THE High Court judgment ruling that Mrs Geraldine Gilligan was not liable for a tax bill of £1.6 million was more relevant to the work of the Revenue Commissioners than that of the recently established Criminal Assets Bureau, according to legal sources.
The bureau could, however, be hampered in its pursuit of unpaid tax by alleged criminal couples who were married, as all married couples were jointly assessed for tax.
"Joint tax assessment happens automatically in the year following marriage. Any married couple will be assessed in the same way. The same problems may arise, as joint assessment is automatic and separate assessment can only be imposed if the tax payable remains unpaid," said a legal expert.
"Couples may elect for separate assessment, but must notify the Revenue of their intention to do so.
Another legal source last night questioned whether the Income Tax Act 1967 should be further amended to provide for gender neutrality in terms of who was liable for whose income.
"The lesson from this is that the Oireachtas may have to have another look at the Income Tax Act of 1967 in providing for true spousal equality and gender neutrality in terms of the liability of wives to pay income tax," said the source.
In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled in the Murphy case that the income tax law in relation to spouses was unconstitutional as married couples were paying more income tax than unmarried couples living together or married couples living apart.
The Finance Act 1980 changed this situation, but provided that where couples did not elect to be assessed separately for tax, the husband would be liable.
The legal source said it could be constitutionally challenged as to whether a husband should be responsible for the income of his wife.
The other legal expert said Section 196 of the Income Tax Act 1967 did allow the Revenue Commissioners to pursue a married woman for unpaid tax, where she was personally liable.
Future situations could arise where the Revenue Commissioners and the Criminal Assets Bureau could be following opposing agendas, said the expert. Income tax legislation should not be tampered with to accommodate other such cases.