The Taoiseach pays over 70 grand to Revenue

mike65

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern has lodged €70,000 with the Revenue Commissioners to cover any possible tax liability arising from his personal finances, the Irish Independent understands.

The provisional payment does not mean Mr Ahern owes tax on the loans and gifts he got in the early 1990s when he was Minister for Finance.

But the Taoiseach has confirmed to this newspaper that he is still dealing with the taxman as a result of the revelations about two loans from friends in Dublin and a gift from businessmen in Manchester.

In the middle of the general election campaign, Mr Ahern said his engagement with the Revenue Commissioners was "finished now, or at least it is by and large".

Now, a year on from his advisers' first contact with the Revenue, those dealings are still ongoing.

Mr Ahern has never revealed exactly how much he has paid the Revenue to cover the potential tax bill.

But the Irish Independent is reliably informed the figure is €70,000.

Full article here

So does this means the Prime Minister of a "mature" democracy has owed the state a heafy sum for several years? Its no way to run a premiership.

Mike.

Lennoxschips

Of course not, in any other European democracy he'd be out on the street for that alone (and many other things). And rightly so.

But these rules don't seem to apply in EU countries beginning with the letter I.

seamus

"finished now, or at least it is by and large"

You have to laugh at the ridiculousness of it.

"I'm done now. Well, actually no I'm not, but don't worry about the rest, shure I have it sorted".

How does he continually show that he's into backslapping and backhanding yet nobody calls for him to step down? Is it any wonder we won't take ourselves seriously?

Taking money from businessmen when you're in power, is unethical and a conflict of interests even if it's all above board. Being chased by the taxman when you're the guy in charge, is unethical. Anyone in another EU country who showed such social disregard would be long gone. Seriously, they must have tippexed out that paragraph in the Dail handbook.

galwayrush

So, will his name be published with the annual defaulters list in the papers?
will he be punished with fees and intrest on a scale us mere mortals would have to pay?

murphaph

seamus wrote: »

How does he continually show that he's into backslapping and backhanding yet nobody calls for him to step down?

Why should anyone call for him to step down and why should he? The people <morons> knew full well at the last election he was at best, 'dodgy' and went ahead and re-elected him and his party to govern us. We have nobody to blame but ourselves because it is we, the people, who accept such low standards in public life (and indeed reward it in many cases!). The papers tell us what we need to know. There is no mass-censorship, indeed we have quite a free media, yet the people do nothing with this information come each and every election.

seamus wrote: »

Is it any wonder we won't take ourselves seriously?

Nope. I never took this country seriously. The sad thing is that many do and will blather on about how great we are :rolleyes:

ArthurDent

murphaph wrote: »

Why should anyone call for him to step down and why should he? The people <morons> knew full well at the last election he was at best, 'dodgy' and went ahead and re-elected him and his party to govern us. We have nobody to blame but ourselves because it is we, the people, who accept such low standards in public life (and indeed reward it in many cases!). The papers tell us what we need to know. There is no mass-censorship, indeed we have quite a free media, yet the people do nothing with this information come each and every election.
:

agree 100% - it's so fcuking depressing - if an electiion was called tomorrow - he'd probably be re-elected again - the "cute hoorism" has way too much appeal to way too many people

lostexpectation

this has got to be the end of him, look how it announced during christmas in the indo

DublinWriter

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Of course not, in any other European democracy he'd be out on the street for that alone (and many other things). And rightly so.

Or hung from a lamp-post. Opps, sorry, you mentioned democracy.

I find it amazing how the Revenue Commissioners managed to introduce with such lighting speed a tax-amnesty only applicable to individuals with the initials A.A. and who have also held the post of Minister of Finance.

It also still amazes me how a half-dozen glass and steel buildings in the IFSC and the ready availability of lattes, paninis and cocaine have convinced the great unwashed of this country that they are not the citizens of a banana republic anymore and that we are the members of a democratic and transparent European state.

unkel

seamus wrote: »

Taking money from businessmen when you're in power, is unethical and a conflict of interests even if it's all above board

A point not often made in the media

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

So does this means the Prime Minister of a "mature" democracy has owed the state a heafy sum for several years?

The provisional payment does not mean Mr Ahern owes tax on the loans and gifts he got in the early 1990s when he was Minister for Finance.

I'm confused, did you not read what you posted?

A Dub in Glasgo

What is the 'provisional payment' for then?

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm confused, did you not read what you posted?

The bit you quote says that Bertie is not paying tax on the "gifts" which are the subject of the Mahon tribunal. He *is* paying other tax which is in arrears however.

Zombrex

The most depressing thing about all this is the reaction of the Irish people.

As Seamus pointed out merely the act of being in personal debt to people while in public service is a conflict of interest. Even if their was no specific request for a bribe what Bertie is already well into the unethical side of public service.

The fact that the Irish people (at least in general) don't get that fact is so depressing I want to cry.

I am reminded of Gandhi

To safeguard democracy the people must have a keen sense of independence, self-respect and their oneness.

Self-respect for our own democracy is sorely lacking in modern Ireland.

I want Bertie to resign not only because what he did was wrong, but because it must be made clear that what he did was wrong for all future generations. This idea that he should be left alone to get on running the country is so missing the point i want to slap someone (the next person who says it to me probably)

Heinrich

Wicknight wrote: »

The most depressing thing about all this is the reaction of the Irish people.

As Seamus pointed out merely the act of being in personal debt to people while in public service is a conflict of interest. Even if their was no specific request for a bribe what Bertie is already well into the unethical side of public service.

The fact that the Irish people (at least in general) don't get that fact is so depressing I want to cry.

I am reminded of Gandhi

To safeguard democracy the people must have a keen sense of independence, self-respect and their oneness.

Self-respect for our own democracy is sorely lacking in modern Ireland.

I want Bertie to resign not only because what he did was wrong, but because it must be made clear that what he did was wrong for all future generations. This idea that he should be left alone to get on running the country is so missing the point i want to slap someone (the next person who says it to me probably)

So long as the majority of the electorate think that politicians like Bertie, Charlie, Stroke and Ray the tree climber are doing a great job despite the sleaze then these guys will always be there!

It has to be PROVEN that these chaps did wrong - smoking gun, hand in the cookie jar or whatever before you can say they are doing wrong. That is a sad facet of Irish politics. "I'm all Jack and pass me up the ladder" is the leitmotif here in this great country which is awash with money.

luckat

Wicknight wrote: »

merely the act of being in personal debt to people while in public service is a conflict of interest. Even if their was no specific request for a bribe what Bertie is already well into the unethical side of public service.

The fact that the Irish people (at least in general) don't get that fact is so depressing I want to cry.

Oh, people get it all right.

But for many years, Ireland was a place where people felt they had to cheat simply to get by. People on PAYE did untaxed nixers to make ends meet.

Meanwhile, the big farmers took advantage of tax breaks intended to allow small farmers to educate their children, and bought city houses for their State-supported kids to live in while they got a free university education.

Self-employed people paid something like 7% of the income tax, PAYE people the rest. And so on.

People still have the feeling that you have to cheat to get by, and they see the Taoiseach as no different from anyone else in this.

The concept that he's paid such huge amounts - and was *very well paid* even when he was getting these dig-outs - hasn't really sunk in, though.

The tribunals may bring about a change; people may want equitable taxes and to be able to be honest and still put food on the table. They may being about a change of attitude and viewpoint.

(After all, if the tribunals go, the alternative is criminal prosecutions; maybe the politicians objecting to the tribunals have forgotten this.)

Zombrex

Heinrich wrote: »

It has to be PROVEN that these chaps did wrong - smoking gun, hand in the cookie jar or whatever before you can say they are doing wrong. That is a sad facet of Irish politics.

That is the really sad part though, what Bertie has already admitted doing should be considered wrong as it is. A public official putting himself into debt to business men is wrong, even if the business men never specifically ask for something in return.

Zombrex

luckat wrote: »

But for many years, Ireland was a place where people felt they had to cheat simply to get by. People on PAYE did untaxed nixers to make ends meet.

Suppose that is true. The country is still full of people who when they hear these things go "Ah sure I would have done the same thing if it was me!"

Duckjob

seamus wrote: »

You have to laugh at the ridiculousness of it.

"I'm done now. Well, actually no I'm not, but don't worry about the rest, shure I have it sorted".

How does he continually show that he's into backslapping and backhanding yet nobody calls for him to step down? Is it any wonder we won't take ourselves seriously?

Taking money from businessmen when you're in power, is unethical and a conflict of interests even if it's all above board. Being chased by the taxman when you're the guy in charge, is unethical. Anyone in another EU country who showed such social disregard would be long gone. Seriously, they must have tippexed out that paragraph in the Dail handbook.

Bertie was always cut from the exact same cloth as Haughey, he just read his political landscape well made a good job of hiding it.

The old school Fianna Fail 'neck' is on full display now, the same 'neck' displayed by Haughey when he was caught out, and Ray Burke, and Liam Lawlor, and P Flynn, and BC Flynn. All 'old schoolers' who held the arrogant belief that taxes and laws were only there for the little people.

Lennoxschips

It has to be PROVEN that these chaps did wrong - smoking gun, hand in the cookie jar or whatever before you can say they are doing wrong.

He's even admitted himself... he got money from businessmen who were later appointed to state boards. None of this is disputed by anybody. The only explanation he can come up with is that "they weren't appointed because of the money, but because they are my friends."

I was surprised that that wasn't enough to file charges of corruption with. Perhaps the opposition is just too scared. Somebody needs to do something. At the moment Bertie is giving the nation two fingers.

johnnyskeleton

Wicknight wrote: »

As Seamus pointed out merely the act of being in personal debt to people while in public service is a conflict of interest. Even if their was no specific request for a bribe what Bertie is already well into the unethical side of public service.

The fact that the Irish people (at least in general) don't get that fact is so depressing I want to cry.

Or is it possible that they simply don't agree with your point of view. I understand the point you're making (it's a point made by Plato in The Republic) but I don't agree, there must be a payment of funds, and an instance of favouritism or a bending of the rules for it to be corruption. The connection between the payment of funds and a benefit to the briber is essential. Otherwise, it is like accusing someone of theft where no actual property was stolen. This may sound trite to you, but are you suggesting that a politican genuinely cannot borrow money from someone if they need it?

In relation to the OP, is it possible that this payment of 70k is being misconstrued as repayments of tax from alleged tax evasion? Someone like Berty, who has a lot of legitimate money flowing through his books also needs to make tax returns, and all self employed persons are required to make a lodgement of estimated tax for the year at the end of each year. Granted, he may have missed his october deadline, but he's still paying before the end of the year.

Zombrex

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Or is it possible that they simply don't agree with your point of view.

Of course they don't agree with my point of view.

If they did we wouldn't have a problem and Bertie would be in the dole queue now (well ok that might be a bit too much to ask)

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This may sound trite to you, but are you suggesting that a politican genuinely cannot borrow money from someone if they need it?

Of course I am!

A politician cannot be indebted to anyone if that debt can have any possibility of influencing future decisions in favor of the person lending or giving the money over the interests of the community they represent.

I would feel nervous about Bertie having large debt with AIB or BoI, let alone business men who spontaneously give him large sums of money as "gifts"

Say I am a TD for South Dublin and my mate gives me 10,000 euro as a "gift" and then, years later, I come to make a decision that is in the best interests of my community but will damage my mate's business, you honestly think that that 10 grand won't have any effect on my decision making process?

My mate doesn't even have to say "Wick, you know that bill will cause me harm .. oh and remember that favor I did for you a few years back"

I will know that this will f**k him over, and he gave me 10,000! And I took it. I owe him. You do the maths.

I mean that was the whole point of this. Do you honestly think these business men were simply giving Bertie (the Minister for Finance ffs!) large gifts of money because they were just really nice guys who just happened to know the Minister for Finance. None of my mates give me 50,000 grand.

All the people who "chipped in" for Bertie's hand outs had business interests in the Republic.

Have you heard of the term "being in someones pocket"

It is a ridiculous position for a politician, any politician, to put himself in.

seamus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This may sound trite to you, but are you suggesting that a politican genuinely cannot borrow money from someone if they need it?

That would be pretty much my thinking on it. I'm not talking about €300 if you can't get to the bank, but the amounts that Bertie was getting go way beyond just giving someone a hand.

Unless previous history had shown a serious friendship between the politician and the lender before the money was handed over, then there's a serious conflict of interests. I can see lifelong friends being happy to help out (after all, they'll get favours anyway being good mates), but some guys who barely know you and only talked to you once or twice, are not going to give you massive chunks of cash without you promising something in return, even if it is only a wink and a nod.
Loans from family and close friends are fine, of any size. Loans from casual acquaintances and business partners certainly are not. In all cases, such massive loans are abnormal and should be declared to the Dail to avoid any such allegations.

If a politician really "needs it", then they can do what the rest of us do and go get a mortgage and/or a personal loan. Then they should declare that to the Dail and prove that they didn't get a particularly favourable rate.
IMO Bertie's main problem was that he was attempting to hide his monetary value from his ex wife. He had saved up and earned plenty of money, he wasn't short any pennies, just not kept it in an account. A mortgage would require proof of his worth which could be traced by a court. Hence he had to ask for a "dig out".

murphaph

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Granted, he may have missed his october deadline, but he's still paying before the end of the year.

Still not great for an accountant, or an accounting technician.

The crux is that there's always a stench from FF and other political parties to a lesser degree yet the public tolerate it. We could clean it up if we just told them "if you are so much as remotely linked to something I even think is dodgy, I'll vote for the other guy next time" and follow through on it. Problem solved.

gurramok

Why has this story been not on the tv news stations nor their websites?

'The leader of the country 'settling' with the revenue', that's a bloody huge story!

I'v only learned this now due to the OP starting a thread.

Due to the lack of media coverage, i smell a conspiracy? :eek:

mike65

I smell Christmas news gathering standards myself.

Mike.

John_C

gurramok wrote: »

Why has this story been not on the tv news stations nor their websites?

'The leader of the country 'settling' with the revenue', that's a bloody huge story!

I'v only learned this now due to the OP starting a thread.

Due to the lack of media coverage, i smell a conspiracy? :eek:

It was on the front page of the indo.

gurramok

John_C wrote: »

It was on the front page of the indo.

Not everyone reads the Indo!

What i meant was the likes of major TV stations RTE/TV3 never carried the story afaik.

lostexpectation

John_C wrote: »

It was on the front page of the indo.

well apart from them he chose to tell them.

Lennoxschips

Ireland isn't a Banana Republic. Bananas don't grow here for a start.

The Wild West of Europe would be a more apt description. If you need something done then you meet the sheriff down the saloon bar and slip him a few grand.

murphaph

If it isn't a banana republic it's definitely a septic isle.

It amazes me that irish people accept it too. We travel all over with ther best of them. We get to see how proper countries run regularly, but we come home to the nonsense and carry on as normal.

johnnyskeleton

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course they don't agree with my point of view.

If they did we wouldn't have a problem and Bertie would be in the dole queue now (well ok that might be a bit too much to ask)

My point is that what you say is not axiomatic, it's just your point of view. So it's not that the Irish people "don't get that fact", it's just they don't take such a hard line theoretical approach to politics.

Wicknight wrote: »

A politician cannot be indebted to anyone if that debt can have any possibility of influencing future decisions in favor of the person lending or giving the money over the interests of the community they represent.

I would feel nervous about Bertie having large debt with AIB or BoI, let alone business men who spontaneously give him large sums of money as "gifts"

That's an unrealistic stance in my view, because politicians in the real world need funding for each campaign, and the vast majority of people owe money to one of the big banks, for mortgages etc. In Plato's republic, he suggested that politicians should have no money or property whatsoever while they hold politicial office, and admirable as it is, it isn't realistic.

Wicknight wrote: »

Say I am a TD for South Dublin and my mate gives me 10,000 euro as a "gift" and then, years later, I come to make a decision that is in the best interests of my community but will damage my mate's business, you honestly think that that 10 grand won't have any effect on my decision making process?

Well, the fact that he is your mate probably weighs just as heavily on your mind as the gift. Should politicians not be allowed to have friends too?

Wicknight wrote: »

I mean that was the whole point of this. Do you honestly think these business men were simply giving Bertie (the Minister for Finance ffs!) large gifts of money because they were just really nice guys who just happened to know the Minister for Finance. None of my mates give me 50,000 grand.

That's not my point; if you want to prove corruption on the part of a politician, you must show how the money affected his judgement in a specific instance. Otherwise, it's entirely possible that, notwithstanding the gift, he did not provide any benefit to them.

seamus wrote: »

That would be pretty much my thinking on it. I'm not talking about €300 if you can't get to the bank, but the amounts that Bertie was getting go way beyond just giving someone a hand.

Well my point of view is that taking of loans & donations is not wrong of itself. Instead, it is only when you can prove that the donation to the politician resulted in, for example, planning permission being granted for a shopping centre that it becomes corruption. In the absence of any proof that the funds were a bribe (as opposed to a gift) then the people are entitled to view that as they please, it is not, as Wicknight seems to suggest, that the people of Ireland lack understanding about these things.

Lennoxschips

Well my point of view is that taking of loans & donations is not wrong of itself. Instead, it is only when you can prove that the donation to the politician resulted in, for example, planning permission being granted for a shopping centre that it becomes corruption

Appointing people to influential state boards after they gave you cash gifts (undeclared to taxman) is corruption. Especially if your best defense is because they were appointed because they are your friends. Who happened to give you loadsamoney.

That is corruption in every sense of the word. This has nothing to do with opinion anymore, it is fact.

johnnyskeleton

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Appointing people to influential state boards after they gave you cash gifts (undeclared to taxman) is corruption. Especially if your best defense is because they were appointed because they are your friends. Who happened to give you loadsamoney.

That is corruption in every sense of the word. This has nothing to do with opinion anymore, it is fact.

So you're agreeing with me.

Lennoxschips

Yeah, we have the smoking gun(s) already.

I'm not so much disappointed in Bertie Ahern at this point as in the inability of the Irish state to tackle corrupt politicians. It shouldn't be up to the people to decide.

Zombrex

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

My point is that what you say is not axiomatic, it's just your point of view. So it's not that the Irish people "don't get that fact", it's just they don't take such a hard line theoretical approach to politics.

Its not a "hard line" Johnny, its the basis of democratic representation :rolleyes:

I completely agree with that the "Irish people" don't care, but that is the whole probably in the first place.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's an unrealistic stance in my view, because politicians in the real world need funding for each campaign, and the vast majority of people owe money to one of the big banks, for mortgages etc.

Funding for political campaigns are handled (or should be handled) very carefully without personal donations to individuals. The way political donations are handled already is cause for concern. Transparency is very important. If I decide to support my local TD with a donation of 500 euro he can't go out and buy a Playstation with that money. :rolleyes:

Any public official in debt to a bank must handle that debt with utter transparency, in such a way that the debt does not put the politician in a compromised position. I would have serious reservations about any politician running up large debt with a bank who's business is influenced by the decisions of the politician.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well, the fact that he is your mate probably weighs just as heavily on your mind as the gift. Should politicians not be allowed to have friends too?

They shouldn't have "friends" that they owe large sums of money to, no, particularly if these friends do business in areas influenced by the politician.

I mean seriously, are you trolling? Do you honestly not see a problem with this?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's not my point; if you want to prove corruption on the part of a politician, you must show how the money affected his judgement in a specific instance.

No you don't. You have to show that he has been put in a compramised position.

If you had to demonstrate that money affected his judgment no one would ever be shown to be corrupt without a signed confession, since a persons judgment is in their head!

"Wicknight, you decided to award this license to your personal friend "Billy Scumbag". Did the gift of €50,000 he gave you a year prior to this have any influence on your judgment to award this to him and not other companies?"

"No, no it didn't. I awarded this license to my friend, Billy, because his company was, in my opinion, the best tender. The private "loan", which I plan to eventually pay back, had absolutely nothing to do with that decision what so ever"

"Ok, that is convincing, we all believe you. No further questions"

I mean seriously! If you ask Bertie did this money ever influence any of his political decisions he will just say "No".

Is that honestly good enough for you?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Otherwise, it's entirely possible that, notwithstanding the gift, he did not provide any benefit to them.

Of course its possible. Its possible that Bertie is actually an alien. But it ain't likely, and neither is the idea that these "gifts" never influenced any of Bertie's decisions.

If Bertie was the moral person that would not let something like this influence his public service he would not have accepted the money in the first place because of the murky ethics of the whole things. He should have turned it down. The idea that he would accept all this money and yet not act in favorable ways towards the interests of those who gave him the money is just preposterous.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well my point of view is that taking of loans & donations is not wrong of itself.

Well your wrong, and that attitude is what is wrong with this country.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

that the people of Ireland lack understanding about these things.

If the people of Ireland are perfectly happy that their politicians are corrupt so long as they are careful enough to anything that would stand up in your made up low standards of political ethics (do anything, just don't get caught), no matter how dodgy, unethical or sleazy it actually looks, then they deserve this government.

Bertie should go not because he put himself in a compromised position by accepting personal gifts from people who had a vested interest in the outcome of his political activities.

Not only is that bad in of itself, but it shows incredible lack of ethical awareness on Bertie's part to put himself in that position in the first place, before we consider did that ever effect his judgment (which of course it would).

He's crap, he is corrupt, he should go.

Red Alert

According to today's Mail on Sunday the taoiseach's definition of 'tax authorities' means his own advisers :eek:

gurramok

Well, the courageous opposition intend to raise it in the dail whenever the whole lot of them come back from their 6 week stint.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1230/politics.html?rss

rte wrote:

Fine Gael and the Labour Party have said that they intend to raise what they say are new concerns about the Taoiseach's tax affairs when the Dáil returns next month.

Both parties said that a report in the 'Irish Mail on Sunday' newspaper raised extremely serious issues concerning Taoiseach Bertie Ahern's dealings with the Revenue Commissioners.

The Labour Party leader Eamon Gilmore said that Mr Ahern's credibility was being undermined and his authority was being eroded by each new revelation about his finances.
Advertisement

The Fine Gael Justice Spokesperson, Senator Eugene Regan, said it was now time for the Taoiseach to come clean on all matters relating to his tax affairs.

A spokesman for Fianna Fáil said that issues relating to the Mahon Tribunal should be dealt with by the tribunal and that matters relating to the tax affairs of any individual should be dealt with by the individual concerned and the Revenue Commissioners.

mike65

Ahern did declare himself to be tax compliant during the election campaign.

Mike.

A Dub in Glasgo

Tax compliant probably meant he took measures not to declare :eek:

LostinBlanch

Now it looks like the revenue commissioners disagree. :rolleyes:


From todays indo.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/ahern-faces-grilling-over-more-cheques-1255190.html

Meanwhile, the Taoiseach's problems mounted yesterday when details of correspondence to him from the Revenue Commissioners were revealed.

Mr Ahern had said in his famous RTE news interview in September 2006 that he had "dealt with this properly in terms of taxes" when referring to money gift of around stg£8,000 he received in Manchester.

But a Revenue district manager has written to Mr Ahern to say: "I can find no record of this issue having been addressed."

The Taoiseach also said his two claimed dig-outs in Ireland -- which supposedly netted him IR£22,500 and around IR£16,500 respectively -- had been cleared with the authorities, telling the Dail on September 27, 2006: "I checked the matter with senior counsel and the tax authorities long ago."

But the Revenue have told the Taoiseach in writing that they have no record of the matter ever being raised with them.

Last night Labour leader Eamon Gilmore said the disclosures raised "new and extremely serious issues for Mr Ahern".

Fine Gael said the latest disclosures further undermined Mr Ahern's credibility.

Mr Ahern, meanwhile, is not expected to resume giving evidence before February.

So whose version of "tax compliant" do we accept? The Revenue or Berties? Part of me is almost looking forward to seeing what verbal gymnastics he's going to try and do to get out of this one.

Duckjob

LostinBlanch wrote: »

So whose version of "tax compliant" do we accept? The Revenue or Berties? Part of me is almost looking forward to seeing what verbal gymnastics he's going to try and do to get out of this one.

i'd go with the Revenue's. They're probably the most well-organised state department in the country, and if Bertie did sort it out with them then all he has to do is produce some sort of receipt/balancing statement to them and the case is closed. Somehow though, I get the feeling he's not going to be able to do that...

Lest we forget, this is the elected leader of government of this country and, leaving aside the the huge issue of what he accepted all that money for as a then Minister for Finance, he is now being chased by the tax-man for allegedly not declaring that questionable income to the revenue.

I mean.....WTF !!!!!!!!

murphaph

If this were Britain, the PM would resign. There's no way his party would stand by him. They'd all leap to disassociate themselves from him. Here, FF stick together like mud. And get re-elected.:rolleyes:

mike65

This is being discussed on www.newstalk.ie

Mike.

juuge

Let us not forget that Bertie would have some very close friends within the revenue department and what we are seeing now is no more than behaviour akin to a banana republic. Why are we surprised ?

Colonel Sanders

juuge wrote: »

Why are we surprised ?

Don't think many people are. This country gets worse by the day

Liam Byrne

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

there must be a payment of funds, and an instance of favouritism or a bending of the rules for it to be corruption

No, there doesn't:

The only explanation he can come up with is that "they weren't appointed because of the money, but because they are my friends."

That in itself is corruption. People should be appointed because they are the best people for the job in the interests of the country.

Of course, since even the electorate don't seem to believe that, what hope is there for someone who's actually corrupt.

No wonder John "zero-tolerance" O'Donoghue didn't follow through with his election promises - Ahern would have been jailed by now.

LostinBlanch

It looks like the Standards in Public Office Commission could get involved.

http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=51602-qqqx=1.asp

POLITICAL standards watchdogs may probe Bertie Ahern’s tax affairs, it emerged last night.


As Labour turned up pressure on the Taoiseach by claiming he had deliberately misled the Dáil, the Standards in Public Office Commission confirmed a formal hearing could follow complaints about Mr Ahern.

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore went on the offensive over reports Mr Ahern had not settled his full tax liabilities, despite claims to the contrary from the Taoiseach. Mr Gilmore demanded an urgent public statement from Mr Ahern.

“Mr Ahern would have, as all TDs do, submitted a statement to the commission that his tax affairs were compliant following his election, and he would have put in a tax clearance certificate to support that. If he can make a statement which confirms that, then there shouldn’t be a problem with it,” said Mr Gilmore.

The commission would consider investigating Mr Ahern’s tax position if it receives complaints on the matter, it said.

The commission said former TD Michael Collins had been prosecuted and fined for failure to comply with rules.

TDs have nine months from the May general election to supply tax certificates, and those “in negotiations” with the Revenue could gain an extension, the spokesman said, adding no formal complaints about Mr Ahern had yet been received.

The commission could decide to investigate claims regarding Mr Ahern without receiving a complaint, but would not be able to appoint an inquiry officer to conduct preliminary investigations in such a scenario.

Former Fianna Fáil TD Mr Collins was found guilty in September of obtaining a tax clearance certificate under false pretences in 2002 in order to comply with new ethics rules for elected members to the Dáil. Mr Collins was fined €25,000 and given a 12-month suspended sentence for fraud.

The Taoiseach’s spokesperson said every citizen had the right to keep their dealings with the Revenue private and it would be “unprecedented and unfair” for that right not to apply to Mr Ahern.

A Labour spokesperson said it was difficult to conclude Mr Ahern had not deliberately misled the Dáil on his tax position if reports of the Revenue being unaware of payments were true.

Mr Gilmore insisted the “speculation and doubt” could not be allowed to drag on until the Dáil returned on January 30.

“We also need clarity on the €70,000 he is reported to have lodged with the Revenue Commissioners to clear up any liabilities,” the Labour leader told RTÉ’s Morning Ireland.

All they need is someone to make an official complaint. I wonder is it going to be Gilmore?

edanto

http://www.sipo.gov.ie/en/Complaints/ComplaintsProcedures/InvestigationofcomplaintsundertheEthicsActsandElectoralActs/

The following persons can make a complaint to the Standards Commission about an alleged contravention of the disclosure provisions of the 1995 Act:

* a member of the public can complain about an office holder (i.e. the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, a Minister, a Minister of State and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Dáil Éireann and of Seanad Éireann);

To make the complaint, you need to specify the "alleged contravention of the provisions of the 1995 Act and/or the 2001 Act which is the subject-matter of the complaint and set out in detail the basis for alleging that contravention."

sipo@sipo.gov.ie

I sent a brief email complaint, but not in the level of detail that they require. Anyone happen to know the details of the acts referred to above?

Liam Byrne

Sorry for stating the obvious, but can I ask who appointed the members of the Standards Commission that we should complain to ? Any chance there's a few of Ahern's "friends" in there too ?

edanto

The Standards Commission received 21 complaints during 2006. Of these, 13 were considered to be invalid complaints in that they did not concern a contravention by a person of a provision of the Ethics Acts, such as a failure to disclose an interest where required to do so, or an alleged 'specified act’ by a ‘specified person’.

So, I guess that means my brief email complaint will be ignored since it's invalid.

Members of the SiPO commission are (no idea if any of them were appointed because they were Bertie's friends):

Justice Matthew P. Smith, Chairman
Deirdre Lane, Clerk of Seanad Éireann
Liam Kavanagh, Former member of Dáil Éireann
John Purcell, Comptroller and Auditor General
Kieran Coughlan, Clerk of Dáil Éireann
Emily O’Reilly, Ombudsman

Incidentally, the SiPOC cost us €927,000 last year.

So, if Bertie declared himself tax compliant during the last election, does that mean that he did so without a tax clearance cert? Or do SiPOC have one on file for him? In their literature, they seem to be pretty insistent that every politician has to file one with them - is it enforced?

jmayo

Lennoxschips wrote: »

Ireland isn't a Banana Republic. Bananas don't grow here for a start.

The Wild West of Europe would be a more apt description. If you need something done then you meet the sheriff down the saloon bar and slip him a few grand.

Hmmm actaully we are a more of a banana republic than people think
Since fyffes buy the entire banana crop of Belize and then re-export them, we are biggest banana exporters in Europe.

The majority of the electorate haven't cared about what the politicans have been getting up to because things have been good. The majority voted for bertie the last time because they were conned into thinking he would keep the good times rolling.
Over the next couple of years as the cr** really hits the fan, the voters will turn nasty and then start remembering all the dodgy deals. Until then he is safe.

Regarding his tax exposure, he showed some neck in admitting he consulted tax advisor/specialist to explain his money before he commented to tribunal.
The UK money was a gift and the Irish digouts were loans. That way neither was susceptible to tax.
I always think the Europeans must be laughing their asses off at how gullible a bunch of eejits he has as an electorate.