Judge Laffoy saves Denis O'Brien €57,000,000

Hootanany · 08-09-2013 02:24PM

Weevil wrote: »

:eek:

:eek::eek::eek:

ucd.1985 · 08-09-2013 10:11PM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

She should have used the definition of a habitable home used by the revenue commissioners, namely being able to get access to running water and connected to electricity. Not actually connected but the capacity to be connected.

Well first of all the house wasn't purchased by him or held in his name at the time.

It was purchased by a company for investment purposes of which he was a shareholder

There was no lease in place between him and the company in respect of the house so its hard to argue it was available to him.

Busted Flat. · 08-09-2013 10:13PM

ucd.1985 wrote: »

Well first of all the house wasn't purchased by him or held in his name at the time.

It was purchased by a company in which he was a shareholder for investment purposes.

There was no lease in place between him and the company in respect of the house so its hard to argue it was available to him.

Crock O $hit.

Bozacke · 08-09-2013 10:19PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But that €57 was never ours nor ever going to be ours. DOB lives abroad for tax purposes but comes back here as often as he can within the rules. You tighten up those rules and he's not going to decide to pay tax here - he's just not going to come here as often.

No Johnny, I'm SORRY!! It's one thing if that was money O'Brien earned abroad, but he didn't it was money he got from an illegal contract (YES illegal!!) that he got under completely illegal and questionable circumstances more than likely thanks to brown envelopes to our elected officials, it was for an Irish Company that operated in Ireland with Irish employees and all the revenue was from overcharging Irish customers. Sadly DOB shouldn't only just be liable for the 57Mil tax, but he should be in jail!!

ucd.1985 · 08-09-2013 10:51PM

Bozacke wrote: »

No Johnny, I'm SORRY!! It's one thing if that was money O'Brien earned abroad, but he didn't it was money he got from an illegal contract (YES illegal!!) that he got under completely illegal and questionable circumstances more than likely thanks to brown envelopes to our elected officials, it was for an Irish Company that operated in Ireland with Irish employees and all the revenue was from overcharging Irish customers. Sadly DOB shouldn't only just be liable for the 57Mil tax, but he should be in jail!!

Not before those elected officials go to jail first.

They are the reason he got it so cheap. He didn't award the contract to himself!

Means Of Escape · 08-09-2013 11:02PM

Hats off to Michael o Leary,Michael Flatley ,Enya etc for residing here and paying their taxes.

Bozacke · 08-09-2013 11:03PM

ucd.1985 wrote: »

Not before those elected officials go to jail first.

They are the reason he got it so cheap. He didn't award the contract to himself!

They should all be in Jail!! Yes, DOB didn't award the contract to himself, but that certainly doesn't make him innocent!!! He's the one who was pushing the brown envelopes. It's criminal that people like this get away with stuff like this and thanks to all of these antics the country is falling apart, but it's not the likes of DOB that are suffering, it's the poor, honest working people that are suffering. This behaviour has ruined this country, innocent children are being punished because of all of this, people like Fiachra Daly have killed themselves because of the state of things, yet DOB can live like a king and I also have to wonder what kind of an envelope DOB gave to judge Mary Laffoy. I've never believed in the death penalty, but to be honest if some one killed DOB and the brown envelope receivers I'd be very happy!

Bozacke · 08-09-2013 11:05PM

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Hats off to Michael o Leary,Michael Flatley ,Enya etc for residing here and paying their taxes.

Yet, the Irish government (FF & FG) seems to have it in for O'Leary, meanwhile they seem to love DOB!!!

wonderfullife · 08-09-2013 11:21PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Those two statements are disgraceful especially the latter which clearly seeks to impugn the integrity of the Judge and clearly infers that she swayed by the fact the she is allegedly Mr O'Brien's neighbour (though since he is a resident of Portugal I fail to see how that can be).

I trust that once Judge Laffoy becomes aware of the nature of these allegations she will take action on them.

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

But not so incidental that you needed throw it out there as a poorly veiled inference of Judicial misconduct.
I'm very surprised Cody, usually I welcome your posts, but you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this particular judge and I believe you have crossed a line.

lol were you born Sir Humphrey Laffoy or whats it to you that someone makes throw-away remarks on AH? Which you then hope are pursued by Ms Laffoy!

Lmao. Chill out. It's After Hours. Half the population of After Hours thinks politicians, lawyers, Judges and the like are shifty and shady and have a different rule of law applied to them.

We saw it the other day with that Fr. Molloy thread!! There's a priest murdered at a house party full of people of the above named professions and not one person ever convicted of his murder.....in a pretty blatant open and shut type of case! The classic Cluedo type case where it actually had to be one of the guests present!

Anyway chill. The way you're carrying on is implying Ms Laffoy will be tipped off "anonymously" that she's got a bit of flak on boards!!

Nodin · 08-09-2013 11:38PM

ucd.1985 wrote: »

Not before those elected officials go to jail first.

...........

We'll be skating in hell before that happens, as ye well know. Nor would it fair of any of us to think that Dinny was the only one involved in dodgy dealings - many have sinned, damn few have been named and shamed.

HansHolzel · 09-09-2013 12:00AM

There is only one practical move an Irish government with even half a testicle could and should do: make all Irish citizens, no matter where they live, liable for Irish taxes and, if they refuse to pay, refuse to renew their passports.

wonderfullife · 09-09-2013 12:29AM

HansHolzel wrote: »

There is only one practical move an Irish government with even half a testicle could and should do: make all Irish citizens, no matter where they live, liable for Irish taxes and, if they refuse to pay, refuse to renew their passports.

That's a load of nonsense.

So you're telling me if you emigrate to the UK, Australia, ummm anywhere, work and pay tax in that country, you should be taxed in Ireland too?

Every U.S. citizen files a tax return , regardless of where they live. However if they pay tax in the country they live in, they usually pay zero in american tax.

your proposal is effectively - emigrate if you want but if you dont pay us tax, dont come back. Lovely.

HansHolzel · 09-09-2013 12:33AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

That's a load of nonsense.

So you're telling me if you emigrate to the UK, Australia, ummm anywhere, work and pay tax in that country, you should be taxed in Ireland too?

Every U.S. citizen files a tax return , regardless of where they live. However if they pay tax in the country they live in, they usually pay zero in american tax.

your proposal is effectively - emigrate if you want but if you dont pay us tax, dont come back. Lovely.

Sorry JP

osarusan · 09-09-2013 02:12AM

HansHolzel wrote: »

There is only one practical move an Irish government with even half a testicle could and should do: make all Irish citizens, no matter where they live, liable for Irish taxes and, if they refuse to pay, refuse to renew their passports.

Practical? It's practically retarded.

HansHolzel · 09-09-2013 09:50AM

osarusan wrote: »

Practical? It's practically retarded.

Sorry Denis. I should have known better. Tax-dodging crooks are heroes and ordinary citizens are only the little people who pay taxes.

Retarded is the word for your cheerleaders, though.

Bozacke · 09-09-2013 10:38AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

That's a load of nonsense.

So you're telling me if you emigrate to the UK, Australia, ummm anywhere, work and pay tax in that country, you should be taxed in Ireland too?

Every U.S. citizen files a tax return , regardless of where they live. However if they pay tax in the country they live in, they usually pay zero in american tax.

your proposal is effectively - emigrate if you want but if you dont pay us tax, dont come back. Lovely.

Only partially correct. Every U.S. citizen files a tax return, regardless of where they live is correct. However if they pay tax in the country they live in, they usually pay zero in American tax, but only up to a certain amount. If they make over a certain amount, they also are required to pay US taxes as well.

Ireland could have something similar to that, so if you make under say €300K abroad and are paying taxes elsewhere you would be exempt from Irish taxes, but anything over that limited would also be taxed in Ireland. This wouldn't impact the young kids who leave the country looking for work, but it would impact the millionaire cheats like DOB.

Finally, if DOB owned ESAT at the time an Irish company that was based in Ireland, with all Irish customers, how the F* could he be considered a non-resident?? I’m sorry, you can’t have your bread buttered on both sides! This POS was illegally given a licence that was way undervalued, it was an Irish company operating exclusively in Ireland with all Irish customers being overcharged and then sells it for a massive profit and then this stupid c*&t tells him he doesn’t have to pay tax! What kind of a country are we living in?

Yes, it’s time for a revolution!!!!!!!!!!

gramar · 09-09-2013 10:48AM

So is he going to pay CGT in Portugal?

Ray Palmer · 09-09-2013 11:14AM

Busted Flat. wrote: »

Crock O $hit.

Wonder what information you have that makes this true. It has been trough legal testing and it was decided he didn't have the house to live in. What makes you know better?

Marcusm · 09-09-2013 12:06PM

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Hats off to Michael o Leary,Michael Flatley ,Enya etc for residing here and paying their taxes.

I'll agree with you on MO 'L but Enya is likely to have benefitted significantly from artists exemption in her prime years, say 88-98. Flatley was born in Chicago of an Irish father who, to my knowledge, as never returned to live in Ireland and will likely have asserted non Dom status meaning not taxable on his non Irish income.

Rightly or wrongly, DO'B (for whom I hold no particular benefit) would be better compared with Tony O'Reilly (the irony), Michael Smurfit etc. the Irish tax residence rules were substantially changed in 1994 permitting the day count approach. Previously, the place of abode test severely limited the options available to these guys.

Cody Pomeray · 09-09-2013 12:50PM

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

But not so incidental that you needed throw it out there as a poorly veiled inference of Judicial misconduct.
I'm very surprised Cody, usually I welcome your posts, but you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this particular judge and I believe you have crossed a line.

It is entirely legitimate, in a free and democratic society, to comment upon judicial decisions and judicial appointments.

I have nothing against Laffoy as a human person. She is a gifted professional. I disagree with her appointment to the Supreme Court because it seems overly political, because she doesn't have a remarkable track record outside of land/ conveyancing where she is needed, and because she is near retirement anyway.

ucd.1985 wrote: »

I disagree, and obviously his advisors were comfortable that a house under rennovation could not be classed a habitable home, never mind a permanent home available to DO'B.

If there was a possibility of this they would have ensured that the house was rented out for the period concerned.

you disagree because O'Brien got legal advice to the contrary?

Eh, both sides have obviously taken legal advice.

Go into the commercial court today and you will see a big list of respondents who had once believed, on the basis of legal advice, that they should not have ended up there.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

On both occasions she applied the law as it stood without regard to the unpopular nature of the decisions. That's good judging.

No she did not apply the law as it stood, because the Supreme Court allowed the appeals against her judgements in those cases.

In Mr A and Fyffes, Laffoy stated the law as it stood, but erred in her interpretation of its application to the cases before her. These were seriously problematic judgements, and I suggest so is the O'Brien judgement and I hope for the exchequer's sake that Revenue appeal it.

If hate to live in a world where judges just ignored the law in favour of popularity, because once they've finished with the businessmen, sex offenders and any other group they don't like, what's to stop them coming after me?

I've criticized the judgement on its substance, and in light of Laffoy's over-reliance on some of the authorities opened to her over other (I would say) more applicable case law - or even 'ordinary language' - which she disregarded in full or in part. I didn't say this decision is bad because it may be unpopular.

We either live in a nation of laws or we don't, and I think Ms Justice Laffoy is one of our best judges because she understands this.

That's hardly a very informative statement, I'm quite certain all members of the judiciary, all lawyers, law students, toddlers and canids understand that this is a 'nation of laws'.

Marcusm wrote: »

Even if the house was habitable, would it not also be necessary to pierce the corporate veil to determine that it was available to him? If you can get that far, I'm sure he had plenty of other habitable investment properties in Ireland at the time.

It wouldn't necessarily be necessary to overcome the nominal corporate ownership of the house, no, and that was not relied on in court by counsel for O Brien.

Marcusm · 09-09-2013 01:04PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

It wouldn't necessarily be necessary to overcome the nominal corporate ownership of the house, no, and that was not relied on in court by counsel for O Brien.

Can you elaborate on why you think the corporate ownership was "nominal", was it merely registered there witha declaration of trust in his favour? I ask because, historically, the Irish Supreme Court has been loathe to conflate corporates and their shareholders in tax cases particularly, contrast McGrath with Furniss or Ramsay on substantially the same facts.

Cody Pomeray · 09-09-2013 01:18PM

Marcusm wrote: »

Can you elaborate on why you think the corporate ownership was "nominal", was it merely registered there witha declaration of trust in his favour?

Simply because it was controlled by DOB, and because neither parties attached any significance to Partenay being the owner.

The question really turns on whether 6 Raglan Road was a permanent home and whether, as such, was "available to" DOB:

(a) he shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State in which he has a permanent home available to him; if he has a permanent home available to him in both Contracting States, he shall be deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State with which his personal and economic relations are closer (centre of vital interests);

The fact that DOB does not, or did not, personally own it is of doubtful relevance.

Marcusm · 09-09-2013 01:29PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Simply because it was controlled by DOB, and because neither parties attached any significance to Partenay being the owner.

The question really turns on whether 6 Raglan Road was a permanent home and whether, as such, was "available to" DOB:

The fact that DOB does not, or did not, personally own it is of doubtful relevance.

I've now found the decision; I find it odd that the existence of the company was disregarded so completely without any consideration. The casual cross referring to Parteney and then to DO'B's ownership must derive from the case stated and any supplemental argument which must have disregarded it completely. In the context of corporate tax planning, I find this peculiar (my experience goes to UK Court of Appeal level as a non advocate adviser). If this was followed more broadly, very little corporate tax planning would succeed.

The party political aspects can be completely sidelined, however - the appeal commissioner was Bertie's brother in law.

Sir Humphrey Appleby · 09-09-2013 01:31PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Simply because it was controlled by DOB, and because neither parties attached any significance to Partenay being the owner.

The question really turns on whether 6 Raglan Road was a permanent home and whether, as such, was "available to" DOB:

The fact that DOB does not, or did not, personally own it is of doubtful relevance.

Surely Cody, the point is that both Revenue Appeals and the High Court have reached the same conclusion based on all the evidence placed before them.
That still makes your contention that Judge Laffoy saved DOB €7 million somewhat misleading. She saved him nothing, the tax code saved him €57.
I still fail to see why you are attributing blame to the Judge.

Cody Pomeray · 09-09-2013 01:39PM

Marcusm wrote: »

I've now found the decision; I find it odd that the existence of the company was disregarded so completely without any consideration.

Again, the Convention does not explicitly discern between property which is owned or which otherwise available to a resident of the jurisdiction.

Ownership may be of assistance, but the question does not turn on it. The fact that 6 Raglan Road was being expensively and vastly renovated to suit the taste of DOB and his family could be enough to make it a permanent and available home.

The party political aspects can be completely sidelined, however - the appeal commissioner was Bertie's brother in law.

That's interesting, but to clarify, I'm not suggesting that Laffoy found in DOB's favour because of FG links.

Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »

Surely Cody, the point is that both Revenue Appeals and the High Court have reached the same conclusion based on all the evidence placed before them.

That is not contested, I am contesting the basis upon which Laffoy arrived at her determination; namely her over reliance on dubious authorities over others which might be of greater relevance. I suspect Revenue will appeal.

ucd.1985 · 09-09-2013 01:42PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

you disagree because O'Brien got legal advice to the contrary?

Eh, both sides have obviously taken legal advice.

It wouldn't necessarily be necessary to overcome the nominal corporate ownership of the house, no, and that was not relied on in court by counsel for O Brien.

I said "I disagree and..." not "disagree because".

Counsel did not rely on this argument but the facts are that it was purchased by a company for investment purposes rather than purchased by him directly.

The fact that it counsel didnt rely on it doesnt make this untrue. It purely displays that they were of the opinion that the argument that the house was inhabitable was a stronger argument.

Ray Palmer · 09-09-2013 01:44PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That is not contested, I am contesting the basis upon which Laffoy arrived at her determination; namely her over reliance on dubious authorities over others which might be of greater relevance. I suspect Revenue will appeal.

So what are you saying you are contesting exactly? It seems pretty straight forward that the house was not liveable at the time they claim it was. Multiple people testified to this fact. His company owned the building not him personally. He wasn't living there so what is their to contest?

ucd.1985 · 09-09-2013 01:45PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Again, the Convention does not explicitly discern between property which is owned or which otherwise available to a resident of the jurisdiction.

Ownership may be of assistance, but the question does not turn on it. The fact that 6 Raglan Road was being expensively and vastly renovated to suit the taste of DOB and his family could be enough to make it a permanent and available home.

How could it be available to him when it was not held in his name nor was there a lease in place between him and the company?

Cody Pomeray · 09-09-2013 01:51PM

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So what are you saying you are contesting exactly?

see above

ucd.1985 wrote: »

How could it be available to him when it was not held in his name nor was there a lease in place between him and the company?

[23]..."The appellant acknowledged, under cross-examination, that he and his wife could have, if they had so chosen, moved into the house at the time of purchase, but that the house would not have been suitable for his family (para. 9.1.2)."

The house was not suitable for the family because it didn't suit their personal tastes.

To say this necessitates that the house "was not available to" the family is obviously problematic.

It is also problematic to suggest that there was no permanence to the arrangement, given that so much planning and effort was going into equipping the house to meet DOB's personal tastes and apparently nobody else's.

And if the tests of "permanent" and "available to" are met, then all else being equal, Laffoy's judgement should fall.

CruelCoin · 09-09-2013 02:00PM

Augmerson wrote: »

1 rule for us, different rules for them. In which I mean no ****ing rules apply.

The same law applies to everyone.

You could avail of the same loopholes if you wanted.

The fact that people don't have a second home to avail of it does not change the interpretation or implementation of this loophole.

Judge Laffoy saves Denis O'Brien €57,000,000

Comments