Bertiegate 2

ballooba

I can't wait to see the front page of today's Irish Times.

Dave!

???

Did I miss something? lol

ballooba

£30,000 payment. Patience grasshopper.

Ireland.com should have it any minute.

gilroyb

Seem to be some suggestions of some funny money. Apparently Bertie and advisers have been AWOL for most of the last day. All seems very odd.

Dirk Gently

ballooba wrote:

I can't wait to see the front page of today's Irish Times.

Why, so the FG character assignation department can throw more mud and allow Bertie to play the victim card again, thus increasing support for FF?

Got a link to the FG transcript, err…… I mean, what’s coming out in the news tomorrow.

ballooba

clown bag wrote:

Why, so the FG character assignation department can throw more mud and allow Bertie to play the victim card again, thus increasing support for FF?

The IT is not the Indo. It carries a tad more credibility when they lead with it.

Unfortunately my direct line to Inda's office is down at the moment, you'll just have to wait for the IT to go live or hit the news stands.

Dirk Gently

out of interest, did you get a tip off from one of your party members as to what will be in tomorrows papers?

ballooba

No. I read about it on Politics.ie.

Dub13

Irish Daily Mail on Sunday: Explosive allegations

From Politics.ie.

Amidst all this election fever I only spotted what Frank Connolly wrote on the front page of today's Daily Mail on Sunday.

Still have to figure out what it all means (as there is more twists and turns with different amounts of money, more suitcases of cash, an allegation of a USD$45,000 payment), but the paper claims that Bertie Ahern himself admitted to the Tribunal three weeks ago that he received STG£30,000 in CASH in a brief case from Michael Wall to do up the premises which Wall had yet to purchase (the home that Ahern now lives in) in late 1994.

The paper claims that significant transactions occured through Celia Larkins two bank accounts. The STG£30,000 in cash from Wall was lodged to Larkin's account in Dec 1994.

Should all become clearer in tomorrow's opening statement to the Tribunal.

ballooba

Who is Michael Wall?

Same as Michael Wall from Bertiegate 1?

Dirk Gently

Just read the two threads in question.

So are the tribunals open for business or not during the election campaign?
It still smells of a dirty politics campaign to me, regardless of substance or otherwise.

ballooba

Dirty politics? By whom for god's sake? The man who took took the brown paper envelopes or the one who is highlighting it?

The IT is not a FG publication for the record and often offers the most impartial coverage. The man is a crook and people need to realise it.

The tribunal will meet for one week AFAIK. They will adjorn two weeks before polling.

gilroyb

The ireland.com article is sort of up.

It says,

Businessman Michael Wall gave £30,000stg in cash to the Taoiseach's then partner Celia Larkin in December 1994, the Mahon tribunal has been told.

but the link to the full story doesn't work. Is this like the business post on sunday which did the same thing so people would buy the paper rather than read the one big story online?

ballooba

It's up on Ireland.com and it is the Michael Wall payment to Celia Larkin of £30,000. The cover photo is hilarious.

The link to the full article will become functional as the online edition is published fully over the next couple of minutes. I sometimes wait up for the IT to come out, usually it is 12:30 though. Tonight is a special case.

The_Minister

I never trust the Daily Mail. Did any reputable sources carry the story?

nesf

ballooba wrote:

The IT is not the Indo. It carries a tad more credibility when they lead with it.

Just a tad (regarding the IT not the story itself). The IT is just as biased in its own way it just doesn't really force your head into the muck about it. Wasn't this whole thing brought up a few weeks ago though?

Dirk Gently

ballooba wrote:

Dirty politics? By whom for god's sake? .

ballooba

nesf wrote:

Just a tad (regarding the IT not the story itself). The IT is just as biased in its own way it just doesn't really force your head into the muck about it. Wasn't this whole thing brought up a few weeks ago though?

That was a different wad of cash. There was no proof in that case though.

(Ba dum tisch! )

nesf

ballooba wrote:

That was a different wad of cash. There was no proof in that case though.

(Ba dum tisch! )

lol.

Honestly, maybe it's my moral compass being awry or something, but I find it kind of amusing that people get so worked up about this kind of stuff. I never had any delusions about politics in this country being any cleaner than the business world. I also have serious doubts that it's restricted to FF tbh though I've no proof to back that up or anything.

lostexpectation

this tribunal stuff has going on for years it not just an election issue move it out to the main forum

nesf

lostexpectation wrote:

this tribunal stuff has going on for years it not just an election issue move it out to the main forum

To an extent agreed but I imagine it's findings may have effects on the election so it's fairly relevant.



The full story is accessible on ireland.com now. It's odd. I can almost see it as "Hey, the house ye're in needs improving, since you're living in it here's some cash make what improvements you want to it". Still a very odd way to do it though but I could see someone renting to a very good friend or family member doing it that way. Actually, between family it wouldn't strike me as being very odd. Though that isn't the case here obviously.

ballooba

Why give the money to Celia rather than Bertie?

nesf

Because giving money to sitting politicians even for genuine reasons is generally a very bad idea?

*shrugs*

I know that's how I'd do it anyway.

Dave!

Why would he give him £30k CASH to refurbish his house? Was this at the time when Bertrude, the Minister for Finance, didn't have a bank account? lol. He had to pay Paddy the Plasterer for his nixers, didn't he!

This guy gets more and more dodgey every day..... Maybe he'll have another interview with Brian Dobson. Get the hankies ready!

Heinrich

DaveMcG wrote:

Why would he give him £30k CASH to refurbish his house? Was this at the time when Bertrude, the Minister for Finance, didn't have a bank account? lol. He had to pay Paddy the Plasterer for his nixers, didn't he!

This guy gets more and more dodgey every day..... Maybe he'll have another interview with Brian Dobson. Get the hankies ready!

Dodgy is an understatement! House repairs indeed? This guy must have had tradesmen on hand to look after the property. Claiming back on taxes and expenses...

If Celia got the cash and put it in her bank was a draft not a more logical way to do things. We are talking about a Minister for Finance and his mot, not some gangster. The CAB should be called in to deal with this.

ballooba

ballooba wrote:

Who is Michael Wall?

Same as Michael Wall from Bertiegate 1?

heh you are going on about bertie Gate and you don't even know who the characters involved are...

Smacks to me yet again of the accuse first and don't bother with the details as they are somehow irrelevant.
That would be some practice if it were observed in a court...

DublinWriter

Something smells very rotten here.

Did you notice the way Bertie yesterday kept on saying that he wouldn't play personality politics and that he would attack the issues not the personalities?

He kept saying it, over and over again on every radio and TV interview.

It was like he knew it would start to hit the fan today and was trying to wrong-foot his opponents, albeit pretty feebly.

gandalf

Hmmmm the monies were used to pay for repairs.

A few questions for Bertie would be.

Were the tradesmen paid under the counter and thus did he assist in helping them avoid tax?

If not then I assume our Minister for Finance back then has receipts for all the work carried out and can account for every penny and prove it was spent on the house?

If not then it is additional income to him (or another loan :rolleyes:) and Revenue should get involved.

Ah Bertie may the farce be with you :rolleyes:

Heinrich

gandalf wrote:

Hmmmm the monies were used to pay for repairs.

A few questions for Bertie would be.

Were the tradesmen paid under the counter and thus did he assist in helping them avoid tax?

If not then I assume our Minister for Finance back then has receipts for all the work carried out and can account for every penny and prove it was spent on the house?

If not then it is additional income to him (or another loan :rolleyes:) and Revenue should get involved.

Ah Bertie may the farce be with you :rolleyes:

Did they buy a compost bin during the "renovations" becuase frankly, the whole deal stinks. Cash payments = nixers = black economy.

Why was Celia involved in the first instance. I thought the house was "rented" so the landlord would be the one to deal with the refurbishment.

Why did he ditch Celia as a matter of interest?

Senator

Heinrich wrote:

Did they buy a compost bin during the "renovations" becuase frankly, the whole deal stinks. Cash payments = nixers = black economy.

Why was Celia involved in the first instance. I thought the house was "rented" so the landlord would be the one to deal with the refurbishment.

Why did he ditch Celia as a matter of interest?

How he came to be 'involved' with her and her position inside the civil service is a much more interesting tale.

Heinrich

Senator wrote:

How he came to be 'involved' with her and her position inside the civil service is a much more interesting tale.

Do tell!

brianthebard

Tristrame wrote:

heh you are going on about bertie Gate and you don't even know who the characters involved are...

Smacks to me yet again of the accuse first and don't bother with the details as they are somehow irrelevant.
That would be some practice if it were observed in a court...

No matter how innocent before guilty you treat the situation Ahern still has some serious answering to do. How do you think it would go down with the tax office, gardai, whatever, if I gave you a briefcase of cash? I don't want to think he's a criminal because that tells the international community that for the last ten years we've been led by someone who's dishonest and a political joke. Its a smack in the face to the Irish electorate. But this is really quite damning evidence.

El Stuntman

what's the full list now for the Bertmeister:

1. 50k 'loan' from his pals (never repaid until it was brought up)

2. Manchester whip-around

3. appointing his pals to State bodies 'because they were my friends'

4. this 30k

5. Quarryvale allegations

Am I missing anything? Starting to lose count here, surely the sheer volume of allegations must eventually have some effect (of course this being Ireland, he will probably get a bounce from it all, lol)

Glenbhoy

Am I missing anything? Starting to lose count here, surely the sheer volume of allegations must eventually have some effect (of course this being Ireland, he will probably get a bounce from it all, lol)

Yeah, according to yesterday's mail, there's also a probable $45,000, and the loan story seems to be unravelling.

LostinBlanch

Well,

Berties gamble has worked so far, the tribunal has bottled it and is adjourning until after the election.

I don't know whether Mahon is seen as a Fianna Fail appointee or not. Does anyone know?

Dub13

Ivor Calley had to walk for something like this,and IIRC that was only a lick of paint worth 2/3k.

brianthebard

brianthebard wrote:

No matter how innocent before guilty you treat the situation Ahern still has some serious answering to do.

Agreed.
However,I do put a pinch of salt on his "enemies" for want of a better word waving what are essentially allegations and treating them as proof.
Posters here are doing likewise.

How do you think it would go down with the tax office, gardai, whatever, if I gave you a briefcase of cash?

In Berties case I'll await and see how it is accounted for.At present I can go to my bank and take my ssia all out in cash and hand it to whomsoever I choose without telling anybody.
The money would be legitimate.
I simply don't know where Bertie/Celia spent this money supposedly for house repairs-Did they get a fitted kitchen? Did they get oil heating in? Did they replace the facia boards?All of which would have been expensive.
None of us know but hey don't let that stop some people running away with themselves.

The only thing so far here is a legitimate need to have answers to allegations in the interests of finding out whether there was a wrong or not.

I don't want to think he's a criminal because that tells the international community that for the last ten years we've been led by someone who's dishonest and a political joke. Its a smack in the face to the Irish electorate. But this is really quite damning evidence.

Really? now you are doing it using the phrase "damning evidence".
It poses a legitimate question and no more at this stage but it's hardly "damning evidence".

Sometimes I wonder do people stop and think about things or just have their own kangeroo court all in their own mind.
Most people don't actually going on the fair hearing they gave Ahern already.

I'd agree with the notion that if anything is proven,he's in the soup but remember there seems to be a lot of digging going on with Ahern by people with various unrelated axes to grind.
Ahern has already been awarded €30,000 in a libel trial as a result of one of these alegations.
Another dodgy item would be the fact that Owen o'Callaghan has claimed that Tom Gilmartin lied to the Mahon Tribunal about a deal between the two of them in the evidence he has given to the Mahon tribunal.
This will all be analyised in the current session of Mahon.
If thats the case it wouldn't make Gilmartin a stellar witness.

LostinBlanch

Tristrame wrote:

However,I do put a pinch of salt on his "enemies" for want of a better word waving what are essentially allegations and treating them as proof.

Tristrame wrote:

Another dodgy item would be the fact that Owen o'Callaghan has claimed that Tom Gilmartin lied to the Mahon Tribunal about a deal between the two of them in the evidence he has given to the Mahon tribunal.
This will all be analyised in the current session of Mahon.
If thats the case it wouldn't make Gilmartin a stellar witness.

So you give out because some people are treating allegations as proof. yet you can blithely state as fact an allegation that Tom Gilmartin lied to Owen O'Callaghan?

Glenbhoy

Tristrame wrote:

Agreed.
At present I can go to my bank and take my ssia all out in cash and hand it to whomsoever I choose without telling anybody.
The money would be legitimate.

No, it wouldn't - if you gave the money to an unrelated person there is a possibility they would have to pay tax on it, regardless, you and they would have to declare it to the revenue if it amounted to (I think) more than 80% of the threshold for 3rd party gifts.

I simply don't know where Bertie/Celia spent this money supposedly for house repairs-Did they get a fitted kitchen? Did they get oil heating in? Did they replace the facia boards?All of which would have been expensive.
None of us know but hey don't let that stop some people running away with themselves.

It's of no consequence what they spent it on - if they got it, chances are gift tax would have been payable on it.

Judt

I think the fact that the leader of the country, and a serious political figure for many years, has quite a lot of, well, "interesting", financial dealings that are at least worth a second look; coming from a party and a country which has had a history of such things - with Bertie's own boss for many years being the poster child among quite a few of Bertie's peers who have gone down for dodgy financial dealings.... Well, smoke and fire and all that.

The_Minister

LostinBlanch wrote:

So you give out because some people are treating allegations as proof. yet you can blithely state as fact an allegation that Tom Gilmartin lied to Owen O'Callaghan?

He said that it is a fact that O'Callaghan has made the claim. This is a fact. He did not say, nor imply, that O'Callaghan's allegation was true.

LostinBlanch

LostinBlanch wrote:

So you give out because some people are treating allegations as proof. yet you can blithely state as fact an allegation that Tom Gilmartin lied to Owen O'Callaghan?

No I said that O'Callaghan has claimed that Gilmartin has lied.
The fact that O'Callaghan has claimed that he lied is a fact.

Glenbhoy wrote:

No, it wouldn't - if you gave the money to an unrelated person there is a possibility they would have to pay tax on it, regardless, you and they would have to declare it to the revenue if it amounted to (I think) more than 80% of the threshold for 3rd party gifts.

Not if it was spent on a house you haven't bought yet and not if the price agreed for the house later took cognisance of the work done.

It's of no consequence what they spent it on - if they got it, chances are gift tax would have been payable on it.

Again not if it was spent on a house that they haven't bought yet.
That would be acting as an agent for Michael Wall.It would be them spending Walls money on Wall's behalf.Theres nothing illegal if thats what they are suggesting they did as it seems they are.

It is a tad slipshod of them though going on their story given that they didn't at the time it seems consider that people would demand answers for transparency.

Glenbhoy

Tristrame, I appreciate what you're saying here re spending money on the house whilst acting as agents, however, i doubt that the revenue would see it that way, and I imagine a tax liability would arise in the absence of documentation (which given his record is unlikely to exist).
My initial point is still valid, if you go out today with your SSIA in cash and give it someone, both of you will have to make the revenue aware of that (if you and they are classed as having a Class III relationship - ie not related).

nesf

Tristrame wrote:

That would be acting as an agent for Michael Wall.It would be them spending Walls money on Wall's behalf.Theres nothing illegal if thats what they are suggesting they did as it seems they are.

Exactly. The thing is if that is what happened and she didn't keep receipts for all of it then she's a bit of a muppet tbh.

LostinBlanch

Tristrame wrote:

No I said that O'Callaghan has claimed that Gilmartin has lied.
The fact that O'Callaghan has claimed that he lied is a fact.

Apologies, my misreading of your post.

Glenbhoy

Glenbhoy wrote:

Tristrame, I appreciate what you're saying here re spending money on the house whilst acting as agents, however, i doubt that the revenue would see it that way, and I imagine a tax liability would arise in the absence of documentation (which given his record is unlikely to exist).

I actually don't know what the situation is or what revenue procedure might be in relation to a UK resident spending money on a house he owns in Ireland.
It might in actual fact not be a matter for Ahern or Ms Larkin at all but a matter for the UK inland revenue who in turn would need to have evidence that the £30K was untaxed in the UK.
I'm not aware that a person resident elsewhere in the EU cant spend their own money on a house they own in another EU country and have to inform the revenue about it.
That would imply a need for double taxation ie being taxed on the same income in two countries in the E.U.
It wouldnt matter who the person was being asked to spend the money for them on their own house.

My initial point is still valid, if you go out today with your SSIA in cash and give it someone, both of you will have to make the revenue aware of that (if you and they are classed as having a Class III relationship - ie not related).

I don't if the gift is less than €25k actually as most SSIA's are.
As a self employed person I know you must declare any payment above approximately €6000 to a business if you are declaring the payment in your accounts.
That would also apply afaik to company to company transactions.

I absolutely do not have to tell any authority bar the Road taxation office that I have spent 20k in after tax cash of my own income to buy something from ebay or whatever or to do up my house.
If I am wrong,please give me the statute that I'm unaware of-thanks.

Glenbhoy

I don't if the gift is less than €25k actually as most SSIA's are.
As a self employed person I know you must declare any payment above approximately €6000 to a business if you are declaring the payment in your accounts.
That would also apply afaik to company to company transactions.

I absolutely do not have to tell any authority bar the Road taxation office that I have spent 20k in after tax cash of my own income to buy something from ebay or whatever or to do up my house.
If I am wrong,please give me the statute that I'm unaware of-thanks.

I think you're deliberately misinterpreting what I've said - if you gift someone your ssia you and they will have to declare that to the revenue, if the person is not related to you, and if the value of the gift exceeds €15,200.
http://www.revenue.ie/forms/gt15e.pdf
http://www.revenue.ie/leaflets/cat1.pdf
As for the issue of tax on the gift Bertie received - here are the facts:
Bertie/Celia received £30Kstg and lodged it in one of their bank accounts, that is now a gift, that is taxable in the revenues eyes, what they spent it on is of no relevance, unless there is documentary evidence that the money was retained by wall and they were acting on his behalf etc.
What about the $45K dollars that the Mail referred to yesterday btw? You any explanations for that?
If the tribunal had sat and confirmed all these allegations today, do you think it would have impacted much on the election? Do people actually care that much? Has Bertie run his course anyway?

Glenbhoy

Glenbhoy wrote:

I think you're deliberately misinterpreting what I've said - if you gift someone your ssia you and they will have to declare that to the revenue, if the person is not related to you, and if the value of the gift exceeds €15,200.
http://www.revenue.ie/forms/gt15e.pdf
http://www.revenue.ie/leaflets/cat1.pdf

Oh I'm sorry I was working on this and the category 3 allowance.

As for the issue of tax on the gift Bertie received - here are the facts:
Bertie/Celia received £30Kstg and lodged it in one of their bank accounts, that is now a gift, that is taxable in the revenues eyes, what they spent it on is of no relevance, unless there is documentary evidence that the money was retained by wall and they were acting on his behalf etc.

Sorry could you tell me what evidence you have to factually indicate that celia lodged £30k stg into her bank a/c? for the record please.

What about the $45K dollars that the Mail referred to yesterday btw? You any explanations for that?

Could you link and post to the article.You are not giving enough information for me to comment.

If the tribunal had sat and confirmed all these allegations today, do you think it would have impacted much on the election?

I don't know,I guess it would depend on what Ahern had to say for himself.

Do people actually care that much? Has Bertie run his course anyway?

Thats being decided as we speak by the voters like it should be.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Oh I'm sorry I was working on this and the category 3 allowance.
Sorry could you tell me what evidence you have to factually indicate that celia lodged £30k stg into her bank a/c? for the record please.
Could you link and post to the article.You are not giving enough information for me to comment.
I don't know,I guess it would depend on what Ahern had to say for himself.Thats being decided as we speak by the voters like it should be.

Mr Ahern also said that £30,000 which had been received by Celia Larkin was a Stamp Duty issue and put towards the refurbishment of a house and he said it was entirely appropriate.

From here http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/mahon.html

I guess that means that the 30 grand did exist

Although berties explanation is not great what is a stamp duty issue ???

Glenbhoy

Mr Ahern also said that £30,000 which had been received by Celia Larkin was a Stamp Duty issue and put towards the refurbishment of a house and he said it was entirely appropriate.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/mahon.html

There are also numerous other admissions by Bertie that this took place, but the above should suffice.

Re the $45K, I don't have a link, but here is what they say on politics.ie - I also read the story in full yesterday, it is essentially excerpts from an interview the tribunal held with Bertie recently according to Connolly. Ahern has not denied anything about it - i suppose he couldn't as he and all his team had their phones off yesterday.
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=19443

scargill

from breakingnews.ie

Taoiseach faces further questions on Larkin payment
30/04/2007 - 13:33:20

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is today reacting angrily to suggestions of wrongdoing in relation to a cash payment of stg£30,000 made to his then partner Celia Larkin in 1994.

The money was used to fund work on a house in Drumcondra which Bertie Ahern was renting at the time and which was owned by the businessman Michael Wall.

Ahern insists the transaction to Celia Larkin was “entirely appropriate”.

“Any money that Ms Larkin received was towards, it was a stamp duty issue, and it was towards the refurbishment of the house,” he said.

“It had nothing whatever to do with the allegation that I've to answer.”

Can anyone explain this to me:

“Any money that Ms Larkin received was towards, it was a stamp duty issue, and it was towards the refurbishment of the house,” he said.