Money talks. We saw an aspect of its power during the week when the International Financial Services Centre went public and demanded that Bertie Ahern and Charlie McCreevy save them from the unwelcome attentions of the Revenue Commissioners.
It appeared that Dermot Quigley's men had dropped their "Mr Nice Guys" approach and were now applying the law in a "punctilious" (their word of complaint) fashion to eight large foreign banks at the centre.
So, the group involved with the Government's financial flagship demanded that the dogs be called off and that an understanding approach be adopted. It was accepted that documentation was not in order in certain cases where DIRT liability did not technically arise.
A different issue related to non-resident accounts where documentation was incomplete or inaccurate. If the Government did not act in the required fashion, it warned, then enormous damage could be done to the reputation of the IFSC, because the regulatory climate would be seen as hostile by foreign customers.
The possible pull-out of some of the institutions involved was canvassed, if they didn't get their way. Not only that, multinationals holding funds in non-resident accounts would be upset. And it was pointed out that the IFSC generated revenues of £430 mill ion a year for the Exchequer.
In terms of big-stick waving, it was persuasive stuff. But the Government wasn't going to rush its fences. Not while the scandal of DIRT evasion, facilitated and encouraged by domestic financial institutions and ignored by various arms of the State, was still fresh in the public mind.
But it was a tricky one. On the one hand, Mr McCreevy could not be too malleable, because EU governments had already expressed concern about financial conduct down on the Docks; on the other, he would be reluctant to damage the IFSC. And he could expect no comfort from the Revenue Commissioners.
After the public beating the Revenue received from politicians for its failure to investigate and penalise DIRT tax evaders in the 1980s and 1990s, you could understand its approach. The Dail Public Accounts Committee had encountered an incredible level of amnesia among financial executives, senior officials and politicians.
But it exonerated a succession of finance ministers in its conclusions while laying the blame on the various financial institutions and the relevant arms of the State. So, if Ministers wanted them to operate a discretionary approach to certain matters, they would have to put it on paper.
Mary Harney was not asked to intervene by the IFSC. And when the Tanaiste became involved, they wished she hadn't. The leader of the Progressive Democrats was very much aware of the big picture.
Behind the eight foreign banks at the IFSC lurked our own associated banks and the various Irish financial institutions that had connived in the gross evasion of DIRT in the 1980s and 1990s. Their affairs were also being subjected to intensive trawls by the Revenue. And if special treatment was accorded to foreign banks, could our own, homegrown tulips be far behind in demanding a "reasonable" approach?
Rather than embark on that fraught path, Ms Harney counselled firmness. As the Minister responsible for investigating the Ansbacher accounts and for lighting a fire under the accountancy profession because of the slapdash, even improper, way some of its members had audited the accounts of financial institutions in the past, she had to take a tough approach.
The Tanaiste dismissed as "an empty threat" the warning that some of the banks involved might pull out of the IFSC. Mr McCreevy was more cautious when the matter was aired in the Dail. Michael Noonan of Fine Gael was greatly concerned that "irreparable damage" could be done to the IFSC if the Revenue pursued the various audits. But Mr McCreevy wasn't biting. Not yet, at least. It would be, the former accountant declared, totally inappropriate for him to become involved "at this stage". Discussions between the Revenue and representatives of the IFSC would have to take place.
Well, those discussions took place yesterday and, as expected, the Revenue declined to make any formal comment on the outcome. But we can expect that a communication will shortly be winging its way to the Government. And if any flexibility or creativity is required in the interpretation of the tax laws, then the Government will be invited to make that decision.
More than that, it will do so in the sure knowledge that other institutions will demand similar treatment.
When financial institutions wave big sticks, they invariably get their way. In the past, governments and senior civil servants broke into a sweat at the very notion of an outflow of funds from the country. So, if a specific legislative response was regarded as inappropriate following representations, a form of collegiate inertia set in which had the same effect.
That's what happened when gross tax fraud involving DIRT and offshore accounts became a feature of Irish banking practice in the 1980s. Through it all, our exchange control watchdog failed to bark. And when queries were raised about some banking practices by the Central Bank, it was advised to butt out and to keep the Revenue Commissioners in the dark.
But the climate has changed in the aftermath of the DIRT inquiry. Incomplete records have been closely identified with deliberate, tax-evasion practices. And offshore tax havens, non-resident accounts and various kinds of money-laundering are no longer regarded with benign indifference.
If a Revenue crackdown is required to establish rigorous banking standards at the IFSC, why not go for it? We have been warned on a number of occasions by outside experts that tighter controls are required if the centre's reputation is to be protected. And if the price of high standards includes the loss of a few foreign institutions, we would be better off without them.
Threats of an outflow of funds or revenue loss no longer carry their old weight. Any fall in Government revenue from the IFSC would be small potatoes compared to the £3,015 million Mr McCreevy stashed away in a future pensions fund before Christmas. At the same time, our membership of the Euro has eliminated any outflow of funds concern.
So, instead of worrying about the Revenue Commissioners applying the tax laws as passed by the Oireachtas, we should applaud them. If we are to have a tax compliant society, there is no room for special pleadings and sectoral exceptions.