Accountant not aware of property sale, tax case told

A 51-YEAR-old accountant on trial for aiding and abetting the filing of incorrect VAT returns, yesterday insisted that he knew nothing about the sale of a premises at the centre of the case when he filled out the relevant forms, writes Barry Roche, Southern Correspondent.

John O'Donohue, of Waterside House, Waterside, Waterford, denies a charge that he did knowingly around May 16th, 2001, aid and abet Paclene, a limited liability company, to deliver an incorrect return in relation to VAT for the period March/April 2001.

Yesterday, Mr O'Donohue took the witness box as the defence opened its case on the third day of the trial and he strongly denied prosecution claims he knew that Paclene had sold a property in Ennis, Co Clare, for £1.6 million punts when he filled out a VAT return.

The case at Waterford Circuit Criminal Court revolves around Paclene's purchase on March 22nd, 2001, of a factory in Ennis from a company called Irish Polythene Industries (IPI) for a sum of £600,000 and its sale on the same day for £1.6 million (€2 million) to Galileo Enterprises.

The State alleges Paclene was entitled to a 12 per cent VAT rebate of £75,000 on its £600,000 purchase of the premises but had a 12 per cent VAT liability of £200,000 on its subsequent £1.6 million sale of the premises and that none of these were declared in a VAT return.

Mr O'Donohue confirmed yesterday he had filled in "Nil" for both VAT paid and VAT owed but he insisted he did so because he had been instructed by the owner of Paclene, Austin Brady. The accountant said he was unaware of the sale.

Mr O'Donohue produced a copy of a letter from Mr Brady dated January 26th, 2001, in which Mr Brady said he had been visited by Revenue officials and he was surprised to discover rather than actually owing VAT at that stage, he was actually owed money in VAT.

Mr Brady went on in the letter to ask Mr O'Donohue not to claim back £75,000 in VAT that he had paid when he purchased the factory but to enter Nil for both that and VAT owed until he had a chance to meet with Revenue officials to see what his liabilities were.

Mr O'Donohue insisted that he did not know that Mr Brady had sold the property to a company called Galileo Enterprises on the same day he finalised the purchase of the plant and thus had VAT liabilities of € 200,000 at the time he filled in the form.

He said it would have made no sense for him to try and conceal the sale of the property.

The hearing continues.