<snip>
I didn't realise that there was so much money flowing through the Trust. In around €50m in 2022 alone.
Threadbans
Boggles
AndrewJRenko
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.
“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,”
Do you think maybe Revenue may know more than him though, has that crossed your mind?
I think Revenue has realised that PMVT should not have been on any debt warehousing scheme, based on the publicly available financial accounts, and have called in the tax debt which has now forced PMVT to enter into a Phased Payment Arrangement.
Well that would make them defaulters a list of which is Published.
You don't get published as a defaulter when you enter a phased payment arrangement
Publication in the List of Tax Defaulters is a consequence of reaching a settlement with Revenue meeting such defined criteria, and is not negotiable. Likewise, legislation obliges Revenue to publish Penalty Determinations by the courts, where defined criteria are met.
Nope.
They claimed the liability relief for the duration of the scheme or until all Covid measures were removed and like 10s of 1000s of other businesses they have now entered into the phased repayment part which was a defined process when they entered the scheme.
Hopefully the investigation by the regulator will clarify how things stand...
I wonder how many of the other 850 or so housing charities used these tax arrangements.
A settlement is not a phased payment arrangement.
You don't know what you're talking about.
😂
Sure I don't.
Yep, I am sure you don't.
"Settlements are published when the extensive voluntary disclosure options are not availed of and the default arises because of careless or deliberate behaviour:"
If you are in the Phased Payment Arrangements, then you have availed of one of the extensive voluntary disclosure options and you are not liable to be published.
Still waiting for that link to explain how PMVT correctly availed of the warehousing arrangements. Will I be waiting much longer?
But there is no suggestion of any default from Revenue or any other sort of impropriety or anyone for that matter except for you and another person on here who seem to have reached their conclusions not because of reality but because of some dislike of the Trust?
Would that be fair and accurate?
If phased payment arrangements get published in the tax defaulters list, could you explain why there aren't 10s of 1000s of businesses listed as defaulters please?
Out they go to where, exactly?
I live in the inner city. I dont want addicts sleeping in my street any more than you want them housed in your estate or apartment block.
Whether the work is done by public servants working for the local council or private sector workers employed by a charity, addicts etc still need to be provided for somehow.
And I wonder who has more financial irregularities, PVT or (wherever)CC.
I never suggested there was 10s of 1000s of tax defaulters or that the Trust defaulted.
The was a conspiracy theory cooked up by you and primarily another user.
Do you need quotes?
Your words: "Phased repayment in this instance is used by Revenue to collect 10s of 1000s of businesses warehouse debt."
My response: "You don't get published as a defaulter when you enter a phased payment arrangement"
Your response: "Publication in the List of Tax Defaulters is a consequence of reaching a settlement with Revenue meeting such defined criteria, and is not negotiable. Likewise, legislation obliges Revenue to publish Penalty Determinations by the courts, where defined criteria are met."
Clearly you inferred that entering a phased payment arrangement with Revenue puts you on the tax defaulters list.
Anyway I'm finished engaging with you now, you are either a troll or a moron, unsure which.
Phased Repayment in this instance
Nice, have a good one. 👍️
This is quite bizarre. It was you who said that if they would be in the tax defaulters list if there was something wrong. All I said and the other poster was that wasn't the case.
I go back to what I said earlier. There are only two possibilities:
(1) Revenue misapplied its own rules and erroneously let PMVT avail of tax debt warehousing.
(2) PMVT misled Revenue either through incompetence or deliberately about their income situation.
Somebody has questions to answer. Also, the auditors have big questions to answer as they should have picked up when doing the 2020 accounts that PMVT didn't qualify.
Still waiting for the links and explanations as to how and why PMVT correctly availed of the debt warehousing.
So far it appears that PMVT has more financial irregularities. Furthermore, as there are no councillors in charge of PMVT, there is no democratic accountability. We can elect different councillors every five years if a council is incompetent or has financial irregularities.
So it is a concerted conspiracy?
I will tell you what, if the PwC or who every is doing the report uncovers that it was indeed a concerted enterprise then I'll be the first to hold my hands up.
I'm sure you will be doing the same if they don't, correct?
It is clear that PMVT were not entitled to avail of tax debt warehousing. Who is responsible for that error is not clear. My belief is that the issue lies with PMVT, and I am convinced that the review will uncover an awful lot.
It is clear that PMVT were not entitled to avail of tax debt warehousing.
Are you a tax accountant or do you work revenue?
Don't need to be a tax accountant to understand basic English.
Maths really.
The Trust is fraudulent, so are the Auditors and Revenue are complicit.
If there is absolutely no room for doubt in your own opinion it's pointless discussing it with you so.
So we will have to leave it there.
You see, I didn't say that. I offered a number of explanations. You have lumped alternative explanations into one and put them all together.
It may well have been incompetence on the part of PMVT rather than fraud and rather than Revenue being complicit. The auditors may have seen a letter from Revenue and taken it as face value, again through incompetence.
However, such a finding raises even more serious questions of the €50m a year poured into PMVT by the taxpayer. If they are so incompetent in accounting for Revenue, what trust can we have in their competence to manage €50m.
This is a very serious issue, there will be more revelations, somebody's head will have to roll.
They don't get 50m a year plus they are making their repayments to Revenue.
You are making things up again.
If homelessness is on the rise the cost to deal with it will also rise.
That's a governance issue, they say where taxpayer money goes.
Regardless of tax issues, we have to question if they are providing value for money. According to the revenue reported in their accounts and the numbers they provide shelter for, it works out at a cost of €2,200 per person per month.
Quite damning report in today's INDO.
Quite having very worth ambitions, a lot of these organisations still rely on volunteer run Boards of Management. The ABH sector has only just had a statutory regulator appointed in the last couple of years as well after years of voluntary regulation. The entire concept of voluntary regulation is a sham. One wonders what is going on in other housing organisations?
While we still see many of them as charities, in reality they are significant businesses looking at their operations, turnover, and staff numbers. All being managed by volunteer boards!!
Significant donations as well. These two paragraphs from the Indo summarise well the issues.
Rival operators in the sector fear the consequences of this financial crisis, and are scathing of how McVerry has operated in recent years. But they also argue the Government needs to consider how it has contributed to the difficulties in the sector.
“Ultimately, the Government has failed to get a handle on housing and homelessness. They underpay for services, because they know people will be guilted into donating to make up the shortfall,” one source in the sector said.
There's no contradiction at all in being both a charity and significant business — why would there be? What is there in the notion of "charity" that confines charities and their activities to being insignificant?
A charity i know the donkey work is done by staff on CE schemes
The scheme covers upskilling and training
That's all free for the charity
It's not free. Community employment sponsor organisations - whether charities or not - do not pay the scheme workers, but they do have extensive obligations and commitments to the DSP that it costs them money to fulfil.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/04cbf1b64e8b0e561c543c5b1091ba30.svg)
