Neil Prendeville, the tax default list, the high court case and the sex act

v638sg7k1a92bx

A few articles on this today but the sun has a quote which says

The probe was described as a “Revenue Investigation Case” for “Under-declaration of Income Tax”.

It goes on about how he made a full denial and it was all the accountants fault and how he won a high court case against his accountant but there are a few things that don't sit right about this case.

1. How difficult could his accounts have been, he's a broadcaster possibly trading though a limited company invoicing for his services so unless they were filing the returns as nil it's difficult to understand how his accountants could have got it so wrong.

2. If this was a revenue investigation then revenue must have thought there was something more sinister going on otherwise they would have conducted a revenue audit. A revenue investigation is their most serious type of intervention.

3. An article from the examiner says that

He has since taken High Court legal action against the firm and has won substantial compensation, and the tax liabilities, penalties have been settled in full. He is fully tax compliant.

Would this not have been reported on or be available on courts.ie? I expect that a high court case involving a high profile radio presenter would have been noticed?

4. If this did go to court, my experience is that clients who sue their accountant with the excuse of "my accountant never told me" doesn't get much traction and these people are usually advised not to proceed with such cases as ultimately it's the directors responsibility. If he was suing for gross negligence he would need to prove this which goes back to point number 1.

5. His explanation about not wanting to name his previous accountant to protect their identity and the identity of their staff is also bizarre because if he had taken a high court case then this would have been in the public domain anyway.

Am I missing something?

Edit: It's also interesting that he cited the damage to his personal reputation considering the prior incident he had on an Aer Lingus flight where he allegedly opened his trousers and started masturbating in front of two air hostesses and then went on to say he had no recollection of the incident and blamed it on a combination of nurofen and alcohol.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...ai-135321.html

Surely his personal reputation was damaged already?

Eireog1

No I was wondering the same thing myself. Sounds like he is trying to deflect the fact that he did pay his taxes.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Eireog1 wrote: »

No I was wondering the same thing myself. Sounds like he is trying to deflect the fact that he did pay his taxes.

Exactly, the whole thing seems bizarre.

Me thinks he does protest too much.

Henry Ford III

The amounts are substantial. An excuse of "I never knew" is hardly believable.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The amounts are substantial. An excuse of "I never knew" is hardly believable.

It's actual not that much. A small undeclared liability over a few years with interest and penalties can accumulate into large liability.

Robbo

Evelyn Hollow Gazebo wrote: »

It's actual not that much. A small undeclared liability over a few years with interest and penalties can accumulate into large liability.

The tax liability was €327,663. Interest was €115,674 and penalties were €98,299.

v638sg7k1a92bx

Robbo wrote: »

The tax liability was €327,663. Interest was €115,674 and penalties were €98,299.

Yes but how many years? Either way it's still alot of money I'm just saying I've seen much higher. Yes the "nobody told me excuse" is hard to believe.

Large bottle small glass

Eireog1 wrote: »

No I was wondering the same thing myself. Sounds like he is trying to deflect the fact that he did pay his taxes.

From courts.ie search under Plaintiff name, you'll find listing.

https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Director/Prendeville/Neil/2297895948/


https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Jgc-Control-Services-Limited-492892

If you want to pay you can get the filed accounts if you wish.

So much for not wanting to bad mouth accountant

Carawaystick

Evelyn Hollow Gazebo wrote: »

Am I missing something?

Surely his personal reputation was damaged already?

You are only named on the list when you pay the revenue, as they can prosecute you if you're messing them around up until then.
So that bit of his statement is there to deflect from the issue, that hes a caught tax dodger

Irishphotodesk

Only listing in high court I can find involving a “Neil prendeville” is 2019/545 - which has not gotten a court listing....it is against an accountants firm.

Story doesn’t add up.

hurikane

That’s a huge liability, how could the accountants have got it so wrong? Someone has made a huge error and been caught with their pants down.

ohnonotgmail

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

Only listing in high court I can find involving a “Neil prendeville” is 2019/545 - which has not gotten a court listing....it is against an accountants firm.

Story doesn’t add up.

he sued his accountants and their insurance paid out.

Irishphotodesk

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

he sued his accountants and their insurance paid out.

But .... since the matter didn’t get to court, would it not be more correct to say he had lodged papers with the intent to sue and the parties settled.

ohnonotgmail

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

But .... since the matter didn’t get to court, would it not be more correct to say he had lodged papers with the intent to sue and the parties settled.

He lodged a case with the court hence he sued them. That they settled before it got to court doesn't change that.

Peregrinus

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

But .... since the matter didn’t get to court, would it not be more correct to say he had lodged papers with the intent to sue and the parties settled.

No. It's correct to say that he actually sued them. The suit did not go to trial because the parties settled it.