The Criminal Assets Bureau is expected to apply at the tribunal on Monday for a hearing on its dispute with the tribunal over documents seized from Mr George Redmond.
The next stage of the "turf war" between the two bodies will be fought out before Mr Justice Flood, probably later next week. CAB will argue that it has privilege over Mr Redmond's documents and should not have to provide copies to the tribunal.
If it loses, it may appeal to the High Court. But having just lost its last courtroom tussle with the tribunal, the chances of success the next time would not seem good.
On Thursday Mr Redmond, the former assistant manager of Dublin city and county, was arrested "on appointment" with CAB officers, a matter of hours after the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by the bureau.
So CAB swooped before the tribunal could move to obtain the documents.
The Supreme Court ruled that Mr Justice Flood had the power to determine the fate of the Redmond documents. Arguments over whether or not the files should be handed over will be made next week.
Now that Mr Redmond has been charged with tax offences, CAB can argue to greater effect that the documents are privileged.
Mr Redmond himself can, if he chooses, refuse to give evidence to the tribunal by arguing that he could incriminate himself.
This is what happened at the beef tribunal. Some witnesses who were facing prosecution refused to answer questions; they would not even give their names.
But what is the ordinary citizen and taxpayer to make of this squabble between CAB and the tribunal? The bureau went all the way to the Supreme Court in a case it was always likely to lose. Now it has embarked on a new tack.
What justification is there for pre-empting the tribunal's work by charging Mr Redmond with relatively minor tax offences, unless further charges are being readied? Is there no mechanism whereby the two bodies could work in parallel, investigating both the man (Mr Redmond) and the problem (alleged corruption)?
Mr Redmond is already facing a tax bill estimated at £2 million. What purpose would be served by jailing a 75-year-old man if the broader problem of planning corruption is not tackled effectively?
As the effective county manager for most of the 1980s, Mr Redmond knew everything about development in Co Dublin. He knew the builders and developers, the officials, the county councillors and the TDs. His knowledge of planning regulations, service charges and zoning was intricate.
If there were irregularities, it is hard to believe that he would not be able to shed light on them. The Garda investigated this area twice a decade ago and got nowhere. Now CAB's actions could limit the prospects of other investigations. How much will the public ever learn about CAB's inquiries?
On Tuesday the tribunal faces its next big hurdle, when the Supreme Court hands down its ruling in the case involving Mr Liam Lawlor. The Fianna Fail TD's victory in the High Court was a setback for the tribunal, but its chances in the Supreme Court are rated at least 50:50.
Down in the barn of a hall where the tribunal sits, the developer Mr Michael Bailey was slowly being taken apart all week. It was a gruelling time for the man who introduced Mr James Gogarty to the former minister for foreign affairs, Mr Ray Burke, and there is more to come next week.
With infinite patience and clinical thoroughness, Mr Des O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, dissected every strand of Mr Bailey's account, laying bare a multitude of discrepancies and contradictions.
By the end of the week Mr Bailey was reeling. "Oh Jesus, chairman, I'm telling you honestly, chairman, this man has my head spinning with all the different questions he's asking me, I can't concentrate on it," he said at one point.
Mr Bailey's evidence differed sharply from that given by Mr Burke to the tribunal but, even worse for the witness, he frequently contradicted himself.
He has now given three different versions of the meeting in Mr Burke's house in 1989. He has two versions of why he gave Mr Gogarty a £50,000 cheque in 1989.
His own story - that Mr Gogarty was hounding him for a £150,000 "finder's fee" in relation to the sale of the Murphy lands - was obscured by his admission of lying, and the evident lack of documentary back-up to support his case.
The main exhibit in this respect is a small spiral-bound notebook with a kitten on the cover. This contains handwritten lists of names and payments made to a variety of individuals in the late 1980s. Most of the amounts are small, but three figures which appear to relate to Mr Gogarty amount to £30,000.
Mr Bailey is caught between a rock and a hard place. What he calls the "pussy book" contains his main evidence against, but could also be of interest to, others. He admitted yesterday it was possible that the £106,000 listed in the book was not recorded in the accounts of his company, Bovale Developments.
You could almost hear the taxman knocking.