A judge at the Special Criminal Court trial of prominent republican Thomas "Slab" Murphy for alleged tax evasion has indicated the court may deliver judgment on the case next week.
Earlier, Mr Murphy’s defence lawyer concluded his closing speech, telling the court that “reasonable doubt” has been raised as to who was the person chargeable on income tax.
Mr Murphy (66), of Ballybinaby, Hackballscross, Co Louth, has pleaded not guilty to nine charges alleging he failed to furnish a return of his income, profits or gains or the source of his income, profits or gains to the Collector General or the Inspector of Taxes for the years 1996/97 to 2004.
Mr Murphy is being prosecuted on foot of an investigation by the Criminal Assets Bureau.
Farming grants
It is the prosecution’s case that, although Mr Murphy conducted significant dealings in relation to cattle and land, and received farming grants from the Department of Agriculture, he failed to make any returns to Revenue.
The defence lawyers claim the accused man’s brother, Patrick, managed his cattle herd and farming activities.
Mr Justice Paul Butler, presiding with Judge John O'Hagan and Judge Ann Ryan, indicated on Wednesday that the judges may deliver the court's verdict next Thursday (December 17th).
“But it is by no means certain we will,” the judge added.
Concluding his closing speech to the court, defence counsel John Kearney QC referred to evidence heard in the trial from a Revenue Officer.
The court had heard the Revenue officer examined various documents including bank account details, invoices from cattle marts, copies of issue cheques of Department of Agriculture grants, EU Area Aid application forms, statements from employees of cattle marts and documents seized by CAB from Thomas Murphy’s and his family’s homes.
The Revenue inspector had said his conclusion was that Thomas Murphy was involved in the farming business and that, from the years 1996 to 2004, he did not file any tax returns.
‘Based on presumptions’
Mr Kearney said that the Revenue officer’s assessment of documentation was “restricted to a face-value analysis, itself based on presumptions”.
“If the documents say Thomas Murphy, it was sent to and received by Thomas Murphy,” Mr Kearney added.
The defence claim the Revenue officer’s conclusion that Thomas Murphy failed to complete tax returns was based on this presumption.
"He didn't go further than that face-value analysis," Mr Kearney said. "He never scratched the surface, never juxtaposed any of the material vis-a-vis the Patrick Murphy documentation."
The defence barrister said the Revenue officer’s evidence was “superficial”.
The three judges were also told the Revenue officer had “not considered the alternate theory that Patrick Murphy was the chargeable person”.
‘Never suspected’
“It never occurred to him. He never suspected that,” the defence lawyer said.
Previously, the court heard evidence from a handwriting expert that there is “strong evidence” Thomas Murphy did not sign a number of documents bearing his signature.
Mr Kearney said if the Revenue officer had known there was “a live issue of questioned authorship” of signatures in the case, he could not have presumed Thomas Murphy signed certain documents.
Mr Justice Butler remanded Mr Murphy on continuing bail until December 17th.