# Irish Times reporting of David Drumm's tax



## Brendan Burgess (26 Feb 2011)

This is the story from yesterday's , front page of the Irish Times. (It is gone from their website)



> *Drumm paid just €10,000 tax on €10m Anglo Irish income
> *Colm Keena
> 
> David Drumm earned more than €10m during his period as chief executive of Anglo but paid less than €10,000 tax.
> ...




This is the sort of the misleading reporting which fuels the public misconception that higher earners pay little or no tax while the lower paid are being screwed. 

Today, [broken link removed]
*
Drumm paid €6.31 m income tax on gross income of €12.47m* - i.e. an effective rate of 50%.

However, the wrong story gets a mention on the front page. The correction gets relegated to the business pages.  When such a huge error is made, they really should give the correction much more prominence than the error.


----------



## Lauren (26 Feb 2011)

The front page story will live on and the correction will be known to few. Thanks for posting it. I thought the original reporting sounded outlandish to be honest.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Feb 2011)

For the record, here is the full original article thanks to Google cache

 *Drumm paid just €10,000 tax on €10m Anglo Irish income*
  COLM KEENA, Public Affairs Correspondent


  DAVID DRUMM earned more than €10 million during his period as chief executive of Anglo Irish Bank but paid less than €10,000 in income tax.
  Documents filed in Boston as part of Mr Drumm’s bankruptcy application there show he received income tax rebates in 2004, 2005 and 2006, when he was one of the most highly paid bankers in Ireland.


  In 2007 Mr Drumm was paid €3.27 million and was the highest paid chief executive of an Irish bank. However, he paid just €2,216.94 in income tax, according to a Revenue document filed in Boston.


  How it was that Mr Drumm essentially paid no income tax during his period at the helm of the bank is not known. The sudden drop in his tax bill coincides with his being appointed to the Anglo board.


  Mr Drumm paid €87,872 in income tax in 2002 and €135,451.35 in income tax in 2003, the last year he was subjected to a significant tax bill. It is not known how much he earned in these years as his income was not publicly disclosed until he joined the Anglo board.


  Mr Drumm was co-opted onto the Anglo board in September 2004. At the time he was a senior executive in the bank. He received a tax rebate that year of €19,350. His 2004 income is not known.


  He was appointed chief executive in January 2005 and earned €2.35 million that year, according to the bank’s 2005 annual report. He received an income tax rebate of €7,598.78, according to the Revenue document filed in Boston.


  The following year Mr Drumm earned €3 million and received an income tax rebate of €4,950.84. In 2008 he earned €2.13 million and paid €39,625 in income tax. He resigned as chief executive in December 2008 and the bank was nationalised the following month.


  The Revenue has made a submission to the court in Boston where Mr Drumm has filed for bankruptcy stating that the former chief executive still owes €716 in income tax from 2008, and €121 in interest. As part of the submission from the Collector General’s insolvency unit, a statement of account showing past income tax liabilities and payments by Mr Drumm was submitted, showing the figures quoted above.


  A spokewoman for the bank had no comment when asked if the bank’s executive directors had a tax avoidance structure. Mr Drumm, who returned from working in the bank’s US offices in 2003, appears to have become involved in aggressive tax planning at about the same time he joined the board. He could not be contacted. The Revenue would not comment.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Feb 2011)

The public reaction to the original story can be gauged by the discussion on boards.ie and  and many other sites


----------



## Brendan Burgess (26 Feb 2011)

It's not clear how they got it so wrong, but I am guessing that the Irish Times looked at the balancing statements for the years because they report him as having received tax refunds.


----------



## ClubMan (26 Feb 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It's not clear how they got it so wrong, but I am guessing that the Irish Times looked at the balancing statements for the years because they report him as having received tax refunds.


How would an individual's income tax affairs (e.g. _P21 _(presumably?) balancing statements) be accessible to a newspaper?


----------



## dahamsta (27 Feb 2011)

Your question is answered in the 2nd article linked in the 1st post in the thread.


----------



## Fatphrog (27 Feb 2011)

As soon as I heard about the retraction, I immediately concluded that this was a cynically/cleverly timed ambush on FF on polling day.

I heard about it first on Newstalk and was seething with anger at FF that such travesties be allowed to occur. I'd say this cost FF a good few seats as potential transfers evaporated.


----------



## horusd (27 Feb 2011)

Fatphrog said:


> As soon as I heard about the retraction, I immediately concluded that this was a cynically/cleverly timed ambush on FF on polling day.
> 
> I heard about it first on Newstalk and was seething with anger at FF that such travesties be allowed to occur. I'd say this cost FF a good few seats as potential transfers evaporated.


 
Can't agree that this had any significant impact on FF vote, if it had any at all. People didn't need any extra reasons to want them out, FF had more than supplied enough of them.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (27 Feb 2011)

Fatphrog said:


> As soon as I heard about the retraction, I immediately concluded that this was a cynically/cleverly timed ambush on FF on polling day.
> 
> I heard about it first on Newstalk and was seething with anger at FF that such travesties be allowed to occur. I'd say this cost FF a good few seats as potential transfers evaporated.



If the Irish Times had the information for a few weeks, and just launched it on polling day, there might be some basis to this conspiracy theory.

But it was not up to the Irish Times to dictate to David Drumm or the US courts when he was to make his submissions.

This was pure coincidence.


----------



## ClubMan (27 Feb 2011)

dahamsta said:


> Your question is answered in the 2nd article linked in the 1st post in the thread.


Oops - thanks - my mistake! 



> Yesterday  _The Irish Times_ incorrectly reported that Mr Drumm had paid  only €10,000 in tax during the period. The report was based on an  incorrect interpretation of a document filed by the Revenue  Commissioners in a court in Boston.


----------



## Bronte (28 Feb 2011)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The public reaction to the original story can be gauged by the discussion on boards.ie and  and many other sites


 
The language on boards is unbelievable. Had to give up.


----------

