David Drumm gets a cheque for 11,886.95 Euro from Irish Revenue!

HellFireClub

You couldn't make it up, source, PrimeTime...

Sand

Welcome to Ireland. This is how things are done in our Republic. Insiders wealth and privledges are somehow untouchable, but ordinary outsiders pensions can be siezed at will to fund insiders wage hikes and pensions.

Sir Oxman

And Revenue have claims against him!
Banana Banana Banana.

Wheelie King

What. Is this a pisstake?

Spudmonkey

How has the likes of Madoff being imprisoned and we are still watching Dunne move his assets around without them being seized??

Bullseye1

It's also amazing that Anglo share holders have had to sue the guy in US courts. What sort of judicial system do we have in this country that we have to import our problems abroad.

HellFireClub

gambiaman wrote: »

And Revenue have claims against him!
Banana Banana Banana.

+1, no wonder the country is smashed.

HellFireClub

Wheelie King wrote: »

What. Is this a pisstake?

Wish it was, was breaking news on PrimeTime just now...

Laminations

Rack up a €14k credit card debt on top of a mountain of debt. Pay back €3k. That'll do donkey, no need to pay the other €11k!

Pay yourself loads, do a **** job.give your wages to your wife. Borrow from your own bank. Fail to pay back and have all your earnings protected because you essentially stuffed the euro notes in your wifes bra

20Cent

I already used my last straw what now!!

Welease

Are there any more details? I wouldn't be suprised if half the problem is the lack of flexibility or common sense within the revenue sometimes..

I have been due tax refunds previously while also oweing tax from other investments, while attempting to reconcile the amount revenue refuse to subtract one from the other and allow me to pay the difference.. All transactions have to be completeted seperate, with them sending me one cheque while they post me another.

This sounds like it could be a similar situation.

HellFireClub

Welease wrote: »

Are there any more details? I wouldn't be suprised if half the problem is the lack of flexibility or common sense within the revenue sometimes..

I have been due tax refunds previously while also oweing tax from other investments, while attempting to reconcile the amount revenue refuse to subtract one from the other and allow me to pay the difference.. All transactions have to be completeted seperate, with them sending me one cheque while they post me another.

This sounds like it could be a similar situation.

They know how to withold flexibility and common sense then they want to in Revenue. I was waiting 4 months for a VAT3 refund for 500 Euro there only a few months back.

RichardAnd

This actually doesn't surprise me as I've seen this first hand when I used to work in the civil service.

I worked in the Dept of Justice in land ownership (sperate department technically). We charged members of the public for certain services but we allowed more frequent customers to open an account and pay once every few months for their service.

At one point, some law searcher had an outstanding bill of about 200 euro, nothing major. However, before this bill was paid out, the guy in question lodged a minor search and paid for it in cash (just 25 euro) yet a few days later, he called off the search and asked for a refund, which he was entitled to.

Now, this is where the real civil service red tape shows itself. Despite the fact that this customer had yet to settle his bills with us, he was sent a cheque for 25 euro. We essentially gave money to a person who owed us money and who, from what I saw, wasn't to pushed about settling his bill.

What I want to be clear about here is that this wasn't the result of lazy public servants. No, everyone who heard about this would admit to it being crazy but when you work in the civil service your hands are often tied by the system. We would have loved to have kept the 25 euro against his outstanding bill but we just couldn't, the facility to do that simply wasn't there.

I don't think this is right nor do I think it is fair. This case here with david drum just highlights issues within the civil service that should change. They won't change, but they should.

BeeDI

RichardAnd wrote: »

This actually doesn't surprise me as I've seen this first hand when I used to work in the civil service.

I worked in the Dept of Justice in land ownership (sperate department technically). We charged members of the public for certain services but we allowed more frequent customers to open an account and pay once every few months for their service.

At one point, some law searcher had an outstanding bill of about 200 euro, nothing major. However, before this bill was paid out, the guy in question lodged a minor search and paid for it in cash (just 25 euro) yet a few days later, he called off the search and asked for a refund, which he was entitled to.

Now, this is where the real civil service red tape shows itself. Despite the fact that this customer had yet to settle his bills with us, he was sent a cheque for 25 euro. We essentially gave money to a person who owed us money and who, from what I saw, wasn't to pushed about settling his bill.

What I want to be clear about here is that this wasn't the result of lazy public servants. No, everyone who heard about this would admit to it being crazy but when you work in the civil service your hands are often tied by the system. We would have loved to have kept the 25 euro against his outstanding bill but we just couldn't, the facility to do that simply wasn't there.

I don't think this is right nor do I think it is fair. This case here with david drum just highlights issues within the civil service that should change. They won't change, but they should.

This bullsh1t, embedded in the PS system, is mostlikely the reason D Drumm got this cheque in the post. BUT, is this not the stuff the CP agreement should have sorted. Rooting out the stupidity of the past built up in the system.
CP has not worked. CP is not working. CP will not work.
Unless and untill wholesale pay cuts are brought in starting say in three months. 5% per month every month untill reality dawns, and change happens.
After a critical mass of change is brought to bear, then look for more change and efficiency, with the carrot instead of the stick. Possibility to earn back some of the lost money, on month by month basis up to a reasonable point,

swordofislam

BeeDI wrote: »

This bullsh1t, embedded in the PS system, is mostlikely the reason D Drumm got this cheque in the post. BUT, is this not the stuff the CP agreement should have sorted. Rooting out the stupidity of the past built up in the system.
CP has not worked. CP is not working. CP will not work.
Unless and untill wholesale pay cuts are brought in starting say in three months. 5% per month every month untill reality dawns, and change happens.
After a critical mass of change is brought to bear, then look for more change and efficiency, with the carrot instead of the stick. Possibility to earn back some of the lost money, on month by month basis up to a reasonable point,

This would happen in any civil service in the world. If he was entitled to the refund he was entitled to the refund.

Atilathehun

swordofislam wrote: »

This would happen in any civil service in the world. If he was entitled to the refund he was entitled to the refund.

A few more things would happen to him, in most other countries that does not happen to him and his likes in this country.
He would be slopping out :cool: ............... and a merry band of ex tigers with him

RichardAnd

swordofislam wrote: »

This would happen in any civil service in the world. If he was entitled to the refund he was entitled to the refund.

Pretty much, and that was my point. The revenue officers writing Drumms cheque probably were anything but happy to do it but they still have to follow the rules, no matter how little sense they make.

later12

RichardAnd wrote: »

Pretty much, and that was my point. The revenue officers writing Drumms cheque probably were anything but happy to do it but they still have to follow the rules, no matter how little sense they make.

What exactly is the rule in question?

Even in the case you outlined from your time in the Dept of Justice's land ownership division? What was the rule that obliged the return of such moneys where a debt was owed? If I have an overdraft with my bank, and I place money in the account, it is understandably removed to clear my overdraft. No questions asked.

And can anybody explain why are we still silent on the issue of granting Drumm's ongoing US Visas, when he is wanted by Gardai for questioning in Ireland?!

RichardAnd

later10 wrote: »

What exactly is the rule in question?

Even in the case you outlined from your time in the Dept of Justice's land ownership division? What was the rule that obliged the return of such moneys where a debt was owed? If I have an overdraft with my bank, and I place money in the account, it is understandably removed to clear my overdraft. No questions asked.

And can anybody explain why are we still silent on the issue of granting Drumm's ongoing US Visas, when he is wanted by Gardai for questioning in Ireland?!

There is no rule per say that dictated the 25 euro had to be give back to the man in question. However, there was also no rule to say it could be taken against his debt.

The situiation was that he had requested a refund for an unreleated piece of work and was entitled to be refunded. I don't know if there is a rule as such but that's how things worked.

ballsymchugh

Welease wrote: »

Are there any more details? I wouldn't be suprised if half the problem is the lack of flexibility or common sense within the revenue sometimes..

I have been due tax refunds previously while also oweing tax from other investments, while attempting to reconcile the amount revenue refuse to subtract one from the other and allow me to pay the difference.. All transactions have to be completeted seperate, with them sending me one cheque while they post me another.

This sounds like it could be a similar situation.

something similar is happening to me. i paid my 2010 tax and the first part of 2011 tax in one go. a few weeks later i got a rebate, then a claim for the first part of the 2011 tax.

later12

RichardAnd wrote: »

There is no rule per say that dictated the 25 euro had to be give back to the man in question. However, there was also no rule to say it could be taken against his debt.

Is it really necessary that a legal right of offset be established in such a situation? I would doubt it; to me that looks like old fashioned bureaucracy.

The revenue itself has an established right to offset money in this fashion
http://www.taxireland.ie/taxfind/ContentHTML/ParsedHTML/Institute_tax_commentary_books_HTMLFILES%5C2010%5CDivision%202%20Assessment%20and%20Collection%20of%20Tax_.htm

the Revenue Commissioners may set claims for repayment of any tax or duty against any outstanding liabilities in respect of any tax or duty. This provision is designed to facilitate the generalised use of consolidated billing. The definition of ‘liability’ includes any interest due on the repayment of tax or duty. Liabilities which are subject to appeal, subject to an agreement to pay by instalments or which are under enforcement are excluded. Repayment will be withheld pending the submission of any outstanding tax returns.

Situations whereby money is paid out on the one hand and sought on the other are just inexplicable, to my mind.

charlemont

I wonder will he have to wait 3 days for the cheque to clear ?

Its scandalous alright but as long as the people turn a blind eye it will continue to happen, Passive resistance is no resistance.

swordofislam

later10 wrote: »

Is it really necessary that a legal right of offset be established in such a situation? I would doubt it; to me that looks like old fashioned bureaucracy.

The revenue itself has an established right to offset money in this fashion
http://www.taxireland.ie/taxfind/ContentHTML/ParsedHTML/Institute_tax_commentary_books_HTMLFILES%5C2010%5CDivision%202%20Assessment%20and%20Collection%20of%20Tax_.htm


Situations whereby money is paid out on the one hand and sought on the other are just inexplicable, to my mind.

Thanks later10 I retract my earlier remark. If the revenue has this policy in place than the payment of the rebate is problematic. Revenue is not immune from external influence as the Dunne Trust debacle indicates.

RichardAnd

later10 wrote: »

Is it really necessary that a legal right of offset be established in such a situation? I would doubt it; to me that looks like old fashioned bureaucracy.

The revenue itself has an established right to offset money in this fashion
http://www.taxireland.ie/taxfind/ContentHTML/ParsedHTML/Institute_tax_commentary_books_HTMLFILES%5C2010%5CDivision%202%20Assessment%20and%20Collection%20of%20Tax_.htm


Situations whereby money is paid out on the one hand and sought on the other are just inexplicable, to my mind.

I wasn't aware that Revenue had that rule. Even so, if you look at the wording in your quote you will why Drumm was paid that 12k.

the Revenue Commissioners may set claims for repayment of any tax or duty against any outstanding liabilities in respect of any tax or duty

The bolded piece of text is key here. This ruling only holds sway, from my reading of it now, in the event of the person owing tax to Revenue. Drumm, inspite of being a lying cheating piece of s**t, does not (to my knowlege) owe Revenue anything.

Hence, the civil servants involved in handing back that money were only able to act within established Revenue protocol and that was the point I was trying to make. This story is going to be harped on as evidence of stupid civil servants of the public sector sorting out their mates but it's not.

In any civil service in the world, and in many private institutions, guidelines and rulings exist to govern how cases are dealt with. This situiation of Drumm being refunded, whilst far from being right, could have happened in many countries. If someone is entitled to a rebate within the rules that exist within Revenue, then they will get their rebate no matter who thay are.

Now I've done my best, as per ususal, to try to put a rational slant on things but I've no dobt the public sector flaming will continue in earnest. I tried.

later12

RichardAnd wrote: »

I wasn't aware that Revenue had that rule. Even so, if you look at the wording in your quote you will why Drumm was paid that 12k.

the Revenue Commissioners may set claims for repayment of any tax or duty against any outstanding liabilities in respect of any tax or duty

The bolded piece of text is key here. This ruling only holds sway, from my reading of it now, in the event of the person owing tax to Revenue. Drumm, inspite of being a lying cheating piece of s**t, does not (to my knowlege) owe Revenue anything.

The reason i brought that up is because another poster, and Richard Downes (Prime Time) said that the Revenue do have claims against Drumm.

Now I've done my best, as per ususal, to try to put a rational slant on things but I've no dobt the public sector flaming will continue in earnest. I tried.

With respect, the example you gave of your own experience, although of a different magnitude, didn't exactly add to anybody's estimation of the civil service, I would imagine.

RichardAnd

later10 wrote: »

With respect, the example you gave of your own experience, although of a different magnitude, didn't exactly add to anybody's estimation of the civil service, I would imagine.

No, it probably didn't but that was not my intention anyway. I never bash the public sector for having jobs but likewise, I don't defend them for the sake of it. I'm a realist and I believe in the truth before anything else.

My example was merely illistrate that things like this can happen but that they are not the result of stupidity or anything sinister.

later12

RichardAnd wrote: »

My example was merely illistrate that things like this can happen but that they are not the result of stupidity or anything sinister.

Certainly nothing sinister, I would say, but stupidity? I don't think that has been established, no.

I can only speak from experience, but I have encountered, on a number of occasions a 'can't be done' attitude in the civil and public service. I'm not old, but certainly old enough to know that people who come out with phrases like 'that cannot happen', either here on the Irish economy forum, or in real life, or in the workplace, are almost invariably proven wrong. I can recall heated debates on here where the notion that the interest rate charged on Irish debt was unfair, questionable or, heaven preserve us all, subject to revision, was decried as either hysterical or uninformed, or both.

It's just an illustration. People who say 'no' all the time are almost invariably shown to be wrong at a later stage. To my mind, from my experience working in it, and alongside it, the civil service has a uniquely large number of naysayers who shy away from challenging the status quo or asking questions of rules which may or may not even exist.

murphaph

HellFireClub wrote: »

They know how to withold flexibility and common sense then they want to in Revenue. I was waiting 4 months for a VAT3 refund for 500 Euro there only a few months back.

I got a refund of income tax paid in 2009 and it took about a month to be processed, not too bad says you, but I am registered with revenue online etc. My bank (which they paid a refund into previously) details are all there and I even restated it on my tax return, yet revenue took it upon themselves to issue....a cheque! Smart economy how are ya.

rasper

swordofislam wrote: »

This would happen in any civil service in the world. If he was entitled to the refund he was entitled to the refund.

I dont really think that is true, partly because they arent going send a cheque to a prison

RichardAnd

rasper wrote: »

I dont really think that is true, partly because they arent going send a cheque to a prison

David Drumm isn't in prison, he's in the USA.

beeftotheheels

The bit I wonder about is whether David Drumm himself actually has any outstanding tax liabilities or whether this is just another excuse to public sector bash.

I know nothing about the man's finances but it is perfectly possible that he held all investments through companies or other structures or that his wife held them.

This might mean that while companies he controls owe money to Revenue, he personally does not, in which case arguments around set off might be misleading. There is no way that we should have sufficient access to the tax affairs of any individual to determine whether any repayment with Revenue is fair, legal or otherwise. Revenue cannot defend their position here without breaching the confidentiality a taxpayer is entitled to.

But where is the fun in that? Probably best to just ignore my post and continue to assume the worst of Revenue.

RichardAnd

beeftotheheels wrote: »

The bit I wonder about is whether David Drumm himself actually has any outstanding tax liabilities or whether this is just another excuse to public sector bash.

I know nothing about the man's finances but it is perfectly possible that he held all investments through companies or other structures or that his wife held them.

This might mean that while companies he controls owe money to Revenue, he personally does not, in which case arguments around set off might be misleading. There is no way that we should have sufficient access to the tax affairs of any individual to determine whether any repayment with Revenue is fair, legal or otherwise. Revenue cannot defend their position here without breaching the confidentiality a taxpayer is entitled to.

But where is the fun in that? Probably best to just ignore my post and continue to assume the worst of Revenue.

This was what I was trying to get across earlier in the thread. Just because Dunne is a crook doesn't mean he has any direct problems with Revenue. If that's true, they could only treat him like anyone else and pay him a rebate if it's due.

But, as you said, points like that go over the heads of most in here.

rasper

and in most countries he should be behind bars after bankrupting a State, not being sent refund cheques from the same State