In early March, Health and Energy Minister Konrad Mizzi, who is now also the Labour Party’s deputy leader, admitted on State TV that a New Zealand trust he set up was not registered with the Commissioner of Inland Revenue as required by law. To date, the public is still guessing what will happen.

The Prime Minister himself seems to be confused too because first he said Dr Mizzi had paid a fine but the following day clarified it still had to be settled.

When this newspaper went to the best-placed source to get the correct information on a person who, being a Cabinet member, is fully accountable to the public, it soon realised it was not going to be a smooth ride.

Aware that no court action can be initiated unless a so-called letter to prosecute is issued, the Times of Malta asked the Commissioner of Inland Revenue whether this had in fact been done and when was the court case expected to start. The questions also applied to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Keith Schembri, who has identical financial structures.

The reply was: “Kindly be informed that the Inland Revenue Department cannot divulge such information in terms of the Income Tax Acts. The Income Tax Acts do not distinguish between PEPs [politically exposed person] and non-PEPs, the secrecy/confidentiality provisions apply irrespective of whether an individual is a PEP or a non-PEP.”

So the question was rephrased to make it a hypothetical one: in case a person publicly admits to violating income tax laws, what does the department or the CIR do? What does the law say? Does the CIR have discretion whether to issue a letter of prosecution or not or is he bound by law to do so?

In a long reply, the CIR says, among other things, he has discretion “to sanction the commencement of prosecution” for offences against income tax laws.

“It has never been the department’s policy to resort to such measures except in exceptional circumstances as a measure of last resort – where, after the department has exhausted all possible means, a taxpayer fails to regularise his/her position... evasion and other forms of non-compliance are dealt with on an administrative level,” he points out.

In his reply on the ‘hypothetical’ case, for which read Dr Mizzi’s and Mr Schembri’s, the CIR seems to be saying he will do what he has always done.

However, the Public Administration Act, which he himself quotes, lays down that when exercising any discretionary powers, which he invokes, public employees shall ensure that they take all relevant facts into consideration and have regard to the particular merits of each case.

The point the CIR appears to be overlooking is that this ‘hypothetical’ case in fact involves a top Cabinet minister and the Prime Minister’s most trusted aide. These are supposed to be role models who are expected to be beyond reproach and who lead by example.

In addition to being politically correct, they must also practise fiscal morality. It is therefore imperative that any top civil servant worth his salt, especially if it happens to be one tasked with managing one of the country’s main revenue streams, would do his utmost to ensure that people at the top who err would pay for their mistakes.

The CIR’s political master, Finance Minister Edward Scicluna, can hardly preach against tax evasion if he does not demand that a letter to prosecute is issued against both Dr Mizzi and Mr Schembri forthwith.