A catalogue of blunders by the tax man is being probed by one of the highest-ranking Government investigators in the country.

Parliamentary Ombudsman Michael Buckley has launched an probe into the Inland Revenue's handling of former Skipton pigeon fancier Dino Reardon's tax affairs.

It could lead to wide-scale changes in the revenue's Code of Practice and even changes to the tax law.

The investigation follows a decision last year by the Inland Revenue Tax Adjudicator - who investigates complaints against the IR - that there were serious mistakes in the handling of Mr Reardon's affairs. He was awarded compensation and given an apology.

Mr Reardon, 66, battled for two years to win compensation from Inland Revenue bosses after they wrongly demanded £25,000 in back tax - none of which he owed.

They falsely accused him of running a pigeon feed business, receiving incapacity benefit and a £5,000 a year pension.

And tax officers were unable to get his code correct, presenting him with 26 different versions in 18 months. The business was actually run by his wife, Olive, who was up to date with her tax. She blamed the stress of the conflict with the revenue for ruining her health and forcing her to give up the business.

An Ombudsman spokesman said today that an investigation had been launched after details of the case were supplied by Skipton and Ripon Tory MP David Curry.

She said: "The Ombudsman could eventually call for changes to the Code of Practice and in legislation. We have an advantage over the inland revenue adjudicator because she can only decide if the Inland Revenue has followed the proper procedure."

She said the Ombudsman can call for changes in legislation in the Code of Practice and could also recommend that Mr Reardon received some redress.

Mr Reardon, who has the respiratory disease pigeon lung, said: "It has been a very long struggle. I haven't done it for the compensation, but because of the injustice and the way I was treated."

He said he wanted the rules changed so that individual tax officers, who made false claims, should be made accountable.

And he wants the Inland Revenue to hold the burden of proof when it demands back tax - not the individual.

An Inland Revenue spokesman said he could not confirm that an investigation was under way because anything relating to an individual was confidential.

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.