Chair announced to lead Finucane inquiry
Last September, it was announced that an independent public inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Finucane's death would be set up.
The 39-year-old was shot at his home in Belfast by loyalist paramilitaries in front of his wife and children.
Several examinations of the case have found evidence of state collusion in the killing.
The Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn said that the "exceptional reason" of outstanding and unfulfilled commitments by previous UK governments to establish a public inquiry meant it should proceed.
The inquiry will be established under the 2005 Inquiries Act, with full powers, including the power to compel the production of documents and to summon witnesses to give evidence on oath.
Sir Gary is a former Court of Appeals judge who also chaired the Post Office Overturned Convictions Independent Pecuniary Losses Assessment Panel and the Horizon Convictions Redress Panel.
The government has also confirmed the appointment of former Police Ombudsman Baroness Nuala O'Loan, and international human rights lawyer Francesca Del Mese, as assessors to the inquiry.
Confirming the announcement via a written statement to parliament, Benn said: "The murder of Mr Finucane was a barbarous and heinous crime and one which continues to highlight the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.
"I commend and support the tireless campaign of Mrs Finucane and her family in seeking answers to the brutal murder of their loved one and I am confident that this Inquiry will provide answers to the family who have suffered so terribly."
Benn said he was delighted that the chair had accepted the position.
"I am confident that, together, their valuable knowledge, experience and professionalism will be of great benefit to the work of the Inquiry," he said.
Sir Gary said he was "privileged" to take on responsibility for leading the public inquiry.
"At the heart of this case lies a family who lost their husband and father in horrific circumstances, and I look forward to meeting the Finucane family in Belfast as soon as possible," he added.
The government said it will undertake a consultation exercise with the chair on the proposed terms of reference for the inquiry, which will be agreed and published in due course.
Pat Finucane was a well-known defence solicitor who frequently acted for high profile IRA members.
He also represented loyalists in his work.
In February 1989 he was shot 14 times by two gunmen.
His wife, Geraldine, was also wounded.
One of his sons is the Sinn Féin MP John Finucane.
At an inquest into his death police refuted claims that Mr Finucane was in the IRA.
In 2012, Sir Desmond de Silva's report into the murder found there was agent involvement and that police took no action on threat intelligence regarding Mr Finucane.
Q&A: The murder of Pat Finucane
As it happened: Public inquiry ordered into Pat Finucane's murder
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
5 days ago
- Forbes
Second Circuit Rejects States' Challenge to SALT Workaround Rules
In a recent case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed and rejected arguments by several States who challenged updated regulations that would prohibit many of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction workarounds passed in the wake of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Prior to the law known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, taxpayers could deduct, with no dollar limit, their state and local taxes on their federal taxes (if they itemized deductions). As part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (Pub. L. No. 115-97), though, the state and local tax deduction was capped at $10,000. (Importantly, this limit has been changed under the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' see Pub. L. 119-21, § 70120). Not surprisingly, this limit greatly affected taxpayers who reside in states that generate large SALT liabilities. Those states tried to implement various workarounds to the federal SALT cap. The quintessential example of these workarounds was the creation of a state charitable fund (or a local version of the same), which could accept payments from residents, who would then receive a state or local tax credit. In the case, the Second Circuit provided an example of how these workarounds typically worked. For example, consider a New York taxpayer who owes $200,000 in state taxes. That taxpayer could, instead, voluntarily pay $200,000 to the New York Charitable Fund and receive a corresponding state-tax credit of $170,000 (as New York's program offered an 85% tax credit). After this credit, the remaining state tax burden would be $30,000. Importantly, though, when filing her federal taxes, the taxpayer could deduct the $200,000 paid to New York state not as a state or local tax, but rather as a charitable contribution—as charitable contributions are not subject to SALT cap. This, of course, would correspondingly reduce the taxpayers federal tax liability (due to the deduction). In 2018, the IRS issued proposed rulemaking to disallow the charitable-deduction workaround. In essence, the proposed rule required that taxpayers would have to reduce their federal charitable deduction for the amount of any state or local tax credit received 'in consideration for the taxpayer's payment or transfer.' 83 Fed. Reg. 43,564. After public comment, the Final Rule and updated regulations under § 170 (the charitable deduction section) likewise provided that, with a limited exception, 'if a taxpayer makes a payment or transfers property to or for the use of an entity described in section 170(c), the amount of the taxpayer's charitable contribution deduction under section 170(a) is reduced by the amount of any state or local tax credit that the taxpayer receives or expects to receive in consideration for the taxpayer's payment or transfer.' Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-1(h)(3)(i). Going back to the earlier example, under the Final Rule, then, that taxpayer would be allowed only a $30,000 charitable deduction (not $200,000). The Final Rule, moreover, distinguished between state and local tax credits (like in the example above) and state and local tax deductions. Of course, tax credits are more valuable than deductions because tax credits reduce tax liability dollar for dollar. Concerning deductions, the Final Rule provided that, in general, '[i]This summary will not review the entire procedural posture of the related cases. As related to the substantive tax matter, the district court held that the federal government did not exceed its authority in issuing the Final Rule. The government plaintiffs (e.g., the States) appealed to the Second Circuit. On appeal, the Second Circuit had to address several issues in addition to the substantive tax merits, such as Article III standing and the Anti-Injunction Act, which will not be addressed here. Let's focus on the core tax claims. The first claim was that the Final Rule was contrary to § 170, which is the charitable deduction section. The crux of § 170 for a charitable contribution is that the taxpayer cannot receive a quid pro quo—because, if so, then the payment does not really represent a contribution or a gift. Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted that, under § 170, a payment 'generally cannot constitute a charitable contribution if the contributor expects a substantial benefit in return.' United States v. Am. Bar Endowment, 477 U.S. 105, 116 (1986). Thus, to the extent a taxpayer receives benefit that is commensurate with the payment, it really isn't a gift—it is a quid pro quo. Now, of course, the taxpayer may receive some subjective value or benefit from donating, like satisfaction, reputation, or even some tangible tax benefit. The analysis, though, according to the Second Circuit, should focus on whether the transaction is structured as a quid pro quo. Indeed, a sister court of appeals had earlier noted that, '[t]he test is not the economic character of what the payor receives but whether there is a specific, measurable quid pro quo for the donation in question.' Graham v. Comm'r, 822 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir. 1987). In sum, the Second Circuit found that the Final Rule complied with the historic quid pro quo principle of § 170. Specifically, it found that the tax credit was an 'identifiable benefit,' and, unlike other subjective benefits, it was 'easily calculable based on external features.' The Second Circuit then addressed the argument that motivation should not deprive a taxpayer of the benefits of § 170. Under this argument, it should not be the case that a desire to obtain a tax credit disqualifies the taxpayer from the credit—if so, then other charitable gifts (or even other tax credits or deductions) could be in jeopardy. The Second Circuit reasoned that the argument misstates the quid pro quo principle. The heart of the quid pro quo analysis in this case, according to the Second Circuit, is on the 'outward, quantifiable features of the transaction.' The Second Circuit said that the transaction represented essentially a 'this-for-that' transaction, which is the quintessential 'reciprocal exchange' that disqualifies a payment under § 170. As well, the Second Circuit emphasized that it was not the taxpayer's desire to claim the § 170 deduction that was disqualifying, but rather it was the receipt of the state tax credit. The Second Circuit also held that the Final Rule was not invalid because it treated state tax credits different from state tax deductions. The Second Circuit also rejected some of the other arguments made, such as the quid pro quo principle applies only in the exchange is for goods and services. The Second Circuit also considered and then rejected arguments that the Final Rule was arbitrary and case is New Jersey v. Bessent; Village of Scarsdale v. IRS, Docket Nos. 21-1499-cv(L); 24-1503-cv(CON) (2d Cir. Aug. 13, 2025), which you can read here. This is only a summary of the case and some portions—including facts, issues, citations, or analysis—may have been omitted or edited; if you need advice in this area, please review the case in its entirety and consult an attorney.
The Hill
5 days ago
- The Hill
Why not just let AI do the redistricting?
In Texas, Democratic state legislators have flown the coup as Republicans try to manipulate the redistricting process to maximize Republican strength. Democrats elsewhere, including California, are threatening retaliation. It's the same old story where both sides of the aisle play games on redistricting to benefit themselves. It's why reformers have been pushing for decades to get the process out of the hands of self interested elected officials whose only goal is to protect their incumbency. In 2007, as county executive in Suffolk County, N.Y., I signed a landmark bill to take the task of redrawing our county legislature's lines away from elected officials, placing it instead with an independent panel. It passed with great fanfare, with the governor even coming to to lend support as I signed it. But, lo and behold, several years later, when it was about to kick in, a Democratic legislature abolished the reform and went back to the old system of having the legislature control the process. This was done, of course, because at the time the Democrats were in control. Something similar would later play out later at the state level. In 2014, New York voters added an independent commission redistricting system to their state constitution. But during the 2022 election cycle, the Democrat-controlled legislature didn't like the map it produced. So Democrats tried to override the independent commission and draw their own partisan map, only to be blocked by the state's high court, the Court of Appeals. The real issue here is that it's just plain wrong for either party to manipulate this process. The Republicans in Texas are throwing a new fly into the ointment by opting to implement the 10 year redistrict process — which usually coincides with the disclosure of the new census — five years earlier than normal. They're doing this to get as many as five new seats for their party prior to the 2026 midterms. Now governors from California to New York and elsewhere are warning that they will do the same to maximize seats for Democrats prior to the next census. But the Democrats don't have clean hands here either. We need independence in redistricting. But some complain that, even when you appoint good government groups and retired judges to do it, politics will always come into play. Unfortunately, even well-intentioned attempts at reform often fail to produce the desired results. Take California, which in 2008 passed a referendum supported by then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to create an independent commission to draw the lines. If its goal was to create fair districts that would create a better bipartisan balance, it was a failure. At the time of the referendum's passage, there were 34 Democrats and 19 Republicans from the state's congressional caucus. By 2012 the number grew to 39 Democrats and only 14 Republicans. By 2025, there were only nine Republican seats left throughout the state. While much of this can be attributed to changing demographics and political issues of the day, some of it might be attributable to the biases of even those supposedly non-partisan appointees. So why not have the lines redrawn by using artificial intelligence instead? Just key in that we want the fairest redistricting possible to create as balanced a map as possible from the perspective of demographics and political party registration. That would take the politics out of the system and make our races more competitive. Best of all, it would ultimately make our elected officials more reactive to the center rather than the extremes on both sides of the political spectrum. Of course the outcome of AI is only as good as the input. Care must be given to ensure that a balanced group of nonpartisan technocrats prepare the algorithms as opposed to party hacks. To maximize the potential for delivering the fairest lines possible, take a grouping of five potential maps from the computer, throw them into a lottery barrel and pick a winning plan at random, as was once tried in North Carolina before partisan lawsuits marred the process. There is no fool-proof solution, but AI may present the best of all the options available. Steve Levy is president of Common Sense Strategies, a political consulting firm. He served as Suffolk County executive, as a state assemblyman, and as host of 'The Steve Levy Radio Show.' He is the author of ' Solutions to America's Problems ' and ' Bias in the Media.'
Fox News
7 days ago
- Fox News
DOGE lands big legal win as appeals court strikes down preliminary injunction
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) landed a major legal win on Tuesday. A federal appeals court has ruled DOGE can access certain potentially sensitive data on Americans – from the Departments of Education, Treasury and from the Office of Personnel Management. A panel of judges from the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals lifted a preliminary injunction that had blocked access temporarily, citing privacy concerns. The computerized data could include access to Social Security numbers and immigration and citizenship status. The case will continue to be litigated on the merits, but for now it is a legal victory for the Trump administration. This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
