# Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension scheme.



## ssap16 (11 Sep 2007)

My brothers business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension scheme.

They have come up with a bill of €70,000 going back over 4 years. This will bankrupt my brother.

Whilst not denying the liability is there any way that the CIF will back down on their demands?

For the last 1.5 years before the inspection he has been correctly operating the scheme.

Whilst admitting that he done wrong it appears that the CIF hammer people who voluntarily go to them whilst not pursuing does that do not comply or register at all.


----------



## Graham_07 (11 Sep 2007)

*Re: CIF pension*

One might think that it would not be in the CIF's interest, from a point of continuing future contributions from the employer, to arrive at a situation where the debtor goes out of business due to the amount owing. Would it not be possible for him to discuss payment terms with the monitoring team and see if some deferred payment or other arrangement could be arrived at to the satisfaction of both.


----------



## RainyDay (11 Sep 2007)

*Re: CIF pension*



ssap16 said:


> My brothers business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension scheme. They have come up with a bill of €70,000 going back over 4 years. This will bankrupt my brother. Whilst not denying the liability is there any way that the CIF will back down on their demands? For the last 1.5 years before the inspection he has been correctly operating the scheme. Whilst admitting that he done wrong it appears that the CIF hammer people who voluntarily go to them whilst not pursuing does that do not comply or register at all.



Do you have an alternative suggestion as to how the pensions of the employees in question should be funded?


----------



## ssap16 (12 Sep 2007)

*Re: CIF pension*



RainyDay said:


> Do you have an alternative suggestion as to how the pensions of the employees in question should be funded?


 
Perhaps they should fund their own pension like we all do. I presume you live in the ideal world of the PAYE worker. Business is tough. Try it some day.


----------



## ubiquitous (12 Sep 2007)

*Re: CIF pension*



RainyDay said:


> Do you have an alternative suggestion as to how the pensions of the employees in question should be funded?



By all accounts that I've heard from contacts within the building sector, the CIF scheme won't fund much of a pension for anyone within the scheme, as it is said to be pretty bad value when measured against other pension schemes on an "input v outcome" basis. Maybe these accounts are true, maybe not. Perhaps someone in the know might inform us?


----------



## simplyjoe (12 Sep 2007)

Rainy day seems to live in a nice zone. For builders these CIF contributions are the last straw. As well as paying €25+ an hour they then have to stump up €46 a week for a pension scheme that usually contributes little to an employee's retirement seems crazy. They also have to pay 10.4% PRSI on top of this. Why should a plasterer earning €1,500 a week be entitled to this treatment. People should look after themselves not constantly expect others to pick up the tab.


----------



## RainyDay (12 Sep 2007)

Oooh seems like I touched a nerve. How silly of me to expect employers to meet their contractual obligations to their employees! Joe's description of the pension contributions as the 'last straw' may have been some kind of Freudian slip. They are of course, last on the priority list for payments for no good reason other than the employer reckons they can get away with it. They know damn well they won't get away with not paying a supplier or not paying direct salaries, but given the bureaucracy and confusion associated with any pension scheme, they can get away with skimming off the pension contributions, reminiscent of that fine ol bastion of capitalism and ethics, Robert Maxwell. 

To rip-off such payments from employees is despicable behavior, and this 'business is tough' justification should not be tolerated by anyone. 

One might think that the CIF scheme had nothing to do with the CIF, but of course, the scheme was implemented by the building industry (in partnership with the trade unions) when it was realised that many construction workers were left solely dependent on the state pension, and widows were left with nothing. The precessor scheme was funded 1/3 by the employees and 2/3 by the employer, so the implications that the employees are funding their own pensions is of course completely wrong.

If builders don't like the CIF scheme, then they can change the scheme through the CIF. But to scam employees is dispicable.


----------



## Purple (12 Sep 2007)

While I agree with the facts of your post RainyDay, the tone is very much "tarring them all with the same brush". I am a capitalist but would not dream of scamming my employees. You should try a little less of the moral indignation 'till you have run a business and realised that X numbers of people rely on your ability to make the right decisions to pay their mortgages. Believe it or not most employers take that responsibility seriously. 
People in desperate situations do things that they would never have considered in the good times. 
In the mean time can you offer any constructive suggestions?

BTW, I am not in the building industry.


----------



## ssap16 (13 Sep 2007)

I think Purple has summed it up pretty well. I suppose the only option is to go out of business/bankruptcy. The CIF is a body that represents some builders - not all. The scheme of pension contributions is a statutory obligation - no choice. Blocklayer on €900 a week costs the employer €1,040 a week directly as well as bank holidays and holidays say 8 weeks off - employees insurance, etc a further €1,000 oper annum. So total costs = €55,080 divided by 44 = €1,252 per week. So paying someone €900 costs €1,252 = 36% more. Trust me this is a huge burden. Business is not all huge profits and Mercs. Many, many businesses struggle. Many, many business owners spend huge hours at work trying to keep businesses afloat. Have a little understanding. Not all laws are fair. Having to pay €46 to SOMEONE ELSE'S private pension on top of having to pay (in the example above) €94 to their state pension is, IMO, grossly unfair.


----------



## MOB (13 Sep 2007)

this 'business is tough' justification should not be tolerated by anyone.

I agree. But, in the case of the construction industry, at least in recent years, it is not wholly the fault of the employers - employees share a large part of the blame.  

A building industry employer who paid the full union rate plus full pension contribution to skilled workers over the past few years would have found himself with no employees: they would all have left to work for employers who were paying more 'in the hand'.  In fact, employees constantly pressurised their employers to put more money in their hands, and wage levels ballooned.  

Most employees in the construction industry have one measure only of pay - the amount they receive in the hand.   

I don't believe that any compliant employer with an employee who came to him saying 'xyz limited will give me €50\week more than you are paying, pony up or I am leaving' could have induced the employee to stay put by pointing out that xyz limited were not paying pensions.    This created an intolerable pressure, and there is no getting around the fact that employees were full and willing participants in creating this pressure.


----------



## RainyDay (15 Sep 2007)

I don't think there are going to be too many hearts bleeding for the builders, particularly amongst those customers who have been over-charged and under-delivered during the Celtic Tiger years. It is ironic to hear that builders are being squeezed as a result of under-the-counter payments, given of course that they practically invented this genre. The chickens are coming home to roost.


----------



## MOB (15 Sep 2007)

I think under the counter payments are not the big issue from the employer perspective.  Most housebuilders\developers could gain no advantage from such payments.  Many smaller builders (and construction workers on 'nixers') doing repairs and extensions certainly use cash and under-the-counter payments, but they are not the ones being targeted by CIF pension scheme.  But certainly yes, the chickens are indeed coming home to roost and it is difficult to have sympathy for either the small number of construction industry employers who are now being stuck for pension payments or the large number of construction sector employees who were short sighted enough to ignore this issue in favour of larger weekly nett pay.


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> I think under the counter payments are not the big issue from the employer perspective.  Most housebuilders\developers could gain no advantage from such payments.  Many smaller builders (and construction workers on 'nixers') doing repairs and extensions certainly use cash and under-the-counter payments, but they are not the ones being targeted by CIF pension scheme.  But certainly yes, the chickens are indeed coming home to roost and it is difficult to have sympathy for either the small number of construction industry employers who are now being stuck for pension payments or the large number of construction sector employees who were short sighted enough to ignore this issue in favour of larger weekly nett pay.


I agree, everyone went into this with their eyes open and the oh so very predictable left-wing/ trade union response that it's the bid bad employers exploiting the poor huddled masses just doesn't wash any more.
They were all happy to play fast and loose with the rules and now they are getting burned. As an employer in a totally non cash industry who has never given or received a cent under the counter I won't shed any tears but I won't cast the first stone either.


----------



## RainyDay (15 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



Purple said:


> I agree, everyone went into this with their eyes open


So just to be clear, you reckon the specific employees who have been left short of their pension contributions by the OP's brother went into that phase of employement with the eyes open, in the full knowledge that their employer would not pay their pension contributions?


----------



## contemporary (15 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*

If he had a ltd company he could do a phoenix and liquidate the business and set up again, he wouldnt be the first, however he is a sole trader so doesnt that option, i have read on many boards advising people not to set up as ltd companies but as sole traders because its cheaper, here is a good example of where limited liability would have helped the business owner, mind you i dont condone his actions in not paying the pension plan, but i do think its a bit rich for any business to have to pay a mandatory pension on top of prsi, but i suspose he knew this when he got into the business


----------



## Purple (15 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



RainyDay said:


> So just to be clear, you reckon the specific employees who have been left short of their pension contributions by the OP's brother went into that phase of employement with the eyes open, in the full knowledge that their employer would not pay their pension contributions?



I was commenting on MOB's post which was a comment about the building industry in general. Have you no idea of how to read a post in context of are doing a Pat Rabbitte and being deliberately disingenuous? 
If you were a first time poster I'd dismiss your comment as trolling.


----------



## RainyDay (16 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



Purple said:


> I was commenting on MOB's post which was a comment about the building industry in general. Have you no idea of how to read a post in context of are doing a Pat Rabbitte and being deliberately disingenuous?
> If you were a first time poster I'd dismiss your comment as trolling.



If you come out with broad generalisations along the lines of 'everyone went into this with their eyes open', don't be in the least bit surprised that you'll get challenged for clarification here on AAM. In this case of course, the ripped-off employees didn't go into this with their eyes open. There is a fairly good chance that they barely spoke English.

But they still didn't get their pension payments - and the OP is completely silent on the issue of how this might happen.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



RainyDay said:


> don't be in the least bit surprised that you'll get challenged for clarification here on AAM.



Thanks for that, as a newcomer I'm glad for the heads-up.  

MOB made a general point about the building industry. I was commenting on his post, which (in case you missed it) was a general comment about the building industry. Therefore is could not be specific (as his post was a general comment). Do you get what I'm saying yet?

I have already posted that I agreed with the substantive points you made with regard to the specifics of this case in your second post. The fact that the world is not neatly divided into "Workers" and "Bosses" messes up your simplistic 1920's style socialist views is no reason to infer that I an Ok with tax evasion or stealing from your employees pension fund. So if you want to know if you struck a nerve, yes; I resent the hell out of that.
I’ve been posting here for years in threads that you have also posted in and I have always had very strong views about employers that screw over the people who work for them and unless you have a very short memory you know that.


----------



## RainyDay (16 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



Purple said:


> MOB made a general point about the building industry. I was commenting on his post, which (in case you missed it) was a general comment about the building industry. Therefore is could not be specific (as his post was a general comment). Do you get what I'm saying yet?



I think I'm getting it. When you said 'everyone went into this with their eyes open', you didn't really mean everyone - is that it? You meant 'everyone except the employees of ssap16's brother's company' or something like that - have I got it now?



Purple said:


> The fact that the world is not neatly divided into "Workers" and "Bosses" messes up your simplistic 1920's style socialist views is no reason to infer that I an Ok with tax evasion or stealing from your employees pension fund. So if you want to know if you struck a nerve, yes; I resent the hell out of that.


This is of course the standard IBEC/PD tactic of attempting to divert attention from the core issue by creating a war of name-calling and labelling. If expecting employees to get the pension payments to which they are legally entitled is considered to be 'simplistic 1920's style socialist views', then mea culpa - I'm guilty, and proud to be.


----------



## Purple (16 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



RainyDay said:


> I think I'm getting it. When you said 'everyone went into this with their eyes open', you didn't really mean everyone - is that it? You meant 'everyone except the employees of ssap16's brother's company' or something like that - have I got it now
> This is of course the standard IBEC/PD tactic of attempting to divert attention from the core issue by creating a war of name-calling and labelling. If expecting employees to get the pension payments to which they are legally entitled is considered to be 'simplistic 1920's style socialist views', then mea culpa - I'm guilty, and proud to be.


 Right, I’ll explain it again for the hard of understanding.
I have already stated my views on what ssap 16’s brother has done; it was wrong and he deserved whatever he gets. My comments were made on the more general point made by MOB that when employees are complicit in, or the instigators of, underhand practices it is neither reasonable nor logical to treat them as victims of their employer. These are two separate issues but as with many threads here on AAM a specific post can lead into a more general discussion. 
I am neither a member of, nor have I any association with, IBEC or the PD's. I have no idea why you seek to introduce yet another red herring into the discussion.
I do not think that expecting employees to get the pension payments to which they are legally entitled is considered to be 'simplistic 1920's style socialist views', I do consider trying to pigeon-hole everyone into a “worker” or “boss” identity is totally outdated and in this day and age just plain stupid and therefore a 'simplistic 1920's style socialist views'.
It’s time to recognise that in a country with a will regulated labour market, an educated workforce and full employment it’s possible that employees can, in some cases, call the shots. That’s the point that MOB made and the point that I commented on. Read the thread, read what has been said and read it in context. I do not support any employer abusing their position and screwing over their employees to line their own pockets and neither do most employers. That is not to say that your point that many of the employees in the building industry are non-nationals and need extra protection is not correct but it does not negate the more general point about complicity by many within the industry.

There are not two moral classes in this country, or any country, where the pure of heart “workin’ man” get abused by the big bad evil fat-cat bosses. Sorry if that doesn’t sit well with your deeply flawed political philosophy up there on the moral high ground but as with most things reality is more complicated than that.


----------



## MOB (17 Sep 2007)

Polarised postions do not make for instructive debate:


"In this case of course, the ripped-off employees didn't go into this with their eyes open."    

We cannot possibly know this.  They might all have left compliant employers to joint the new start-up company, based solely on the fact that weekly nett pay was higher.  If the OP's brother is only in business for 4 years, there is a very good chance that he hired people from other employers by offering  higher nett pay.

"There is a fairly good chance that they barely spoke English."  

True, but irrelevant;  There is no reason to suspect that non-English speaking construction workers are less well educated than English speakers - anecdotally the opposite seems to be the case (except where foreign workers were brought in en masse by a foreign employer such as Gama).

And on the other side:

"There are not two moral classes in this country, or any country, where the pure of heart “workin’ man” get abused by the big bad evil fat-cat bosses. "

I think if Purple had the chance to re-consider, he\she might omit the words 'any country'.  We do live in a country where the rights of employees are by and large well protected.  We should not take this achievement for granted: there are many countries, and some sectors within our country, where it just isn't so. The plight of vegetable pickers in the UK has already been highlighted on more than one documentary.  The chinese cockle harvesters are another good example.  I could give examples in Ireland from personal knowledge, but there could be confidentiality issues.    

The point which I did want to make, and which seems to have been lost in the dust from the 'duelling pistols' approach, is that the construction industry of the last few years is probably not a place where one can easily characterise the employees as innocent victims, even in circumstances where their pension payments have not been paid.


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> Polarised postions do not make for instructive debate:
> 
> 
> "In this case of course, the ripped-off employees didn't go into this with their eyes open."
> ...


I accept your point that my "any country point" is badly made. I was trying to say that many people are both employees and employers during their working lives, some at the same time, so to talk as if there is some sort of in built difference in the moral standards that employers and employees have is just ridiculous. It is also ridiculous, and insulting to employees, to suggest or imply that all employees are 1900's style ill educated bumpkins that can be taken advantage of with impunity by their employer.


----------



## ssap16 (17 Sep 2007)

I agree with comments that brother was wrong and he will have to face the music. Indeed he has already paid the amounts due even though the majority of employees did not want the CFOPS. Not all construction businesses make huge profits and his employees were well treated. Hints of mis-treatment of non English employees is way of the mark. He got into trouble on this by the fact that he instigated registration for the scheme.Question remains unanswered : Is it fair for an employer to have to pay €46 on top of paying PRSI.


----------



## MOB (17 Sep 2007)

"Question remains unanswered : Is it fair for an employer to have to pay €46 on top of paying PRSI."

It is fair enough provided that the rules are enforced against every employer in the sector.


----------



## ssap16 (17 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> &quot;Question remains unanswered : Is it fair for an employer to have to pay €46 on top of paying PRSI.&quot;
> 
> It is fair enough provided that the rules are enforced against every employer in the sector.


 
At least an answer. Probably a fair answer!


----------



## ubiquitous (17 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



contemporary said:


> If he had a ltd company he could do a phoenix and liquidate the business and set up again, he wouldnt be the first, however he is a sole trader so doesnt that option, i have read on many boards advising people not to set up as ltd companies but as sole traders because its cheaper, here is a good example of where limited liability would have helped the business owner,



I'm afraid the above comment is totally incorrect and, on the off-chance that someone out there might actually be foolish enough to believe it and act on it, I believe it is essential that it is rebutted. 

The 2001 Company Law Enforcement Act and the existence of the ODCE now both mean that it is impossible for company directors  to avoid their statutory and other obligations to employees, Revenue or creditors by liquidating their company and starting again under a new name. The law now explicitly provides that limited liability does NOT apply in such circumstances. 

Anyone who says otherwise doesn't really have much of an idea of the up-to-date company law position in this country.


----------



## simplyjoe (17 Sep 2007)

It annoys me that increasingly on this site a direct query is sidetracked with great issues arising. Socialist vrs Capitalist. Employer vrs employee. Purple, Riany Day and MOB come off your high horse and comment on the specific queries raised by the OP. The same thing is happening on the Brendan Investment topics. Stay specific. Save your chit chat for shooting the breeze.


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2007)

simplyjoe said:


> It annoys me that increasingly on this site a direct query is sidetracked with great issues arising. Socialist vrs Capitalist. Employer vrs employee. Purple, Riany Day and MOB come off your high horse and comment on the specific queries raised by the OP. The same thing is happening on the Brendan Investment topics. Stay specific. Save your chit chat for shooting the breeze.


I agree with you but if someone deliberately and maliciously misconstrues my posts in order to imply that I support criminal actions and the exploitation of employees then I will defend myself. I am very surprised and very disappointed that a poster that I had considerable respect for has behaved in such a manner.
Ironically my first post was an attempt to keep this thread on track.


----------



## contemporary (17 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



ubiquitous said:


> I'm afraid the above comment is totally incorrect and, on the off-chance that someone out there might actually be foolish enough to believe it and act on it, I believe it is essential that it is rebutted.
> 
> The 2001 Company Law Enforcement Act and the existence of the ODCE now both mean that it is impossible for company directors  to avoid their statutory and other obligations to employees, Revenue or creditors by liquidating their company and starting again under a new name. The law now explicitly provides that limited liability does NOT apply in such circumstances.
> 
> Anyone who says otherwise doesn't really have much of an idea of the up-to-date company law position in this country.



I would hope people didnt do that, however I have seen it done, that was the point I was making, you know some people just dont give a flying funk about the law....with hundreds of companies setup and stuck off every week, some get lost in the system


----------



## ubiquitous (17 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



contemporary said:


> I would hope people didnt do that, however I have seen it done, that was the point I was making, you know some people just dont give a flying funk about the law....



If you have "seen it done" since 2001, can you then explain your conclusion that the 2001 Company Law Enforcement Act does not apply to them and that it is impossible for Revenue, creditors, employees or other aggrieved stakeholders to request the ODCE to take action against them, up to and including the initiation of criminal prosecution proceedings?


----------



## MOB (17 Sep 2007)

"It annoys me that increasingly on this site a direct query is sidetracked with great issues arising. Socialist vrs Capitalist. Employer vrs employee. Purple, Riany Day and MOB come off your high horse and comment on the specific queries raised by the OP. The same thing is happening on the Brendan Investment topics. Stay specific. Save your chit chat for shooting the breeze"

A fair point.    In fact a very fair point.   Guilty as charged.   But - and sorry if this is petty - better perhaps if the point were coming from someone who had not actually instigated the widening of the issue with a previous post.


----------



## contemporary (17 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



ubiquitous said:


> If you have "seen it done" since 2001, can you then explain your conclusion that the 2001 Company Law Enforcement Act does not apply to them and that it is impossible for Revenue, creditors, employees or other aggrieved stakeholders to request the ODCE to take action against them, up to and including the initiation of criminal prosecution proceedings?



i never came to that conclusion, they arrived at it themselves


----------



## ubiquitous (17 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



contemporary said:


> i never came to that conclusion, they arrived at it themselves



Yes but you said 





contemporary said:


> "If he had a ltd company he could do a phoenix and liquidate the business and set up again"


 and 





contemporary said:


> "limited liability would have helped the business owner".


I'm just wondering how you arrived at this conclusion, given the existence of the 2001 CLEA and the ODCE?

How sure are you that the phoenix operators you cite are immune from ODCE proceedings, and that their limited liability protection remains intact?


----------



## Towger (17 Sep 2007)

While you are all arguing over rules I will give an example of a real world case I was told by the companies owner, about 5 years ago.

He was audited and Revenue were looking for large sum of PRSI + penalties...

He gave Revenue two options:

A - He could pay it, but the company would close and 20 employees would be on the dole. 
B - He could pay a token contribution and they could write the rest off.

Revenue took option B.

And yes, he is still in business today.

Towger.


----------



## simplyjoe (17 Sep 2007)

MOB said:


> &quot;It annoys me that increasingly on this site a direct query is sidetracked with great issues arising. Socialist vrs Capitalist. Employer vrs employee. Purple, Riany Day and MOB come off your high horse and comment on the specific queries raised by the OP. The same thing is happening on the Brendan Investment topics. Stay specific. Save your chit chat for shooting the breeze&quot;
> 
> A fair point.    In fact a very fair point.   Guilty as charged.   But - and sorry if this is petty - better perhaps if the point were coming from someone who had not actually instigated the widening of the issue with a previous post.


 
Actually you are right. Guilty as charged.


----------



## contemporary (17 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



ubiquitous said:


> Yes but you said
> and
> I'm just wondering how you arrived at this conclusion, given the existence of the 2001 CLEA and the ODCE?
> 
> How sure are you that the phoenix operators you cite are immune from ODCE proceedings, and that their limited liability protection remains intact?



2 brothers who owned a business went bust in Feb owing me 4k, they are now back trading with a new company, i dont think they are imune, perhaps i phrased my post badly, but it does happen (well to me anyway!)


----------



## ubiquitous (17 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



contemporary said:


> 2 brothers who owned a business went bust in Feb owing me 4k, they are now back trading with a new company, i dont think they are immune



They most certainly are not immune. February is not that long ago - if Revenue or anyone else were left out of pocket, they still have plenty of time to pursue them. You yourself are free to report them to the ODCE using the guidelines on www.odce.ie if you wish.


----------



## RainyDay (17 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



Towger said:


> While you are all arguing over rules I will give an example of a real world case I was told by the companies owner, about 5 years ago.
> 
> He was audited and Revenue were looking for large sum of PRSI + penalties...
> 
> ...


I'd suspect there is a bit of bravado spinning going on here. How do you reckon the Revenue inspector would spin the tale to his mates in the pub?


Purple said:


> I agree with you but if someone deliberately and maliciously misconstrues my posts in order to imply that I support criminal actions and the exploitation of employees then I will defend myself. .


For the record, I didn't misconstrue any post. I asked a question seeking clarification. Yet again, when you use the term 'everyone' in a post when you don't really mean it, don't be surprised that there is a need for clarification.


Purple said:


> I do consider trying to pigeon-hole everyone into a “worker” or “boss” identity is totally outdated and in this day and age just plain stupid and therefore a 'simplistic 1920's style socialist views'.


Stop putting words into my mouth. I never used the words 'worker' or 'boss'. Indeed, my original post made no judgement about anyone, and simply asked the practical question about who might fund the defecit. Only when attacked by other posters with the 'business is tough' and 'Rainyday lives in a nice zone' stuff did I expand. And even then, there was no worker/boss stuff. I did refer to employers and employees, but I can't really see how anyone can comment on this topic without such words.


----------



## Purple (17 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



RainyDay said:


> For the record, I didn't misconstrue any post. I asked a question seeking clarification. Yet again, when you use the term 'everyone' in a post when you don't really mean it, don't be surprised that there is a need for clarification.


 You got my clarification, ignored it and continued with disingenuous posts.    



RainyDay said:


> I think I'm getting it. When you said 'everyone went into this with their eyes open', you didn't really mean everyone - is that it? You meant 'everyone except the employees of ssap16's brother's company' or something like that - have I got it now?
> 
> 
> 
> Stop putting words into my mouth


 Indeed

By the way, my post came after your one where you has veered away from just asking a question. At that point I agreed with the substance of your post, as I continue to do, but simply questioned the tone.


----------



## Graham_07 (18 Sep 2007)

On a lighter note, does anyone know if TIcketmaster have seats left for the next round in this debate ?


----------



## ubiquitous (18 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



RainyDay said:


> How do you reckon the Revenue inspector would spin the tale to his mates in the pub?



For what its worth, Revenue DO negotiate discounted settlements on occasions in extreme cases. And it is not unknown for Revenue audit inspectors to opt not to pursue full assessment and collection of tax liabilities on occasions where there is genuine doubt over the taxpayer's ability to pay. 

And finally, all Revenue staff are bound by strict confidentiality codes so even where these instances occur, you will never hear about them, except perhaps in aggregated form in the annual Comptroller & Auditor General Reports.


----------



## RainyDay (18 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



Purple said:


> You got my clarification, ignored it and continued with disingenuous posts.


I'm thoroughly confused. I just can't reconcile  'everyone went into this with their eyes open' & 'all happy to play fast & loose with the rules' with your claim that you agree with the substance of my post. These two positions are miles apart. 



Purple said:


> By the way, my post came after your one where you has veered away from just asking a question. At that point I agreed with the substance of your post, as I continue to do, but simply questioned the tone.


You've questioned a lot more than tone, and you haven't been short of a little tone yourself. Pots & kettles spring to mind.

But this is getting painfully tedious now. Let's kiss & make up. I'm sure we both have better things to do.



ubiquitous said:


> For what its worth, Revenue DO negotiate discounted settlements on occasions in extreme cases. And it is not unknown for Revenue audit inspectors to opt not to pursue full assessment and collection of tax liabilities on occasions where there is genuine doubt over the taxpayer's ability to pay.


I don't doubt that Revenue will negotiate discounts in extreme circumstances. Indeed, there was public outcry when they agreed a discount for CJH some time back. However, the spin from the other poster of 'He could pay a token contribution and they could write the rest off' is a very different angle, and suspect there was considerable bravado boasting involved in that story.


ubiquitous said:


> And finally, all Revenue staff are bound by strict confidentiality codes so even where these instances occur, you will never hear about them, except perhaps in aggregated form in the annual Comptroller & Auditor General Reports.


Yes, just as doctors/Gardai/teachers/nurses are also bound by confidentiality, and we've all heard their stories (without identifying the individuals involved of course). I'd be very surprised if Revenue staff NEVER told an occasional story out of school, without identifying individuals involved.


----------



## ubiquitous (19 Sep 2007)

Sorry, I see where you're coming from now. 

I know many business people who have been through Revenue Audits.  Such an experience is not exactly something that any sane person would brag about, even if the outcome is favourable or relatively so.


----------



## Purple (19 Sep 2007)

*Re: Business (sole trader) has undergone a monitoring visit from the CIF pension sche*



RainyDay said:


> I'm thoroughly confused. I just can't reconcile  'everyone went into this with their eyes open' & 'all happy to play fast & loose with the rules' with your claim that you agree with the substance of my post. These two positions are miles apart.


 It's all about context. I agreed with the substance of your post and then made comments on a different post making more general point about the building industry. If you don't get that then you are just going to have to accept that there are some things that you don't understand
You are quite right about one thing though; we both do have better things to do.


----------

