Just watching primetime there, and John Drennan of the Sindo said that it is in Frank Dunlop's interests to lie about how much he paid to politicians, as the higher the figure the lower his eventual tax liability would be. Surely this is total nonsense, the revenue would have to look at this as a non-deductible expense, wouldn't they?
As I understand it Dunlop received money from x,y,z for PR purposes, this was his trade income/professional fees etc, he obviously had numerous legitimate expenses which were deductible as normal, but he also had, ahem, cash expenses which he allegedly distributed to politicians, these can't be deductible (no receipts for a start ), can they??
As I understand it Dunlop received money from x,y,z for PR purposes, this was his trade income/professional fees etc, he obviously had numerous legitimate expenses which were deductible as normal, but he also had, ahem, cash expenses which he allegedly distributed to politicians, these can't be deductible (no receipts for a start ), can they??