Mick Wallace gets away scott free with it.

paddy147

He wont be persued for not paying the VAT.

The Full story is in todays Evening Herald newspaper.


http://www.herald.ie/news/wallace-delight-as-enforcer-wont-go-after-him-3210900.html



Id love to be a politician,because it seems like a really nice comfy life to have.

No matter what you do and how you act,it seems you wont be touched or done for anything.


Yet Phil Hogan will have people who didnt pay/couldnt pay a 100 euro HHC up in court and done for that.

Isnt it a great society we live in today.


PS-A fruit and veg business chap who didnt declare the garlic propperly and made a full upfront settlement with revenue still gets jailed for 6 years....but Mick Wallace gets away with his carry on.

Justice eh???:rolleyes::rolleyes:

NIMAN

Agree 100%.

Knowingly trying to underpay Revenue by over a million, you get off with it, yet we have people in jail for minor offences.

FreudianSlippers

I don't think he's "getting away with" anything major in terms of the article tbh. The ODCE is not pursuing him for breaches of the Companies Acts (for which they didn't find enough evidence... yet); he was pursued by Revenue and had he not reached a settlement with them he would have been pursued just as the Begley character (for a different type of thing though obviously).

You also have to understand that you're comparing apples and oranges garlic in terms of legislation. Begley was charged with evading customs duty which carried statutory penalties such as jail time. I'm not very familiar with the VAT Act, but I'm not sure it does carry jail sentencing for false declarations of VAT.

Finally, just because the ODCE isn't going to pursue him and Revenue has settled with him, it does not mean that the DPP couldn't initiate proceedings against him if they find a criminal wrong.

That said, I still think he is getting off lightly. It also has sweet feck all to do with the household charge.

itzme

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think he's "getting away with" anything major in terms of the article tbh. The ODCE is not pursuing him for breaches of the Companies Acts (for which they didn't find enough evidence... yet); he was pursued by Revenue and had he not reached a settlement with them he would have been pursued just as the Begley character (for a different type of thing though obviously).

You also have to understand that you're comparing apples and oranges garlic in terms of legislation. Begley was charged with evading customs duty which carried statutory penalties such as jail time. I'm not very familiar with the VAT Act, but I'm not sure it does carry jail sentencing for false declarations of VAT.

Finally, just because the ODCE isn't going to pursue him and Revenue has settled with him, it does not mean that the DPP couldn't initiate proceedings against him if they find a criminal wrong.

That said, I still think he is getting off lightly. It also has sweet feck all to do with the household charge.

Also if I'm not mistaken with Begley, the prosecution and conviction of Begley came after he made an agreement with revenue to re-pay the customs duty. I think he'd been repaying it for a couple of years before he was convicted.

Dannyboy83

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not very familiar with the VAT Act, but I'm not sure it does carry jail sentencing for false declarations of VAT.

It does.

In fact, there has been a marked increase in the number of the jail sentences for VAT offences in recent years, for example:
http://www.williamfry.ie/publication-article/prison_terms_for_tax_offences_on_the_increase.aspx

Revenue do not pursue sentences for people with tax debts, they aim to settle with them.
They do pursue sentences for fraud, stringently.


As a TD, this guy should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.
There is no ethical reason why this should be allowed to happen, this is the type of corruption we criticise Russia for on a weekly basis.

Laminations

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think he's "getting away with" anything major in terms of the article tbh. The ODCE is not pursuing him for breaches of the Companies Acts (for which they didn't find enough evidence... yet); he was pursued by Revenue and had he not reached a settlement with them he would have been pursued just as the Begley character (for a different type of thing though obviously).

You also have to understand that you're comparing apples and oranges garlic in terms of legislation. Begley was charged with evading customs duty which carried statutory penalties such as jail time. I'm not very familiar with the VAT Act, but I'm not sure it does carry jail sentencing for false declarations of VAT.

Finally, just because the ODCE isn't going to pursue him and Revenue has settled with him, it does not mean that the DPP couldn't initiate proceedings against him if they find a criminal wrong.

That said, I still think he is getting off lightly. It also has sweet feck all to do with the household charge.

Begley was cooperating fully with revenue and in a position to pay the full amount back with penalties. The judge issued a sentence (he didn't have to) to send a message that misdeclaring tax in such large sums, even if it could be later paid back, was totally unacceptable. No such message seems to be sent to Waalace. He hasn't a hope in paying it back. He only admitted it when Revenue issued its audit and why they settled when there was no chance of him meeting the settlement amount is beyond me. Wallace admitted he under declared tax purposely and in full knowledge that it was wrong. What more evidence do the ODCE need? A rabbit to crawl out his ass wearing a burglar costume?? Wallace has confessed. He should be pursued by all means and made an example out of. For christs sake he hasn't even been made bankrupt yet by the banks that he'll never repay.

He needs to lose his seat and face jail time so people are reassured politicians live under the same laws as the rest of us.

I blame the morons who voted him in.

The corporate enforcement watchdog has decided not to investigate Mr Wallace's role in under-declaring €1.4m of VAT in his construction company, the Irish Independent has learned.

In one of his final acts before stepping down at the end of this month, Director of Corporate Enforcement Paul Appleby said he did not propose to carry out an investigation into M&J Wallace at this time.

He said the VAT returns of companies -- including any falsification in those returns -- were "a matter for the Revenue Commissioners".

But as the Revenue has already opted to make a €2.1m settlement with Mr Wallace's company, he is now highly unlikely to face any prosecution.

Where is the difference here between Begley and Wallace?

Laminations

At least one TD, Tom Barry, isn't letting this lie. Apparently he intends to get a proper explanation from the ODCE as to their decision. He made the original complaint about Wallace to the ODCE

bbam

Laminations wrote: »

At least one TD, Tom Barry, isn't letting this lie. Apparently he intends to get a proper explanation from the ODCE as to their decision. He made the original complaint about Wallace to the ODCE

Wow. One of them, out of how many.
We should be so proud of our elected representatives. One of them maybe has the intention to follow up on it. The truth is that it's an old boys network up there in the big house. I will be shocked if Wallace faces anything over this, most of the TDs are too afraid their own dirt will come to the surface.
We live in a two tiered system in this country, there are those who pay for everything with their taxes, and then there are those who screw us and walk away because of who they are.

pwurple

He only needs to cling on in there as a TD for a few more months... and then he has his two years done. TD's pension.

paddy147

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't think he's "getting away with" anything major in terms of the article tbh. The ODCE is not pursuing him for breaches of the Companies Acts (for which they didn't find enough evidence... yet); he was pursued by Revenue and had he not reached a settlement with them he would have been pursued just as the Begley character (for a different type of thing though obviously).

You also have to understand that you're comparing apples and oranges garlic in terms of legislation. Begley was charged with evading customs duty which carried statutory penalties such as jail time. I'm not very familiar with the VAT Act, but I'm not sure it does carry jail sentencing for false declarations of VAT.

Finally, just because the ODCE isn't going to pursue him and Revenue has settled with him, it does not mean that the DPP couldn't initiate proceedings against him if they find a criminal wrong.

That said, I still think he is getting off lightly. It also has sweet feck all to do with the household charge.

With reference to how the goverment and law will pursue a person for not being able to pay a 100 euro HHC and then the govement and law not going after Mick Wallace........


How can one person be hounded and brought to court and done for 100 euro...but yet a different person (politician) be just let off the hook for over a million plus euro.The politician gets off scott free and is now laughing his head off now at it.

How is the law and system fair and equal here then?????


Mick Wallace should be chased down and hounded by the law and be done too,for what he has done...none of this "walk on water shyte" anymore.


Enough is enough.......people want to see justice accross the board..and especially when it comes to an elected politician and his terrible dis-honest carry on.

NIMAN

The last election brought us all a promise that politics was going to change in this country. Many of them touted this on the election trial, ESPECIALLY the new breed of politician like Mick Wallace.

It appears that nothing has changed, and these 'new' politicians are just like the old ones. As long as I'm ok Jack, bugger the rest of you. They pretend they care about the common man? They only care about themselves.

paddy147

1 man pays up in full with revenue,and still gets 6 years in jail.

HARD PRESSED people get put in jail,because they cant afford a utility bill and have no way to pay it back (enemployment).

Mick Wallace pulls his deliberate stunt,gets away with it..and even gets a pat on the back and a big handshake from all his political buddies and friends in high places..."ah god love you Mick".

Mick Wallace now laughs his head off and thinks its all a great laugh now.


Yep,justice is done and served out evenly in this country...

And who are his political buddies? Let's be clear; we all know who his supporters are, and it's not the supposed 'elite' that people are referring to here...

It's the supposed bastions of the proletariat who are protecting this guy.

dvpower

NIMAN wrote: »

Agree 100%.

Knowingly trying to underpay Revenue by over a million, you get off with it, yet we have people in jail for minor offences.

No way. Didn't Paddy tell you. That 'fruit and veg' guy got 6 years.

christmas2012

He should have gotten a good few years in jail

Scortho

If i was Begley I'd be appealing my sentence straight away!
Wallace collects Vat for Revenue but under declares it to reduce bill. Uses money instead to shore up failing business! Reckless trading surely?
He's unable to repay the money to revenue and has in affect stolen their money.

On the other hand Paul Begley imports garlic as apples to avoid the import duty! Eventually gets caught out and agrees to repay revenue the money owed.
While what he did was wrong and most likely gave him an unfair advantage over his customers surely the fact that he was repaying revenue makes up for this. He most likely has to pay interest and fines on top of that!

The judge said that he wanted to make an example to the general public! Surely if Revenue (who brought it to the courts/dcc's attention) wanted to make an example the best person would have been a TD.

Now all it looks like is one rule for T.Ds/property developer and another rule for everyone else!

Scortho

Scortho wrote: »

Now all it looks like is one rule for T.Ds/property developer and another rule for everyone else!

But, but...Mick Wallace is one of us!

paddy147

dvpower wrote: »

No way. Didn't Paddy tell you. That 'fruit and veg' guy got 6 years.

So what then...because Mick Wallace is a serving TD,then hes a "saint" and should not be touched??

Every newspaper is up in arms over this and they also raise a very vailid point about Paul Begley lodging an appeal.

At least he made a full settlement with Revenue,unlike Wallace.:rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

Scortho wrote: »

If i was Begley I'd be appealing my sentence straight away!
Wallace collects Vat for Revenue but under declares it to reduce bill. Uses money instead to shore up failing business! Reckless trading surely?
He's unable to repay the money to revenue and has in affect stolen their money.

On the other hand Paul Begley imports garlic as apples to avoid the import duty! Eventually gets caught out and agrees to repay revenue the money owed.
While what he did was wrong and most likely gave him an unfair advantage over his customers surely the fact that he was repaying revenue makes up for this. He most likely has to pay interest and fines on top of that!

The judge said that he wanted to make an example to the general public! Surely if Revenue (who brought it to the courts/dcc's attention) wanted to make an example the best person would have been a TD.

Now all it looks like is one rule for T.Ds/property developer and another rule for everyone else!

They are different offences though. It's like a rapist appealing their sentence because a murderer got a lesser sentence.

_Kaiser_

What I always find "funny" in these threads is the surprise that nothing will come of the latest scandal/corruption/outrage to emerge from our "leaders"

I mean, is it really that big a surprise that, in a nation that revolves completely around the concept of "who you know"/"depends who you get", where everyone tries to "get away" with everything - whether it's a speeding fine or more serious -and where it's all about "keeping up with the Joneses"/whining about them apparently doing better than you are, that we have corruption and incompetence all throughout the system.

How many of the outraged posters in threads like this are outraged because it happens, or outraged because they themselves haven't the neck to try it?

Until we grow up as a people and stop trying to screw each other over to feather our own nests, until the concept of "the greater good" becomes more than a sound-bite, and most importantly until we realise and accept responsibility for the consequences of our decisions and actions (speeding fines, bad investments, whatever) nothing will ever change in this parochial, corrupt little backwater.

FreudianSlippers

paddy147 wrote: »

So what then...because Mick Wallace is a serving TD,then hes a "saint" and should not be touched??

Every newspaper is up in arms over this and they also raise a very vailid point about Paul Begley lodging an appeal.

At least he made a full settlement with Revenue,unlike Wallace.:rolleyes:

Literally nobody is saying that as far as I can see. It's just typical know-it-all brigade that seems to come out in the Irish media; the ones who seem to know everything about who is guilty of what and know the companies acts inside and out.

I laid it out clearly before but the nonsense carries on:

The ODCE found no evidence he had breached the companies acts;
He made a settlement with Revenue who decided not to pursue him further;
The DPP can and may still bring charges against Wallace.

Therefore, by definition, he has not gotten "away scott free with it".

EDIT: I should add, that I think Wallace is a plonker and a half with his stupid hair, pink shirts and his blindly anti-Europe stance on just about everything. I also don't think he is fit to remain as a TD. But the point remains that no matter how much I don't like him and it is ridiculous that he would declare false VAT returns, the facts are that he hasn't gotten away with anything he is guilty of (yet).

paddy147

Ah sure you anything that anyone else says here in "nonsence" to you.


Funny how Revenue were very quick to jump in and freeze a Target Exprsses bank accounts and let 400 people lose their jobs.


Funny how they can cause a man to go to jail for 6 years,even he settles in full with them.

But they can let "certain people" away with things.


Funny world we live in today.

Scortho

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

They are different offences though. It's like a rapist appealing their sentence because a murderer got a lesser sentence.

Its like a person underdeclaring import taxes, getting 6 years in jail and repaying money owed while a while a person convicted of sexual assault gets 6 months!:eek:
That certainly isn't fair.

Did both Paul and Mick Wallace act wrongly? Yes they did.
Did both Paul and Mick effectively steal from the revenue? Yes they did.
Both got caught.
Paul agrees to pay back all monies owed. Gets 6 years in jail.
Mick says f**K off i have no money. No jail sentence.
The only message this sends out is if you under declare vat and refuse to pay revenue, nothing will happen.

In my books both of these people should have raceived jail time. Wallace should receive more however as he isnt paying back

FreudianSlippers

paddy147 wrote: »

Ah sure you anything that anyone else says here in "nonsence" to you.


Funny how Revenue were very quick to jump in and freeze a Target Exprsses bank accounts and let 400 people lose their jobs.


Funny how they can cause a man to go to jail for 6 years,even he settles in full with them.

But they can let "certain people" away with things.


Funny world we live in today.

The frustrating thing is that you are either purposely misrepresenting the situation or cannot see that there is a difference in the 3 scenarios that you are comparing as the same.

Your OP is about Wallace not being pursued by the ODCE - I have explained why this is not "getting away with it".

Revenue, correctly, attached the debts of Target Express and froze the assets until a liquidator can take his/her place. It might seem odd to you, but this is pretty standard revenue procedure.

Perhaps you have a great insight into the books of Mr Wallace's and Mr Begley's companies as well as Target Express, but I don't. So I am going to let the ODCE and Revenue do their jobs and see if the DPP wants to do anything about theirs.

EDIT: I should also say that under Section 1078 of the TCA 1997 the DPP can opt for jail time; 12 months summary or 5 years on indictment. Revenue, as a non-preferred creditor of his already insolvent group had a decision to make: take the settlement and let him walk, or pursue him and get nothing. In Begley's case (under a different offence carrying different penalties and under different circumstances) they got both.

paddy147

FreudianSlippers.....I notice that you wont answer anyone else who says the exact same thing as myself and asks the same thing as myself about the justice system and revenue,and how its ok for 1 person to be jailed for 6 year (even when he pays back in full),but for another "high profile TD" to pull a fast one,wont pay and then walks away laughing his head off.


Mick Wallaces owes well north of 1 million euro,doesnt he?

Revenue jump right in and shut down Target Express at the click of a finger,(company trading in Ireland since 1988) for a mere 300,00 euro (compared to Wallaces amount) and just on 400 jobs are lost as a result.

dvpower

paddy147 wrote: »

Revenue jump right in and shut down Target Express at the click of a finger.

If you believe that that's an accurate representation then you are quite mad.




On reflection, you can disregard the qualification.

paddy147

dvpower wrote: »

If you believe that that's an accurate representation then you are quite mad.




On reflection, you can disregard the qualification.

If you are going to quote me..then quote my entire post and respond to ALL OF IT.

dvpower

paddy147 wrote: »

If you are going to quote me..then quote my entire post and respond to ALL OF IT.

Did I miss something relevant?

Cookie_Monster

the difference is only semantics. Why did the revenue settle with him and not others at the end of the day?

kippy

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

What I always find "funny" in these threads is the surprise that nothing will come of the latest scandal/corruption/outrage to emerge from our "leaders"

I mean, is it really that big a surprise that, in a nation that revolves completely around the concept of "who you know"/"depends who you get", where everyone tries to "get away" with everything - whether it's a speeding fine or more serious -and where it's all about "keeping up with the Joneses"/whining about them apparently doing better than you are, that we have corruption and incompetence all throughout the system.

How many of the outraged posters in threads like this are outraged because it happens, or outraged because they themselves haven't the neck to try it?

Until we grow up as a people and stop trying to screw each other over to feather our own nests, until the concept of "the greater good" becomes more than a sound-bite, and most importantly until we realise and accept responsibility for the consequences of our decisions and actions (speeding fines, bad investments, whatever) nothing will ever change in this parochial, corrupt little backwater.

I'd agree with this summation (not particularily the backwater sentiment, nor the inference that this is the only country in the developed world that this type of thing goes on in.)

Look over this forum and others like it. A scandal/injustice is discussed almost weekly, usually involving politicians or those at the highest levels of society. The common theme amoung all of these types of threads is the indignation of the posters (myself included) and the ultimate fizzling out of the thread as the newer and more recent injustice/crime comes along. Everyone forgets about the old one and moves on.
We've had threads on a number of politicians(sometimes multiple threads on the same politician years apart) and their behaviour, a number of business people and indeed on how the law is an ass in this country yet nothing, fundamentally has changed at any level to less the occurance of these events.

Default behaviour of politicians in these situations is to put the head down, the storm will pass, carry on as normal, cash in.

FreudianSlippers

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the difference is only semantics. Why did the revenue settle with him and not others at the end of the day?

They wanted money from him which they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Wallace, in my opinion, is likely to have settled and given Revenue a guarantee of the €2.1m in exchange for not prosecuting; the alternative for revenue is putting walling in jail, getting nothing and making him a "man of the people".

Genuinely, Revenue is screwed either way... there would have been a thread on here in defence of him if he was jailed. Look at everyone crawling out of the woodwork to defend the garlic fellow. A completely separate and more serious offence to be honest; 4 years of active customs fraud compared to knowingly declaring false VAT. The legislation is different because they're different crimes.

Cookie_Monster

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

They wanted money from him which they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Wallace, in my opinion, is likely to have settled and given Revenue a guarantee of the €2.1m in exchange for not prosecuting; the alternative for revenue is putting walling in jail, getting nothing and making him a "man of the people".

Genuinely, Revenue is screwed either way... there would have been a thread on here in defence of him if he was jailed. Look at everyone crawling out of the woodwork to defend the garlic fellow. A completely separate and more serious offence to be honest; 4 years of active customs fraud compared to knowingly declaring false VAT. The legislation is different because they're different crimes.

right ignore the garlic fellow, the original Indo article had another defaulter same as Wallace but much smaller amount that they went after. Revenue's only 'excuse' when asked why Wallace was treated differently was "we don't comment on individual cases". That's not good enough IMO.

K-9

Purposefully defrauding Customs is rated higher than not fully declaring a VAT return. That is Revenue practice up to know, a lot of the Revenue settlements or Audits you see are people not fully declaring VAT. It isn't seen in the same light as purposefully putting forward fraudulent documents.

Whether it should or not is one thing but Revenue are being consistent.

Scortho

In relation to Target which a few people have mentioned already, there has to be more to that story than just the revenue placing an attachment order on there accounts.

To shut the company down without applying for an injunction or going down the examinership route does't make sense.
Based on the levels at which they were paying back the revenue recently and their projected profit of 1.6 million for the year surely they could have paid it off within the hundred days.

It may be interesting to hear what the liquidator will be saying having examined their books.

Am just after finding this in AH. Seems like the workers have done a bit of digging on the company and discovered a few potential problems.

http://targetexpresscorkworkers.blogspot.ie/2012/08/press-release-target-sit-in-cork-plant.html

Dannyboy83

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the difference is only semantics. Why did the revenue settle with him and not others at the end of the day?

I spoke to a former member of revenue about this, who cited similar arguments to FreudianSlippers regarding the unwillingness to prosecute; FreudianSlippers is correct in that regard.

A settlement was reached with revenue, therefore the ODCE does not move to prosecute. Because a settlement was reached, no further legal action will be taken.

Apparently the fact that Begley was caught, rather than coming forward, is what screwed him.
Whereas Wallace came forward and settled, before being caught.
(I'm not sure how accurate this is, but this is how it was explained to me)
So there is no break with precedence here apparently and nothing which ought to impact on Begley's case.

Regarding the examples I cited earlier, it was explained again that in the example of the individual living in France, they were probably caught, then moved to settle.
It seems if you come forward and attempt to settle before they catch you, the goal is to settle.
If you wait until they catch you, the goal is to punish you, even if you still attempt to settle.

The part which left the person explaining it to me puzzled, was the fact that Wallace seems unable to settle any substantial amount of the debt. Apparently it's a slight diversion from standard procedure for Revenue.
However, the individual explained that there may be more to the story which simply hasn't been disclosed. Perhaps Wallace has funds or assets which we are unaware of etc.

Duiske

paddy147 wrote: »

FreudianSlippers.....I notice that you wont answer anyone else who says the exact same thing as myself and asks the same thing as myself about the justice system and revenue,and how its ok for 1 person to be jailed for 6 year (even when he pays back in full),but for another "high profile TD" to pull a fast one,wont pay and then walks away laughing his head off.


Mick Wallaces owes well north of 1 million euro,doesnt he?

Revenue jump right in and shut down Target Express at the click of a finger,(company trading in Ireland since 1988) for a mere 300,00 euro (compared to Wallaces amount) and just on 400 jobs are lost as a result.

Where are you getting the idea that Wallace "wont pay" this debt ?

Scortho

Surely theres a case of reckless trading by Wallace. He collected vat on behalf of revenue, under declared it, and used it to shore up his books elsewhere.
Wallace has stated that it is unlikely that the debt will be repaid in full as its owed by the company and not himself.

One of the provisions of reckless trading allows for the following:

If in the course of the winding up of a company or in the course of examinership proceedings or where an insolvent company is not being wound up, it is found that any officer of the company was knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in a reckless manner, then pursuant to Section 297A of the Companies Act 1963, such person may be personally liable for all or any part of the debts or other liabilities of the company.
http://www.dilloneustace.ie/download/1/Directors%20Duties%20when%20a%20Company%20is%20Facing%20Insolvency.pdf

And if Wallace has funds that we are unaware of surely that would be of some serious interest to Acc bank. The ODCE says that it is still a matter for revenue to investigate. Which may suggest that they will look into him in the future

Farmer Pudsey

Scortho wrote: »

In relation to Target which a few people have mentioned already, there has to be more to that story than just the revenue placing an attachment order on there accounts.

To shut the company down without applying for an injunction or going down the examinership route does't make sense.
Based on the levels at which they were paying back the revenue recently and their projected profit of 1.6 million for the year surely they could have paid it off within the hundred days.

It may be interesting to hear what the liquidator will be saying having examined their books.

Am just after finding this in AH. Seems like the workers have done a bit of digging on the company and discovered a few potential problems.

http://targetexpresscorkworkers.blogspot.ie/2012/08/press-release-target-sit-in-cork-plant.html

Scortho wrote: »

Surely theres a case of reckless trading by Wallace. He collected vat on behalf of revenue, under declared it, and used it to shore up his books elsewhere.
Wallace has stated that it is unlikely that the debt will be repaid in full as its owed by the company and not himself.

One of the provisions of reckless trading allows for the following:

If in the course of the winding up of a company or in the course of examinership proceedings or where an insolvent company is not being wound up, it is found that any officer of the company was knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in a reckless manner, then pursuant to Section 297A of the Companies Act 1963, such person may be personally liable for all or any part of the debts or other liabilities of the company.
http://www.dilloneustace.ie/download/1/Directors%20Duties%20when%20a%20Company%20is%20Facing%20Insolvency.pdf

And if Wallace has funds that we are unaware of surely that would be of some serious interest to Acc bank. The ODCE says that it is still a matter for revenue to investigate. Which may suggest that they will look into him in the future

Here we have two pretty similar stories both using revenue funds to try to continue trading. How many companies when under pressure leave a bill unpaid and reckon that they will be able to pay it next month. How many of us cannot pay an ESB/Phone bill on time but continue using phone/ESB because we will straighten it out next month.

Hundreds if not thousands of sole traders/small and not so small companies when they come under pressure will delay tax/vat as if they cannot access funds they will not be able to continue trading.

As banks are not lending it may come to a situtation pay vat/tax or use funds to try to trade out of a difficult situtation.

Now in Targets situtation everything may not be as it seems. However was Mick Wallace when he did this back at the end of the boom hoping that a pick up in trading the following year would have allowed him to pay Revenue the back Vat and penelties.

These are the situtation that Sole Traders/companies face at present some take a chance and it may not work out and we find out about it, with others it works and they pay Revenue what they owe and we never learn about it

[Jackass]

I think all tax dodgers should be pursued in the courts and jail time should follow if a satisfactory explanation and settlement can't be found.

I think this should apply ten fold if you are in public office, by making all public representetives swear an oath of fully disclosed assets, business interests and tax issues which if found to be false, should be followed by extremely heavy punishment.

Keep the criminals out of politics and absolutely slate them if they are caught out.

FreudianSlippers

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

right ignore the garlic fellow, the original Indo article had another defaulter same as Wallace but much smaller amount that they went after. Revenue's only 'excuse' when asked why Wallace was treated differently was "we don't comment on individual cases". That's not good enough IMO.

That's a difficult one really. On one hand I agree with you because I feel we have a right to know why, at least optically, a sitting TD is being treated differently. On the other hand, the knowledge that we have regarding the situation only allows us to make these optical, superficial conclusions.

There could be literally hundreds of reasons why Wallace's case of knowingly signing false VAT returns was treated differently than the other defaulter. One reason could have been simply access to the money - revenue may have been in a better position to liquidate the other company and take action against the director in question than in the Wallace case (where they wouldn't have gotten a cent without settlement; and you can be damn sure an agreement to not take action was agreed in the settlement).

In that regard, K-9's point below is relevant and accurate:

K-9 wrote: »

Purposefully defrauding Customs is rated higher than not fully declaring a VAT return. That is Revenue practice up to know, a lot of the Revenue settlements or Audits you see are people not fully declaring VAT. It isn't seen in the same light as purposefully putting forward fraudulent documents.

Whether it should or not is one thing but Revenue are being consistent.

Scortho wrote: »

In relation to Target which a few people have mentioned already, there has to be more to that story than just the revenue placing an attachment order on there accounts.

To shut the company down without applying for an injunction or going down the examinership route does't make sense.
Based on the levels at which they were paying back the revenue recently and their projected profit of 1.6 million for the year surely they could have paid it off within the hundred days.

Well, they don't need an injunction - and rightfully so; if Revenue had to seek injunctions nothing would ever get done. I think the legislation allowing them the power to attach and/or liquidate is fair enough. IMHO this is a much more interesting case than Wallace or anyone else. If this company can still make money then I don't really understand why it should be liquidated. Hopefully someone else steps up and buys it?

It may be interesting to hear what the liquidator will be saying having examined their books.

It certainly will. I'm not sure I fully understand the decision to liquidate. Examinership would have appeared to be the correct way forward in my view, but again I'm not a taxation expert nor do I have all of the company's books in front of me.

Am just after finding this in AH. Seems like the workers have done a bit of digging on the company and discovered a few potential problems.

http://targetexpresscorkworkers.blogspot.ie/2012/08/press-release-target-sit-in-cork-plant.html

If that's true (and I think it's safe to say that it's better to presume it is not until verified) then I would imagine the ODCE will certainly be interested in the directors of that company.

Farmer Pudsey

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well, they don't need an injunction - and rightfully so; if Revenue had to seek injunctions nothing would ever get done. I think the legislation allowing them the power to attach and/or liquidate is fair enough. IMHO this is a much more interesting case than Wallace or anyone else. If this company can still make money then I don't really understand why it should be liquidated. Hopefully someone else steps up and buys it?


It certainly will. I'm not sure I fully understand the decision to liquidate. Examinership would have appeared to be the correct way forward in my view, but again I'm not a taxation expert nor do I have all of the company's books in front of me.


If that's true (and I think it's safe to say that it's better to presume it is not until verified) then I would imagine the ODCE will certainly be interested in the directors of that company.

It may weel have been in Target express case that if revenue had an attachment on any funds/assets in place he felt that if he traded on that he may not have benn able to access bank funds to carry on trading. This may have led to a situtation where it was safer to liqudate the company.

It may be the case that he was fed up with it like a lot of people in fairly hopeless situtations and he decided it was no longer worth the effort and has decided to move onto a new venture. The price of fuel is crippling workers and industry at present.

But then you hear the green brigade saying that VRT and cartax be abolished and all the revenue ne risen from fuel, We in Ireland are moredependant on Road haulage than most other European countries.. This all comes back to the Government to protect Pay and welfare it leaves very few options to raise revenue

Scortho

[QUOTE=Well, they don't need an injunction - and rightfully so; if Revenue had to seek injunctions nothing would ever get done. I think the legislation allowing them the power to attach and/or liquidate is fair enough. IMHO this is a much more interesting case than Wallace or anyone else. If this company can still make money then I don't really understand why it should be liquidated. Hopefully someone else steps up and buys it?[/QUOTE]

I was on about the company getting an injunction against the attachment order. If they were in such a good state you'd think they'd apply for it.


[QUOTE=It certainly will. I'm not sure I fully understand the decision to liquidate. Examinership would have appeared to be the correct way forward in my view, but again I'm not a taxation expert nor do I have all of the company's books in front of me.[/QUOTE]

Either am I. Im a bloody Pharmacy student.
I did hear them talking to the receiver today on Drivetime. He did say that they were hopefully insolvent. Taking into bank debt as well as the revenue who have first call, he said that unsecured creditors and sub contractors will get very little out of the liquidation.

It was also mentioned on the show that there was a property company related to the company as well which may have been a major problem for them.

[QUOTE=Hundreds if not thousands of sole traders/small and not so small companies when they come under pressure will delay tax/vat as if they cannot access funds they will not be able to continue trading.
As banks are not lending it may come to a situtation pay vat/tax or use funds to try to trade out of a difficult situtation.[/QUOTE]

My father owns a company related to the building industry. One thing he'll always say is always pay your vat on time. Certainly don't use the vat that you collected to pay other creditors. Its not you're money in the first place.

While you may owe a supplier money, it takes them way longer to move on the debt than revenue. Also revenue have access to your returns and have experts employed who can review them.The supplier won't have these experts.

It may be tempting for a company to use vat to pay of other debts but it may lead to them being liquidated. As well as a possible ODCE enquiry. If it is proved that the directors acted recklessly their assets can be seized to settle debts.


[QUOTE= However was Mick Wallace when he did this back at the end of the boom hoping that a pick up in trading the following year would have allowed him to pay Revenue the back Vat and penelties.[/QUOTE]

Again you don't do this. Also giving yourself a pay rise at a time of trouble won't bode well at all.

On the Wallace case, with the amount of work that the ODCE has at the moment, it may well happen down the line. One only has to look at how long the Anglo case has taken them.
And they still aren't finished it.

NakedNNettles

I'd say that's the last we'll hear of Wallace now.

He'll have the head down now for the remainder of his term in the Dail, chasing that lucrative pension.

Isn't it funny how the loudest voiceboxes always have the darkest secrets.

Working for the people my ar*e!

goose2005

paddy147 wrote: »

1 man pays up in full with revenue,and still gets 6 years in jail.

Pays back money that he stole. I don't think bankrobbers are let off when they give the money back.