Operation Trans/ John Conmy

jonny d

Whats the story here...seems to be a very drastic step taken if true.
https://www.facebook.com/FunBobbysBistro

PARlance

Spotted that. Seems very harsh on the face of it. Two sides to every story etc etc but I don't think he would come out so publicly if he didn't feel very hard done by.

Tis some Country / County we live in.

Jim2007

People need to wake up!

This did not just happen overnight, there is a process to be gone before it reaches a point where this happens. When this happens we can expect some or all of the following events occurred: failure to file tax returns, lose at least one hearing before the Tax Commissioner , possibly a court case, a hearing before the county registrar, failed to reach an agreement with the Revenue, failed to agree a payment schedule with the Revenue and eventually we get to the point where there the bailiffs get involved.

The bottom line is that John Conmy by his actions screwed the taxpayers and cost people their jobs. And now he seeks to blame the Revenue for his actions. At the end of the day it is him and no one else.

PARlance

Jim2007 wrote: »

People need to wake up!

This did not just happen overnight, there is a process to be gone before it reaches a point where this happens. When this happens we can expect some or all of the following events occurred: failure to file tax returns, lose at least one hearing before the Tax Commissioner , possibly a court case, a hearing before the county registrar, failed to reach an agreement with the Revenue, failed to agree a payment schedule with the Revenue and eventually we get to the point where there the bailiffs get involved.

The bottom line is that John Conmy by his actions screwed the taxpayers and cost people their jobs. And now he seeks to blame the Revenue for his actions. At the end of the day it is him and no one else.

I agree that it usually takes a series of those events to happen but I've also experience of the Revenue showing very little common sense or leeway with SME's.

If we take his word for it, he was honouring a commitment/payment plan to the RC on the 9k he owed. That may or may not be the case but I don't know why he would come out and say it so publicly if it wasn't so.

I have experienced a very poor level of communication between the RC and Revenue Sheriff on matters like this. One company I consulted with had and were honouring a plan when the Sheriff stepped in. He eventually backed down but it was a struggle.

I think JC "screwing the taxpayers" is a little ignorant to say the least.

The taxpayers now has to foot the bill for his 15 staff who are now on the dole.
15 more guys on the dole will costs the tax payer 9k in little over 3 weeks. 15 × 188 = €2,820 per week.
And that's before you look at the other side of the coin, the lost money to the taxpayer from their PAYE, USC and the employers PRSI contribution. In net terms, the taxpayer probably be 9k worse off in 2 weeks.

If these employees remain out of work for any length, you'll quickly enter the 100's of thousands. 15 unemployed for a year vs earning and contributing is approx a €300,000 loss to the taxpayer.

I'm not suggesting he shouldn't pay the 9k but you have to wonder who exactly is screwing the taxpayers here. For me, it's the taxman and not JC. (Granted, I've only his side to go on)

I think you need to wise up and realise that whilst most cases do involve several warnings etc, the Rev Comm and their Sheriffs are not without their flaws. They have a tough job to do but they are prone to act fairly irrationally too. They have very little experience of the "real world". I have consulted on many company restructurings, most successfully turned around and I can safely say that the Rev Comm nearly halted these recoveries in most cases.

The fact that the ****** CAN YOU GIVE US A LINK TO THIS CLAIM PLEASE*** shows that these guys are not without fault. How he remained in a capacity of County Sheriff after that and to this day is beyond me.

Jim2007

PARlance wrote: »

I think you need to wise up and realise that whilst most cases do involve several warnings etc, the Rev Comm and their Sheriffs are not without their flaws.

I have dealt with Revenue often enough on behalf of clients too over the years and the only ones that get into this position are ones that don't take care of business. He has absolutely no one to blame but himself for this.

PARlance

PARlance wrote: »

The fact that the ****** CAN YOU GIVE US A LINK TO THIS CLAIM PLEASE*** shows that these guys are not without fault. How he remained in a capacity of County Sheriff after that and to this day is beyond me.

Apologies, should have linked earlier:

http://www.noonecasey.ie/revenue-sheriff-censured-after-avoiding-stamp-duty/

http://www.sligotoday.ie/details.php?id=3462


"He had earlier been found guilty of eight counts of professional misconduct. He had knowingly altered documents which were subsequently submitted to the Revenue Commissioners in order to avoid stamp duty, the irony being that it is Kelly's primary function as Revenue Sheriff is to collect monies owed to the Revenue."

PARlance

Jim2007 wrote: »

I have dealt with Revenue often enough on behalf of clients too over the years and the only ones that get into this position are ones that don't take care of business. He has absolutely no one to blame but himself for this.

To claim that he has absolutely no one to blame but himself is making a very rash assumption. How can you state that without knowing the facts?

Not a very measured approach and ironically mirrors some of the assumptions I've seen the RC make.
As I said earlier, they've a tough job, but they're prone to getting it wrong on occasion. I was quite careful not to defend the man as I don't know the details but on the face of it, it seems very rash.

Jim2007

PARlance wrote: »

To claim that he has absolutely no one to blame but himself is making a very rash assumption. How can you state that without knowing the facts?

The fact is very simple unlike other taxpayers in this country he failed to comply with the tax legislation and was punished for doing so. Now you can can continue apologising for him and he can continue blaming others for his situation, but it is what it is.

godskitchen

Jim2007 wrote: »

The fact is very simple unlike other taxpayers in this country he failed to comply with the tax legislation and was punished for doing so. Now you can can continue apologising for him and he can continue blaming others for his situation, but it is what it is.

Get off that horse will you. I'm going to guess your a young man in his late 20s, if not you need to get out more.

I'm not familiar with the case we are talking about other than what I have read so I can't pass judgement. It seems you know all about it though to be able to be so definitive about it.

Things are not always black and white. I have seen first hand where banks make agreements with customers and then without notice come knocking on doors.

I have also heard of the Revenue sheriff's this week knocking on someone else's door who had an agreement with revenue. I heard about it before the case we are talking about here and again it seems over the top and uncalled for.

You need to wake up to the fact that not every government employee plays by the book or does their job correctly or processes every bit of paper work that they need to.

How do you know that in this case there was not some miscommunication?

PARlance

Jim2007 wrote: »

The fact is very simple unlike other taxpayers in this country he failed to comply with the tax legislation and was punished for doing so. Now you can can continue apologising for him and he can continue blaming others for his situation, but it is what it is.

I thought I was very clear about not apologising for him.
You may find it hard to believe but some things are not black & white. With your stance, I really doubt you've had any active engagements with the Revenue within the past decade.