Strokestown **Mod Note in Post #4461**

blinding

Cupatae wrote: »

I love how all the people on here instantly side with the banks, people have short memories..recession anyone?

Its no wonder Bankers laugh all the way to the Bank .:eek:

armaghlad

Using a band of Loyalist/ex UDR men was only ever going to garner public sympathy for the farmer. So the bank have only themselves to blame in hiring that particular band of meatheads.

amcalester

awec wrote: »

20-25 years for someone in their mid 50s?

And only covers the money owed to Revenue, there's no mention of how much is owed to KBC.

_Brian

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

I am highly amused to find out that the revenue (i.e. you and me) had already throttled every penny out of these people long before the bank got on the scene.

Local TDs are all talk about KBC being harsh when they control the revenue commissioners.

Will the local TDs get the revenue to go easy on them? Will they f***

Why should they ??

Tax defaulters cut us all short, they deny money to essential services in hospitals and schools.

Nobody would condone outright violence but the court made the decision and the property was to be taken. Rest of us pay our taxes and struggle along, why should these people get a free pass and sympathy when their reckless lifestyle catches up with them.

blinding

riemann wrote: »

I wonder how many lads will be signing up for the next eviction down south?

Not many I'd venture.

Paddy and Biddy are waking up . Brits evicting them has finally awoken them from their slumber .

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

Why should they ?.

I am just trying to highlight the BS and hypocrisy from the TDs. (And maybe doing it badly)

blinding

Larbre34 wrote: »

I'm laughing at the notion that this mississippi burning will put off the nordie mercenaries from taking security gigs of this nature.

All it means is that their price just went up.

How much did the price of the Field go to again ?

Many Farmers have shotguns ! Are these Loyalists allowed to bring firearms in to the Republic ?

Zorya

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This man defrauded the state.

Get lost with your whataboutery.

Criminal should be locked up. He is lucky he is only losing the house.

The people who ran to defend him are gob****es - but we already knew that.

That's fairly rude - to tell someone you don't know to ''get lost'' on a discussion board.
In terms of being locked up, in this country if he raped a child he would get 3 to 6 years at best and about the same amount of contempt as you seem to be ladling on him for getting into financial difficulties.

What else should he be losing as well as the house? From some of the ugly comments on here, perhaps his life too, is that it?

I do not put the financial difficulty of ordinary people anywhere near the category of crime. It should be handled better by the banks than the way this has been handled. But because so many do consider financial difficulties to be so foul, and spit out such ugly calumnies and curse upon the heads of those in trouble, that is why we had so many people stringing themselves up in their sheds during the recession.

gctest50

_Brian wrote: »

Why should they ??

Tax defaulters cut us all short, they deny money to essential services in hospitals and schools.

Nobody would condone outright violence but the court made the decision and the property was to be taken. Rest of us pay our taxes and struggle along, why should these people get a free pass and sympathy when their reckless lifestyle catches up with them.

Especially when they are the largest defaulter :



Co. Roscommon farmer Anthony McGann is the farmer with the largest figure on the tax defaulters list.


Co. Roscommon farmer Anthony McGann has a penalty of €177,388.00 by the Revenue commissioners for under-declaration of VAT.

Gimme A Pound

blinding wrote: »

Paddy and Biddy are waking up . Brits evicting them has finally awoken them from their slumber .

Waking up to what? The guy was completely taking the piss - his supporters are people who believe you should be able to avail of a service for free with no consequences.

Plenty of those around - they haven't just woken up.

blinding

Effects wrote: »

The house and land were a guarantee on a loan their nephew took out, not them.

Did the Bank do due Diligence on the possibility of this loan been repaid ?

Did the bank do due diligence on the repercussions of this loan not been repaid ?

Guy:Incognito

Zorya wrote: »

First of all, I admit to having been incorrect - I thought the owners were elderly, but now it appears the farmer in question is in his 50s.
Second of all, the figure of about 400,000 is being bandied about. This includes 75,000 in interest and 177,000+ in 'penalties'. The original sum appears to have been about 177,000 itself.

My initial response is that this level of penalties seems very stiff and would mitigate severely against people managing to pay off original sums owing. This seems counter-productive.

At the rate of 1000 per month, that's 12,000 per annum less interest obviously, the original sum could have been paid off in 20 - 25 years. It was within the bounds of feasibility.

The retired garda friend of the farmer is saying that the farmer was making an offer of paying - would it not be better to pursue that offer than this dreadful palaver that has taken place.

Anne Kavanagh, who made some fo the videos circulating, has described in some of them the issues facing farmers in rural Ireland who are being hounded into upgrading to make ends meet since milk quotas etc were cut and are being given loans inappropriately. There are a lot of evictions going on as a result - there is something very nasty about all of this, even though I do not have all the details, so cannot put my finger on it.

There are so many sides to every story. Yes, this farmer has obviously made some inappropriate business moves, but some of the people on here calling them ''scumbags'' and displaying such schadenfreude is really ugly and unwarranted. Local people seem to be on the side of the family. I can tell you around here people would be incensed at this kind of stuff.

Even a local TD said,

According to handle masters post, the 177000 is tax debt. Nothing to do with bank loans.

Kermit.de.frog

Zorya wrote: »

That's fairly rude - to tell someone you don't know to ''get lost'' on a discussion board.
In terms of being locked up, in this country if he raped a child he would get 3 to 6 years at best and about the same amount of contempt as you seem to be ladling on him for getting into financial difficulties.

What else should he be losing as well as the house? From some of the ugly comments on here, perhaps his life too, is that it?

I do not put the financial difficulty of ordinary people anywhere near the category of crime. It should be handled better by the banks than the way this has been handled. But because so many do consider financial difficulties to be so foul, and spit out such ugly calumnies and curse upon the heads of those in trouble, that is why we had so many people stringing themselves up in their sheds during the recession.

The man is a tax defaulter.

Next you will be one of the goons telling us how the rich have everything rigged and all that ****e.

This guy is a TAX DEFAULTER.

Should be in jail.

Guy:Incognito

awec wrote: »

20-25 years for someone in their mid 50s?

Interest free as well of course. Cant have them paying interest and penalties.

road_high

As always in these cases, the truth is far more revealing. Once the hype dies down

listermint

Fiddling the books and fiddling the banks and people are still defending it.

Hilarious.

I suppose there is always planks that enjoy taking the contrary view just to annoy everyone else

JeffKenna

Effects wrote: »

From what I’ve heard, the loan was for the nephews business and not their farm. I don’t know if the nephews business is farming or something else.

All the main media outlets are reporting it was a loan for non payment of VAT due to Revenue.

Gimme A Pound

Zorya wrote: »

That's fairly rude - to tell someone you don't know to ''get lost'' on a discussion board.
In terms of being locked up, in this country if he raped a child he would get 3 to 6 years at best and about the same amount of contempt as you seem to be ladling on him for getting into financial difficulties.

What else should he be losing as well as the house? From some of the ugly comments on here, perhaps his life too, is that it?

I do not put the financial difficulty of ordinary people anywhere near the category of crime. It should be handled better by the banks than the way this has been handled. But because so many do consider financial difficulties to be so foul, and spit out such ugly calumnies and curse upon the heads of those in trouble, that is why we had so many people stringing themselves up in their sheds during the recession.

It's not financial difficulties though, Zorya, it's paying nothing and expecting no consequences. It's the entitlement culture and abdication of personal responsibility.

Plenty of people end up in financial difficulty, they explain it to the bank, which comes to an agreement with them. They don't get evicted.

blinding

blinding wrote: »

Did the Bank do due Diligence on the possibility of this loan been repaid ?

Did the bank do due diligence on the repercussions of this loan not been repaid ?

They were very likely capable of paying it at one stage but the revenue intervened and hit them with 400k of a bill since.

Do you think the revenue should show some mercy and let them off with the tax bill so they can make good on their bank loans and keep their land???

awec

Has the value of the repossessed property been published anywhere?

blinding

pablo128 wrote: »

I wonder if the 70 heroes with the bats be as quick to attack a travellers camp for burglarizing their neighbours?

Success breeds success . They certainly had a good result on this outing .

amcalester

JeffKenna wrote: »

All the main media outlets are reporting it was a loan for non payment of VAT due to Revenue.

That doesn’t seem right, if he borrowed the money to repay Revenue he wouldn’t still owe the money to revenue.

And I doubt banks would lend money to someone to repay Revenue.

blinding

blackbox wrote: »

If they were third generation in the property, the loan must have been for investment or expansion.

If they didn't want to risk eviction why did they use house as security?

.

Why did the Bank take the house as security . How do we know the bank did due dilligence ?

Guy:Incognito

blinding wrote: »

Did the Bank do due Diligence on the possibility of this loan been repaid ?

Did the bank do due diligence on the repercussions of this loan not been repaid ?

The repercussions are they take the property the loans are secured on. Simple stuff really. All in the contract both parties sign and one party is going back on.

Guy:Incognito

JeffKenna wrote: »

All the main media outlets are reporting it was a loan for non payment of VAT due to Revenue.

So steal the vat, borrow to pay for the vat he stole, dont pay the loan.

Is there anything about whether he even paid the revenue from the loan? Or is that issue still outstanding?

Maybe mick Wallace will stick up for him in the Dail............

JeffKenna

amcalester wrote: »

That doesn’t seem right, if he borrowed the money to repay Revenue he wouldn’t still owe the money to revenue.

And I doubt banks would lend money to someone to repay Revenue.

So he owes over €400k to revenue and a separate loan to the bank?

blinding

blueythebear wrote: »

Someone referred to it as being the nephew with the owners of the property being guarantors for the loan. I can't see that this is correct. It doesn't add up on many fronts but fundamentally it would be monumentally naive for someone to put their house up as collateral for another persons borrowing.

And the bank should not have accepted the house as collateral .

relax carry on

Mooooo wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/garda-investigate-dissident-links-to-predawn-attack-at-repossessed-house-37632029.html

From the article

In 2015, Revenue secured a settlement totalling €429,501 against the evicted man as a tax defaulter for the under declaration of VAT. It included €177,000 in tax owed, almost €75,000 in interest, and more than €177,000 in penalties.

The penalties equal the tax. That's a 100% penalty. Based on the code of practice for Audits that's considered deliberate behaviour with no cooperation.

This is someone who has issues with dealing with his money problems.

awec

JeffKenna wrote: »

So he owes over €400k to revenue and a separate loan to the bank?

Yes, he owes nearly half a million to the taxpayer alone.

He also owes 18,000 to a local business (a quarry).

His actual bank debts are unknown.

listermint

blinding wrote: »

And the bank should not have accepted the house as collateral .

Why.


In detail please