IF THE Revenue Commissioners are unable to obtain a copy of the Price Waterhouse report on payments at Dunne Stores, they should be able to find all the information gathered by the consultants for the company and assemble their own version.
Despite the blizzard of tax-related legislation in recent months, including the establishment of the Criminal Assets Bureau to seize the proceeds of criminal activity, some of the most valuable powers which the Revenue possesses to identify and secure unpaid tax are 20 years old.
Last night Dunnes Stores said it had "responded to a request yesterday from the Revenue Commissioners for sight of a report prepared by Price Waterhouse.
The company said the report was "a private company document prepared in a privileged context" and did not make clear whether a copy would be handed over. It referred to co-operation subject to any legal constraints".
According to the Revenue's Statement of Practice - a summary of its powers - revenue officers can examine the financial records of professional persons but they "will not encroach on areas of advice given by professionals to clients.
"They will not inquire into information disclosed by clients to their advisers, including information which might be relevant to court proceedings, actions or settlements".
Dunnes Stores may believe the Price Waterhouse report is in this category.
If this is the case, the Revenue should still be able to deploy wide ranging powers to build up a picture of the contents of the report, based on its examination of the supermarket chain's financial records. It can also examine the records of the income of individuals, including those connected with the company and those who may have received payments from it.
The Price Waterhouse report refers to payments made by the former Dunnes Stores managing director, Mr Ben Dunne.
It is possible that some recipients of the payments, such as the prominent Fianna Fail figure reported to have received £1.1 million from Mr Dunne or the supermarket chain, may have already settled their tax affairs.
The tax authorities are allowed to tax income which comes from an "unknown source" without ever finding out its origin, and equally the recipient cannot be forced to reveal the source.
But it appears from the mechanisms used for at least some of the Dunnes Stores payments that tax liabilities will arise.
It is clear that if the Revenue has seen any unexpected reports of payments in the news media in recent days, its investigation should already have started. Tax officials do not have to wait for specific complaints from any source before starting an investigation. Neither do, they have to wait for any assertion by a company that it intends to co-operate.
Where a company or individual refuses to co-operate with Revenue officers, they have wide-ranging powers to seize financial records, both from a business premises - including professional advisers - and a private home. A tax liability can then be determined and a tax bill presented. Where the relevant documents cannot be found, a tax bill can still be prepared on the basis of estimates.
The key piece of legislation is the 1976 Finance Act, which gives an authorised officer the power to enter any business premises, or a premises where "anything is done in connection with the trade", and require that books, records, accounts and other documents be produced. Such visits need not be announced in advance, although usually the Revenue first asks for such documents and gives the individual or business the opportunity to respond.
Revenue officers also have the power to enter a private residence, although for this they must first obtain a court order or search warrant, and a senior Revenue official must also authorise it. If they fear obstruction, Revenue officers can bring gardai.
It is widely held in financial circles that the Revenue has much wider powers than is generally realised, principally because they are rarely exercised. Most companies and individuals respond to the threat of imprisonment and fines for non-co-operation by agreeing a payment, according to the Revenue's assessment of the outstanding tax.
The Criminal Assets Bureau was set up principally because of a fear in political circles that Revenue officers were reluctant to pursue drug dealers' assets because they had no protection against personal intimidation.
Much of the legislation which established the bureau is concerned with protecting the anonymity of its officers.