Will Bertie resign over payments???

Darragh29

I'm literally falling off the couch laughing at him here! He received 39K from a group of businessmen, it was a loan, 13 years later he hasn't paid a penny back nor any interest, he offered to pay it back to the donors but they refused to take any money from him!!! HAHAHA! He had no money, and he was the ****in Minister for Finance, would someone hand me a tissue and help me back up onto the couch, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

axelfoley

Darragh29 wrote:

would someone hand me a tissue and help me back up onto the couch, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

What politicians have not received personal donations??

If Personal donations were a resigning issue - they'd be plenty of empty seats in the Dail.

LostinBlanch

Not a bloody snowballs chance in hell will he resign.

Had to laugh at the "debt of honour" comments though. So the debt if paid back today would be approximately €200,000 (as said by Hook on Newstalk).

makes Ivor Callelly's paint job look positively cheap.

Neck like a jockeys bollix and all that.

Darragh29

axelfoley wrote:

What politicians have not received personal donations??

If Personal donations were a resigning issue - they'd be plenty of empty seats in the Dail.

I'm sorry mate, when someone gives you 40K, you have to declare it to Revenue and pay income tax on it. If I gave you 40K and you don't declare it to Revenue and Revenue find this out down the road (13 years down the road), you would be literally RUINED. If you tried telling them this sob story, you would be prosecuted for not cooperating with them, wasting their time and misleading them. This guy is making me pi*s myself here, he's currently getting paid about 250K a year and he hasn't made an effort to pay off this "loan"! This never was a "loan", it's only being pedalled as a "loan" now as a mechanism to prevent him having to say that it was in fact a loan that he should have paid tax on it. If the donors would not accept repayment of the "loan", he should have made a donation to charity, end of issue.

Darragh29

LostinBlanch wrote:

Not a bloody snowballs chance in hell will he resign.

Had to laugh at the "debt of honour" comments though. So the debt if paid back today would be approximately €200,000 (as said by Hook on Newstalk).

makes Ivor Callelly's paint job look positively cheap.

Neck like a jockeys bollix and all that.

De chaps a gonner I think.

axelfoley

axelfoley wrote:

What politicians have not received personal donations??

Ah, but can you say 'what Taoisigh have not received personal donations'. Especially a Taoiseach who has made much of matters like transparency and ending the culture of donations.

Dave!

Very poor excuse, I don't believe him for a minute.

Can't wait for leader's questions!

ateam

DaveMcG wrote:

Very poor excuse, I don't believe him for a minute.

Can't wait for leader's questions!

Why? Enda Kenny will underperform again and show his incompetence.

Bertie is allowed to receive money from other people...I just don't get why he didn't pay them back

Darragh29

ateam wrote:

Bertie is allowed to receive money from other people...I just don't get why he didn't pay them back

Because he didn't think he was gonna get found out!!!

It could be a timely moment for his departure.

Those in FF would see it as giving the backbenchers chance in the next election. Particularly if they had the bottle to put in someone like Hanafin and not someone like Cowen.

Those outside FF...well they never really liked him anyway.

Darragh29

Darragh29 wrote:

I'm sorry mate, when someone gives you 40K, you have to declare it to Revenue and pay income tax on it. If I gave you 40K and you don't declare it to Revenue and Revenue find this out down the road (13 years down the road), you would be literally RUINED. If you tried telling them this sob story, you would be prosecuted for not cooperating with them, wasting their time and misleading them.

Uhm... he said in the interview that he has broken no law and has been tax compliant in relation to this-so he did declare it.
At least if you're going to talk about this and make a case for resignation,you'd want to have that part of the case right.

This guy is making me pi*s myself here, he's currently getting paid about 250K a year and he hasn't made an effort to pay off this "loan"!

He said he had, but frankly thats not good enough.He could have put the funds into a separate account in their names when he had it(he wasnt earning 250k back then nor anything like it) or donated it to charity.

This never was a "loan", it's only being pedalled as a "loan" now as a mechanism to prevent him having to say that it was in fact a loan that he should have paid tax on it. If the donors would not accept repayment of the "loan", he should have made a donation to charity, end of issue.

Well legally the simple fact of the matter is that if it was declared to the revenue commissioners as an interest free loan,thats exactly what it is,like it or lump it.

Threads merged

What I find un ethical the most here is that some of the names who contributed to the loans are on state bodies,it seems.
Thats where the Teflon Taoiseach is going to find holes in his teflon.

gandalf

Can't see how he can stay on now without causing extreme damage to FF's re-election prospects next year. I'm hoping of course that he does.

How anyone can sit there and say that it was a loan when after 12 years and he hasn't paid a penny back is beyond me. Bertie "Daffy Duck" Ahern eh !!!

gandalf

gandalf wrote:

How anyone can sit there and say that it was a loan when after 12 years and he hasn't paid a penny back is beyond me. Bertie "Daffy Duck" Ahern eh !!!

Thats the other Big problem for Bertie-will the public accept his version of events ie that it was really a loan and not just technically a loan.
I doubt that they will.
Its stark bleeding obvious that Bertie would not have paid anything back if this was not out in the open.

By the way,I might add, and this will make ye all laugh but loans are as far as I know tax free I'm not entirely sure whether theres a liability arising out of "gift" tax in relation to fore gone interest.Maybe if theres an accountant reading this they might clarify.

Darragh29

Tristrame wrote:

By the way,I might add, and this will make ye all laugh but loans are as far as I know tax free I'm not entirely sure whether theres a liability arising out of "gift" tax in relation to fore gone interest.Maybe if theres an accountant reading this they might clarify.

Loans are tax free, interest on loans is taxable.

Tristrame wrote:

Uhm... he said in the interview that he has broken no law and has been tax compliant in relation to this-so he did declare it.
At least if you're going to talk about this and make a case for resignation,you'd want to have that part of the case right.

Yes, he said in the interview all of the above. He is tax compliant if you accept his version of events that this was a loan, that he has yet to make a single payment off even though 13 years have passed since he received the funds! The point I'm making is that if this was you or I and Revenue found out that 13 years ago, you received a 40K loan, they wouldn't ask you would you kindly start making repayments on the loan you recieved 13 years ago!!! They would fu*king RUIN you!!! It would be very simple, they would treat it as undeclared income. They'd do a tax calculation on what you should have paid back then, with 13 years interest & penalties, you'd end up with a tax bill of well over 200K today, if you couldn't pay it, they'd just take your house or else look for committal. This is simple fact. This guy should resign because by giving us this story, he's trying to make complete fools of all of us, I have my facts fully correct, the facts are if they happened anyone else, you'd be looking at financial ruin, your house being taken from under you, or else a spell in prison.

He said he had, but frankly thats not good enough.He could have put the funds into a separate account in their names when he had it(he wasnt earning 250k back then nor anything like it) or donated it to charity.Well legally the simple fact of the matter is that if it was declared to the revenue commissioners as an interest free loan,thats exactly what it is,like it or lump it.

He didn't declare it to Revenue as an interest free lump sum! That's my point, he didn't declare it to anyone at any stage, so in my opinion he has deprived himself of any right to declare it in this manner now, 13 years later when he's been caught out. If this didn't come out of the washing for another 13 years, he still wouldn't have paid any of it back, should we still look at it as a "loan" 26 years after he received the funds but still hadn't declared it or starting making repayments??? His argument is all over the place. He said he will start repaying the loans now with interest. 13 years later, the interest will be more than the principal loan amounts he received!?!?! If he was ever going to pay this back "with interest" as he has said he will now, he would have done so years ago to minimise the interest...

gandalf

One name from the list sprang out at me.

Des Richardson, In 1994 Bertie approved the granting of tax incentives to land that was part owned by Des Richardson, hmmmm is it connected !!! I wonder.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=209581&issue_id=2243

Must start doing some research on the others !!!

Darragh29

Darragh29 wrote:

Loans are tax free, interest on loans is taxable.[

You mean the benefit of not paying any interest.

Yes, he said in the interview all of the above. He is tax compliant if you accept his version of events that this was a loan, that he has yet to make a single payment off even though 13 years have passed since he received the funds! The point I'm making is that if this was you or I and Revenue found out that 13 years ago, you received a 40K loan, they wouldn't ask you would you kindly start making repayments on the loan you recieved 13 years ago!!! They would fu*king RUIN you!!! It would be very simple, they would treat it as undeclared income. They'd do a tax calculation on what you should have paid back then, with 13 years interest & penalties, you'd end up with a tax bill of well over 200K today, if you couldn't pay it, they'd just take your house or else look for committal. This is simple fact. This guy should resign because by giving us this story, he's trying to make complete fools of all of us, I have my facts fully correct, the facts are if they happened anyone else, you'd be looking at financial ruin, your house being taken from under you, or else a spell in prison.

That point seems irrelevant though given that Ahern says he's tax compliant on the matter,ie the funds were declared to the revenue as a loan.Legally thats all he,I or you have to do with a loan.

He didn't declare it to Revenue as an interest free lump sum! That's my point, he didn't declare it to anyone at any stage, so in my opinion he has deprived himself of any right to declare it in this manner now, 13 years later when he's been caught out.

Hang on where are you getting that information? Have you access to Aherns revenue details.He has said that he's broken no tax law.You cant say that he has unless you have evidence do you ?

If this didn't come out of the washing for another 13 years, he still wouldn't have paid any of it back, should we still look at it as a "loan" 26 years after he received the funds but still hadn't declared it or starting making repayments???

Legally if its declared to the Revenue as a loan,thats what it is.Morally of course its something different.

His argument is all over the place. He said he will start repaying the loans now with interest. 13 years later, the interest will be more than the principal loan amounts he received!?!?! If he was ever going to pay this back "with interest" as he has said he will now, he would have done so years ago to minimise the interest...

Yes but you are forgetting the other bit that he said.He said that they wouldnt take the money but that they would now obviously because of the mess its causing.
I'm pretty sure that he'll have to document that to both the revenue and the tribunal and of course he'll get lots of tax relief on the interest

Sorry you have to laugh.

This does have consequences for him politically of course but not legally.

Darragh29

Tristrame wrote:

That point seems irrelevant though given that Ahern says he's tax compliant on the matter,ie the funds were declared to the revenue as a loan.Legally thats all he,I or you have to do with a loan.
Hang on where are you getting that information? Have you access to Aherns revenue details.He has said that he's broken no tax law.You cant say that he has unless you have evidence do you ? Legally if its declared to the Revenue as a loan,thats what it is.Morally of course its something different.Yes but you are forgetting the other bit that he said.He said that they wouldnt take the money but that they would now obviously because of the mess its causing.

Tristrame, he is assuming he has broken no tax law and is tax complaint as he has convinced himself that this was a "loan" as opposed to undeclared income and undeclared income is what it would be if it happened to any of the rest of us. If he did declare this to Revenue as a loan when he received it, do you not think he would have made this point in his defence this evening??? Also, if he did decide to declare it as a loan 13 years ago, he would have had to declare the amount & term of the loan, number of repayments and interest rate. More importantly, he would have had to start making the payments that he just told us an hour ago that he couldn't afford to make at the time, so this proves that his story he is throwing out is an utter load of sh*te.

On what basis are you arguing that he did declare this to Revenue when he received the "loan", seeing as you are saying that I'm not in a position to know whether he did or did not declare it???

constitutionus

*edit. in reference to tristrames comments on the previous page *

i wouldnt be so sure about that. if you dont pay any instalments on your "loan" in the first tax year surely its then taken as a gift? after 13yrs i dont see how anyone in the revenue commisioners can see it as anything but a gift.

theres a lot of inconsistancys in berties interview too. why did he get the loans when he already had one covering his debts from AIB in oconnell street? he may have lost all his savings and house in the seperation (like any other man in the family law courts :rolleyes: ) but he was still on 3 times the average industrial wage of the time with the guarentee of an indexed linked ministerial pension of at least the average industrial wage. theres no way he couldnt pay that loan back. which is why id like to see when that AIB loan was repaid, if its 93/94 thats the money the lads gave him. if not then the money he got off the lads went elsewhere.

nice to see a few dead guys involved as per usual again. according to bertie he didnt ask for the money, his solicitor friend (dead) organised it. apparently they forced the cash into his wallet. the waterworks also looked a bit put on too.

all in all id give bertie an "A" for effort but theres still alot of questions to be answered and some of em off the revenue commisioners! when the hell did they find out about this. and the whole matter of it being a "loan", some of the guys are dead now! a loans only a loan if you pay it back. he didnt so its not. berties doing it now but how much, he went on about how he was an accountant so is he going to apply inflation over the 13yrs and interest? this is dodgy in the extreme. if callely can get the sack over a paintjob berties in serious trouble over this. the last time i ever heard anyone say they didnt pay a loan back cause they didnt ask was haughey!

look at it this way if you won the lotto tonight and gave 4 of your friends 10k each they would have to pay gift tax on it cause it exceeds the 3k yearly limit you can give someone. this is a hell of alot more than that cause the limit in 93 was a lot less

constitutionus

ateam wrote:

Why? Enda Kenny will underperform again and show his incompetence.

enda and pat may thread litely but you can bet joe higgins will tear lumps out of him. god im looking forward to this one

DMC

I'll go back to the question posed in the topic.....

Will Bertie resign over payments???

And I will answer it in two words....

Snap Election.

Darragh29

constitutionus wrote:

enda and pat may thread litely but you can bet joe higgins will tear lumps out of him. god im looking forward to this one

I reckon he'll be gone by this time next week. It's his own party that will turn on him on this occasion I think. They have an election around the corner, his performance & explanation's tonight present a real risk to all FF seats.

We've seen some serious murmerings coming from back bench TD's in the last few months and this is unprecedented on Bertie's watch they even put it up to him by threatening to form a party within a party for back bench TD's, these lads risk being unelectable next time if they have a leader who is making himself look like Fr. Ted...

Darragh29

Darragh29 wrote:

Tristrame, he is assuming he has broken no tax law and is tax complaint as he has convinced himself that this was a "loan" as opposed to undeclared income and undeclared income is what it would be if it happened to any of the rest of us. If he did declare this to Revenue as a loan when he received it, do you not think he would have made this point in his defence this evening???

No I dont think he would have made it, as he'd be a fool not to mention it if it wasnt declared.

Also, if he did decide to declare it as a loan 13 years ago, he would have had to declare the amount & term of the loan, number of repayments and interest rate. More importantly, he would have had to start making the payments that he just told us an hour ago that he couldn't afford to make at the time, so this proves that his story he is throwing out is an utter load of sh*te.

You are quite wrong there.You can declare an interest free loan to the revenue or you can declare a loan to the revenue that may require repayment,yet not make any payments.

On what basis are you arguing that he did declare this to Revenue when he received the "loan", seeing as you are saying that I'm not in a position to know whether he did or did not declare it???

Simple,he said he was tax compliant on the loans.If he wasnt he was lying and now that wouldnt be very clever.Of course you cant say he was lying about that without evidence.

constitutionus

constitutionus wrote:

*edit. in reference to tristrames comments on the previous page *

i wouldnt be so sure about that. if you dont pay any instalments on your "loan" in the first tax year surely its then taken as a gift? after 13yrs i dont see how anyone in the revenue commisioners can see it as anything but a gift.

yes but that would be for the revenue to decide.We dont know on what basis this was set up other than Ahern saying he was tax compliant on it.
I'd expect loads of questions in the Dáil about that tomorrow.

theres a lot of inconsistancys in berties interview too. why did he get the loans when he already had one covering his debts from AIB in oconnell street? he may have lost all his savings and house in the seperation (like any other man in the family law courts :rolleyes: ) but he was still on 3 times the average industrial wage of the time with the guarentee of an indexed linked ministerial pension of at least the average industrial wage. theres no way he couldnt pay that loan back. which is why id like to see when that AIB loan was repaid, if its 93/94 thats the money the lads gave him. if not then the money he got off the lads went elsewhere.

He says he got them to pay off bank loans covering the legal fees.Thats what he said the money was used for.
Incidently does anyone know how much this loan was for(the AIB one) and what security was used? Since his wife got the house,I'm not aware that Ahern would have had any security for a 50K loan at the time.

look at it this way if you won the lotto tonight and gave 4 of your friends 10k each they would have to pay gift tax on it cause it exceeds the 3k yearly limit you can give someone. this is a hell of alot more than that cause the limit in 93 was a lot less

Not if I "loaned" it to them.

Darragh29

Tristrame wrote:

Simple,he said he was tax compliant on the loans.If he wasnt he was lying and now that wouldnt be very clever.Of course you cant say he was lying about that without evidence.

Telling a lie and not telling the truth are two entirely different things!!! You appear to accept that now he has not declared this as a loan.

Tristrame wrote:

No I dont think he would have made it, as he'd be a fool not to mention it if it wasnt declared.

I take it that you now accept that he did not declare this to Revenue when he received it. I don't accept that it is open to him to declare it now, when he's obviously been "outed".

Tristrame wrote:

You are quite wrong there.You can declare an interest free loan to the revenue or you can declare a loan to the revenue that may require repayment,yet not make any payments.

Source please???

redtom

I hate the way these people play the emotional card i.e. some of the money went towards his kids education/college fees/whatever it was - this is blatant pulling of heart strings and has no place here

Darragh29

Tristrame wrote:

yes but that would be for the revenue to decide.We dont know on what basis this was set up other than Ahern saying he was tax compliant on it.
I'd expect loads of questions in the Dáil about that tomorrow.
He says he got them to pay off bank loans covering the legal fees.Thats what he said the money was used for.
Incidently does anyone know how much this loan was for(the AIB one) and what security was used? Since his wife got the house,I'm not aware that Ahern would have had any security for a 50K loan at the time.

Not if I "loaned" it to them.

You see the, the most devious and cunning of them all, as an acccountant and an ex Minister for Finance, knows full well that a "loan" is not defined within the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997 or any subsequent acts that ammended the TCA 1997, or any acts previous to it. There is nothing in the TCA 1997 or any tax act that I am aware of, prior to the 1997 act or subsequent to it, that says that you cannot give a loan to someone and accept repayment 50 years down the road. You do not even need to record and declare to Revenue the fact that it was a "loan". As far as I know, there are no definitions that limit the maximum term for a loan or when repayments must commence by after receiving the loan, hence why he found himself in a position where he never had to start making repayments, then if the money he received is discovered when he is like 90 years of age, he falls back on the "loan" story.

Effectively he is using a loophole in tax law to say that "technically" he is not in breach of any tax law.

Villain

Bertie Ahern has a made a fool of himself, that interview was pathetic seriously, does he think the people of Ireland are stupid???

"Oh ok lads I got 40 grand but now you know about it I'm going to pay it back and call it a loan"

He got a loan from AIB to cover the costs so why did he accept the money???

As for the emotion he showed, very sad effort of acting imo.

I think the fact that the McDowell hasn't said anything tonight speaks volumes, the PD's are afraid to defend him until they see the general reaction.

Bertie will be in Tullow Friday at the Ploughing so will be interesting to see how the public treat him.

constitutionus

redtom wrote:

I hate the way these people play the emotional card i.e. some of the money went towards his kids education/college fees/whatever it was - this is blatant pulling of heart strings and has no place here

in fairness though that would be on the level. its standard procedure in the family law courts to have the educational needs of the kids taken care of. particularly in the case of someone like bertie whos resouces would ensure they'dve got a good education anyway. still ususally its paid on an ongoing basis, so sticking 20k in an account for em seems a little strange. after all what if they both dropped out of school after the leaving? no need for a warchest for college then. could be something fishy going on here too!

you know the more i think about what berties said the more i think he's said more than we realise. remember you have to analyse everything the guy says from every possible angle. im not sure he'll resign but if ever the axe man was close this is it. the question is will biffo step up?