Dublin Opinion

According to the Irish Times today, Bertie claims that he spent £50,000 sterling on refurbishments, £30,000 sterling of which was the cash that Celia Larkin brought back from England - minus of course stamp duty.

But stamp duty only applies when there is a house purchase. Bertie didn’t buy the house, so he would not have been liable for stamp duty.

Legislation surrounding stamp duty formed part of the Finance Act, 1994. Bertie was Finance minister at the time, and would have been instrumental in the drafting of the legislation. It is not like he had to go to a financial advisor with regard to whether he was liable or not for stamp duty - he was the minister who wrote the law on stamp duty.

So why was his partner at the time bringing £30,000 in sterling into the county to help pay a tax bill that did not exist?

With regard to the refurbishments, an already tattered defence completely crumbles.

The Department of the Environment states that the average house price in Dublin in 1994 was around £61,000 sterling. That’s about £64,000 punts, or 82,000 euro.

So, who spends £50,000 sterling to refurbish a 61,000 sterling house - one that is in fine condition and is situated off Griffith Avenue, Dublin? Bertie’s not saying that he bought the house with that £50,000 sterling, he did it up. And then paid stamp duty. Even though he would have been able to pay stamp duty as he did not buy the house.

It gets even more fantastical. Mr. Wall, the builder who owned the house in question, did not purchase the house until March 1995.

Yet, Celia Larkin brought the money back from England in December 1994.

Bertie finally buys the house in late 1997.

Bertie’s answers are simply an insult to the facts, and to our intelligence.

It looks like Bertie is going for the Chewbacca Defence.