Bertie Ahern: Good deal or bad deal for people of Ireland

M

mayoman2

Registered User
Messages
96
Can't put this thread in the LOS or STB, so please move if ye want, but what do ye think of the circus last night.

For me, I couldn't stop laughing. How can this guy get away with this. He played the "Poor me" card and he had one of the best paid jobs in the country and still does. I thought at one stage he was going to cry. I think he needs a good ten inches out the door.
 
You're one to talk, cjh! :D

I'm tempted to paraphrase Mr Bailey's famous riposte, but I'll, ehm, moderate myself...
 
I keep getting this abuse and it's a case of mistaken identity - I swear!
 
fobs said:
no tax liability as it wasn't a gift but a loan then he intended to pay back.
Click to expand...

If an ordinary joe soap self-employed individual used that excuse to a Revenue Auditor or Inspector they would be laughed at...
 
I think this was vaguely mentioned, but would such outstanding loans be reportable by Bertie as a TD? Would such a liability be something that the Ethics committee or whatever they're called be interested in?

So, if Bertie was correct in not reporting these loans in 93/94, was he remiss in not reporting them since?
 
If a little old lady with an old non-resident or offshore account tried to convince Revenue that the funds concerned came from "loans" borrowed from friends, she would have been treated as failing to co-operate with the Revenue investigation, and would have been forced to pay interest and penaties amounting to a high multiple of the amount saved. Large numbers of elderly people lost their life savings, some lost their homes, in this manner. These Revenue investigations were conducted with the strong support of Mr. Ahern's govenment.


Had a mythical individual earned IR£38,000 in 1993/94 and invested it in an offshore or non-resident account at the time, their tax, interest and penalties liability arising on the principal sum alone would have amounted to €89,763 by June 2006, and would have increased thereafter by approx 1% per months until settled with Revenue. Thousands of people have been named and shamed, and some jailed, for a lot less...
 
And what about the tax that was due on the £8,000 that he got for the speaking engagements in Manchester that he also mentioned. I doubt very much if he paid tax on this.
 
And what about the tax that was due on the £8,000 that he got for the speaking engagements in Manchester that he also mentioned. I doubt very much if he paid tax on this.
Click to expand...

doubting very much or knowing for a fact are two different things. His tax affairs are either in order or they are not and that is for the REvenue Conmmisioners to work out.
 
I also have my own personal doubts over this "personal savings" which were separate from his joint account. He's saying that this money explains any large deposits made into his new own separate current account after the separation.

Where did the money for this saving come from? You'd assume his salary/declared income was going into the joint-account. Did the money then leave the joint account and go into the "personal savings" account?

Would this be permitted in a separation case? Would his "personal savings" not be subject to the outcome of the separation case?

If not from his salary then, where did the money come from to build up this "personal savings" account which he's told us was in excess of IR£50,000?
 
A lot of unanswered questions. Only Bertie could get away with this. It was a loan but he hasn't repaid a penny 13 years later as his current income is "only" 300,000 euro but as he is an accountant he knows that it was not a gift and that there is no tax liability. At the time he was Minister for Finance on a big salary. The amount he received would have bought a house outright at the time and was the equivalent to 2yrs salary at the average industrial wage, yet he dismisses it as a small sum.

He didn't appoint the doners to state boards because of the donations but rather because they were friends. thought that this was an extraordinary admission. surely people should be appointed on merit.

opposition seem to be afraid to go after him because he is a nice guy and very popular and it would be "insensitive" as he was going through marriage breakup at the time
 
He said the initial reported figure of 50-100.000 the tribunal was supposed to be examining was off the wall, then confirmed the money was, well, 50k. Now today there is talk of a further 8k payment to him for some speaking engagement. And is this the end of it? Don't think so. So if "off the wall" was untrue spoof, it shows he is in real trouble. Expect a second wave of this stuff.
 
fobs said:
no tax liability as it wasn't a gift but a loan then he intended to pay back.
Click to expand...

Such a loan becomes a gift usually within 7 years, if not paid back. This was clarified on last nights prime time by a very well known tax consultant and senior counsel

If still a loan a CAT liability will arises on the "free use of property" i.e. an interest free loan for x number of years there is a deemed gift in the loan o/s at a market value interest rate each year. This was also clarified by Prime Time last night.

I was surprised to hear bertie state that he was sure that there was no tax liability and he would know this becuase he is an accountant very amusing
 
Did he say that he didnt have a bank account in his name whi;e he was going through his separation. Before his separation they had a joint account. When he separated did he still use the joint account. Alot of people dont have an account in their name during a separation but that way there is no paper trial of what money you have coming in and out or have a miss something here.
 
1)when mrs Cu worked for one of the banks the revenue taxed any loans bank staff received at benefit in kind. ( hence a lot of bank staff have credit union loans) so an interest free loan would surely be benefit in kind, did he declare such benefit in kind on his annual tax returns?
2) I opened a small bank account in Newry in the late mid 80's ( for handiness as much as anything ie both junior cu's were born in newry and all hospital bills etc were in sterling ) had to pay the revenue tax and interest on this later when the revenue declared that interest on non resident accounts were subject to tax and penalties ( ok it was less than €200 but the same principal applies)
3) Charlie Chalke stated on the news today that he and a few friends chipped in to help his friend Bertie in his hour of need after his solicitor said he was going through a bad time ( not exactly how you normally organise a loan)
4) will bertie pay tax on his memoirs which I beleive he will be publishing soon?. believe the title is ...... PS - I owe you
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He made an allusion to savings of £50k that he deposited into his own account after his marriage breakup. Presumably he'd been keeping this money under the mattress as it doesn't appear to have come from any other bank account?

He also said that he used the "donated" money to clear his loans. Now why would he replace one debt with another of equal value if he intended to repay his benefactors, knowing that the money saved on interest would be either taxable as a benefit in kind. It wouldn't be worth it - unless there was no intention to either repay the loan or declare the benefit.

I thought his attempt to appeal to the public sympathy - even getting misty eyed when he mentioned his kids - were pathetic, cynical, and embarrassing. He should resign before he gets the push, as I don't think this one will go away.

I also thought his comment about appointing his "friends" to cushy positions was extraordinary. How did Brian Dobson let him away with this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top