the evidence before the court, the period would be from July 1992 to February 1993 when, on the evidence, Mitchell had an interest in the premises. She said if Mitchell had not resolved his difference by December 31st, the Revenue would be at liberty to have final judgment.