<snip>
I didn't realise that there was so much money flowing through the Trust. In around €50m in 2022 alone.
Threadbans
Boggles
AndrewJRenko
You're the one who keeps saying fraud. Everyone else is just pointing out that they didn't meet criteria laid down by Revenue.
Read my post, they did not avoid tax. They changed their employer number and paid tax on their new number. Employer numbers can change for many reasons, as the company structure or ownership changes etc.
Blanch put up the Revenue rules and also the year on year income , so its fairly obvious PMVT were in breach of this. That would have required sign off at a senior level, probably the CFO. And now there are serious financial issues in the organisation.
I wonder if this CFO knows what his salary is.
What you accused the CFO of is fraud.
Question remains, how is that relevant?
It was an example of how closely Revenue monitor PAYE returns.
Then you posted changing employer number was tax avoidance!
Well no, I responded to your rather vague and non relevant post.
You have interpreted it as fraud. I say the CFO needs to be asked a lot of hard questions.
Any reasonable observer would interpret it as fraud primarily because that's what you have described.
No one should have to deal with the problems addicts bring or any antisocial behaviour. It might sound harsh but clean up or nowhere will take you and if you do but have a relapse then out you go again. You do not have the right to make other people’s live miserable.
There is also a big big question for their auditors who signed off on those accounts.
You don't know that unless you work for either Revenue or PMVT.
On the face of it, it looks like they were not eligible for debt warehousing and at the very least, an explanation is due. They may be questions for Revenue as much as PMVT.
Shut them down.
Some neck on them. You can't even run your own charity properly, nevermind lecture government on national housing policy.
Well if have something that refutes what's in the press.
One pressure facing the charity is the bill for €8.3 million in taxes. A spokeswoman for the trust confirmed it availed of a Revenue scheme during the Covid-19 pandemic “to warehouse PAYE tax debts” between 2020 and last year.
“Peter McVerry Trust entered into a phased payment arrangement with Revenue commencing September 2022 and [has] met all payments as part of this arrangement to date,”
By all means stick it up.
As I heard reported, seems to be a classic case of 'empire building' by charity organisations. For example, they took advantage of shelving of tax payments during Covid and used these funds to buy more property and thus make the state more reliant on their services. Now they have cashflow problems but rather than let them go to the wall, the state may well be obligated/ shamed into giving them a bailout. And so, they'll go on.. leveraging what they get each year to build the empire and get increasingly greater funding year on year. Common approach by these groups, once they get their foot in the door and establish a public funding stream.
thus make the state more reliant on their services.
Huh?
The "state" have a choice, they choose not provide adequate services.
In order to qualify for the Debt Warehousing Scheme, the business must have been unable to pay their tax liabilities due to COVID-19 restrictions, along with the following:
The business turnover was significantly reduced
Or
The volume of customer orders was significantly reduced
Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) managed by the Personal or Business Division in revenue, will automatically enter the debt warehousing scheme. An SME in this context is a business where annual turnover is less than €3 million.
Other businesses (turnover above €3 million) which are managed by Large Corporates Division and Medium Enterprises
Well then, it appears that there are two possible explanations as PMVT don't meet the published criteria:
So just to confirm:
They entered a huge PAYE liability into a debt warehousing scheme when they didn't meet the criteria.
They are now paying 8% interest on the repayments to Revenue. What a waste of money.
But it's government money, given to the organisation, to be given back to government via Revenue, so they don't care.
Very easy to spend public money. If this was a private organisation they'd be bankrupt. Once again the taxpayer will have to step in and fill the void.
€100 on option B
Yes and in this case they are leveraging that state policy to build their empire and make themselves increasingly indispensable.
Many charities do this, started small often by passionate volunteers dedicated to providing a certain service not covered by the state. Then hire a full time administrator and fundraiser/ lobbyist and before you know it, the volunteers are gone, and they have a large payroll with multiple obligations.
Or option C, you are not a Revenue Accessor, this is not a "normal business" and they were perfectly entitled to warehouse their liability.
Where the 2020 and 2021 Income Tax return shows the taxpayer did not meet the requirement of a 25% reduction in income compared to 2019, the debt will be removed from warehousing, the due dates will revert to legislative due dates for Income Tax and full statutory interest will apply.
If I was donating money to PMVT, I would be pretty annoyed at 8% interest going to Revenue out of my donation. You can see why I stopped donating to the poverty industry over a decade ago.
If you believe that they were perfectly entitled to warehouse their liability, put up the link to the Revenue criteria that allowed it. Nobody else on here can find it.
State Policy? There is a clue there.
The only question needs to be asked and answered is are they more efficient at providing the services they provide than the councils and ministries who should be providing them.
A phased payment arrangement, which is what they have entered into, is used by Revenue to collect tax debt. So it could be possible that Revenue realised PMVT incorrectly entered into warehousing, called the debt, and now the only option available to PMVT is to use a phased payment arrangement to repay what they owe.
Phased repayment in this instance is used by Revenue to collect 10s of 1000s of businesses warehouse debt.
You have absolutely no evidence to suggest this Trust did not qualify for it, apart from some lad on the internet who isn't qualified suggesting it is.
You are the one claiming fraud, it's up to you prove it not me.
IF they didn't qualify subsequently they would have been removed. From Revenue.
On the contrary, on the evidence available PMVT did not qualify for the published criteria. As I said, two options.
I'm not commenting on the issue of housing policy per se.
I'm commenting on the modus operandi of such charities.
I can see why this trust would have taken advantage of tax deferment to use the money in other ways. As it places them in a stronger position
But it was dishonest. It's like a trader collecting VAT on behalf of revenue, but then spending this and not being able to pay the VAT when due. Such taxes as income and VAT are not belonging to the businesses or charities, they should be put aside and paid when due.
Dishonest.
He's using the Revenue guidelines and the published accounts. Not much more he can do to satisfy you.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/04cbf1b64e8b0e561c543c5b1091ba30.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/761dc761e98b4e4a2ae41c6abf8a928b.svg)
