would that not be the right time to pay yourself six figures!
Mick Wallace underpayment of VAT
- Thread starter DB74
- Start date
While I can completely understand why someone would underdeclare the VAT to try and work through a tough trading condition there are too many things that don't add up here.
One could see how in 2008 suddenly business goes bang, one doesn't realise it and banks suddenly pull the rug from under you. But not paying workers pensions deduction, doubling director's salaried and not paying VAT shows a pattern. Though I may be wrong. Could be pressure brought on the man.
Nevertheless he has cheated the revenue and if he has any integrity has the option to resign, and go for re election, after answering the many unanswered questions to the electorate.
Shane Ross etc why haven't you tabled a new bill so that any elected official that falls foul of the revenue in say the previous 5 years has to resign. So that we don't have to go through this unedifying episode again.
What is wrong with our legislators. Methinks a lot of them have skeletons themselves. Same old, same old. If it's ok to do what he has done because he is a character then we will never get anywhere.
One could see how in 2008 suddenly business goes bang, one doesn't realise it and banks suddenly pull the rug from under you. But not paying workers pensions deduction, doubling director's salaried and not paying VAT shows a pattern. Though I may be wrong. Could be pressure brought on the man.
Nevertheless he has cheated the revenue and if he has any integrity has the option to resign, and go for re election, after answering the many unanswered questions to the electorate.
Shane Ross etc why haven't you tabled a new bill so that any elected official that falls foul of the revenue in say the previous 5 years has to resign. So that we don't have to go through this unedifying episode again.
What is wrong with our legislators. Methinks a lot of them have skeletons themselves. Same old, same old. If it's ok to do what he has done because he is a character then we will never get anywhere.
mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
How do you define falling foul of Revenue though Bronte?
Not disputing the validity of anything you've said, just wondering how/where you draw a line.
Plenty of people make genuine errors in their tax returns - not Mick though, he didn't even have the cop on to pretend it was a mistake - but plenty of people do.
To use an example you could definitely relate to, say Joe Bloggs TD has rental property, and he thought the letting agent had registered it with PRTB and the letting agent thought he had. The accountant never twigged it, and claimed the mortgage interest deduction. Now this could easily amount to a publishable amount if it went on for 4 years (and it would go on that long if the tenants stayed, because it would realistically only be copped in year 1).
If the Revenue auditor had SimplyJoe's outlook ("revenue doesn't audit enough and when they do the penalties aren't tough enough"), and wouldn't accept that it was an error, then you can be pretty sure it'd be 30%+ penalty and into Iris Oifigiuil with ya - and lose your seat in the Dáil.
Seems a bit harsh to me. So that's why I ask how best to define / establish where the line is.
(Also, he should the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language off his accountant, not that it'll get him his Dáil seat back...!)
Not disputing the validity of anything you've said, just wondering how/where you draw a line.
Plenty of people make genuine errors in their tax returns - not Mick though, he didn't even have the cop on to pretend it was a mistake - but plenty of people do.
To use an example you could definitely relate to, say Joe Bloggs TD has rental property, and he thought the letting agent had registered it with PRTB and the letting agent thought he had. The accountant never twigged it, and claimed the mortgage interest deduction. Now this could easily amount to a publishable amount if it went on for 4 years (and it would go on that long if the tenants stayed, because it would realistically only be copped in year 1).
If the Revenue auditor had SimplyJoe's outlook ("revenue doesn't audit enough and when they do the penalties aren't tough enough"), and wouldn't accept that it was an error, then you can be pretty sure it'd be 30%+ penalty and into Iris Oifigiuil with ya - and lose your seat in the Dáil.
Seems a bit harsh to me. So that's why I ask how best to define / establish where the line is.
(Also, he should the This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language off his accountant, not that it'll get him his Dáil seat back...!
)mandelbrot
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,330
And who votes all these rogues into the Dáil? You and me, and the rest of the public. So if enough of the population are willing to vote for chancers and fraudsters, what does that say about us, in general.
To me it says we have a vey poor selection to choose from......
It says that our TD's are a representative cross section of the Irish electorate. When we have the kind of discussion we had about the last referendum I’m not in the least bit surprised that we have such a low calibre of public representative.
Why would a capable person with integrity run for the Dail when they know that they will have to lower themselves to the same level as a Mick Wallace, a Bertie Ahern or a Liam Lawlor in order to placate and buy off the mutton-heads who elect them?
This example which I do relate to is not at all the same. In that scenario a genuine mistake was made. I don't think people should be severly punished for that. There was a poster on here who owed something like 44 Euro and didn't realise it and had to pay 1K due to penalties and interest. Mick Wallace on 3 occasions so far has a) not paid pension deductions (since rectified) taken VAT but didn't pay it over to revenue, and did so deliberately and c) doubled directors salaries when the company was running at a loss. to counter this he was apparently in business for 20 years and was fully tax compliant.
What do I learn from the Mick Wallace scenario, if I have a company I can hide behind the Limited if the company goes bust. I fully agree with having limited companies, but if you collect VAT and don't pay it then there should be some form of punishement, say not being allowed be a director for a certain number of years and not allowed hold elected office or be appointed to a state board for a number of years.
PAYE workers do not have any choice in this matter, and it is revenue's job to ensure that we all pay and that those who don't are suitably punished. If they don't then we all pay. I was brought up in a culture of complete and utter non payance of anything, stamp duty, VAT, rates, CGT, income tax and it's very difficult to change that mindset including myself, but as I've grown older and probably living abroad changes one my understanding is that we all have to pay if we want services. I have family members who comply and others who pay nothing and avoid evereything and they do get away with it.
Purple there is no difference in either the VAT or the expenses fraud. Both are 'stealing' and defrauding. On both counts other taxpayers have to pay more because of these actions.
Revenue in my opinion have more questions to answer than Wallace. They have a policy of targeting the large tax evaders. I would like to know exactly why they didn't prosecute Wallace when they did Begley. Begley is actually paying his taxes back, good for the tax payer and is also still a large employer, good for the tax payer and economy.
It seems to me from my experience of revenue that they tend to take the easy route on certain people and it is not unheard of for revenue to be policitally sensitive and have Ministers call them in (Haughey)
I'd like to analyse your first sentence.
We do not know that Wallace delayed declaring tax, we know he falsified his accounts and thereby evaded paying tax. We do not know that he intended to later pay it. In any case that is not a defence to what he did.
This was not tax avoidance. Tax avoidance is when you do what you can to minimise your taxes. This is perfectly legit tax planning. As a landlord I do it all the time to try and make my business profitable and in order to pay less taxes.
If you falsify your accounts and thereby do not pay enough tax than plain and simple that is tax evasion. Tax evasion is illegal and punishable.
I fail to see the distinction on a legal point of view between Wallace and Begley. Ethics and motive do not come into it. Both are diddling the compliant tax payers.
No, it’s not at all ok. My point is that we can’t sit back and lament the low quality and lack of integrity of our politicians. I’ve been of the opinion for a long time that they are, in general, more intelligent and have more integrity than the people who elect them. I’m not for a minute saying that I thing they are good enough though.
When we look at the endemic levels of tax evasion (VAT, income tax, household charge etc), black economy, welfare fraud and low-level criminality in our society it’s a miracle that we have the public representatives we have.
Sure it will all be paid back in a couple of hundred years (adjusting for inflation and interest) so what's the problem?
... you know, I was looking at a part of the news this week where they had shown Wallace, Ming & some other woman siting in the Dail. Honestly they three of them looked like a bunch of misfits thrown over into the back corner of the class. Wallaace was standing up reading a statement, Ming next to him and the woman (sorry don't know who she is), sitting back in the chair chewing gum (open mouth) like a someone hanging around a street corner.
Now I'm all for free expressions etc etc but as I looked it them I thought - are these the people who are representing this country, are these the ones who should go to Europe from time to time and try broker the best deals for the country? Are these the people who should meet face to face with Irish groups and potential enterprise investors in Ireland in visits to Washington? ... and I thought .... no.
Now to be honest I'd say the same about most of those who are suited up in the Dail anyway - but jeez this is a new low as far as I can see.
I think the same every time I see a photo of the group of them,I just die a little bit.
(leaving aside the fact that many dressed in suits have the same effect,due to their activity's,But that's for another thread)
Where is the line drawn,Tracksuits/belly tops/man kinis!!
But I do still wonder if his staff have to conform and wear uniforms??
(leaving aside the fact that many dressed in suits have the same effect,due to their activity's,But that's for another thread)
Where is the line drawn,Tracksuits/belly tops/man kinis!!
But I do still wonder if his staff have to conform and wear uniforms??
that would be the one and only Clare Daly.....saw her monching away on the gum on the tv the other night....keeping it real a la the proletariat, so she is!
Well said