Bertiegate 2

brianthebard

Tristrame wrote:

heh you are going on about bertie Gate and you don't even know who the characters involved are...

Smacks to me yet again of the accuse first and don't bother with the details as they are somehow irrelevant.
That would be some practice if it were observed in a court...

No matter how innocent before guilty you treat the situation Ahern still has some serious answering to do. How do you think it would go down with the tax office, gardai, whatever, if I gave you a briefcase of cash? I don't want to think he's a criminal because that tells the international community that for the last ten years we've been led by someone who's dishonest and a political joke. Its a smack in the face to the Irish electorate. But this is really quite damning evidence.

El Stuntman

what's the full list now for the Bertmeister:

1. 50k 'loan' from his pals (never repaid until it was brought up)

2. Manchester whip-around

3. appointing his pals to State bodies 'because they were my friends'

4. this 30k

5. Quarryvale allegations

Am I missing anything? Starting to lose count here, surely the sheer volume of allegations must eventually have some effect (of course this being Ireland, he will probably get a bounce from it all, lol)

Glenbhoy

Am I missing anything? Starting to lose count here, surely the sheer volume of allegations must eventually have some effect (of course this being Ireland, he will probably get a bounce from it all, lol)

Yeah, according to yesterday's mail, there's also a probable $45,000, and the loan story seems to be unravelling.

LostinBlanch

Well,

Berties gamble has worked so far, the tribunal has bottled it and is adjourning until after the election.

I don't know whether Mahon is seen as a Fianna Fail appointee or not. Does anyone know?

Dub13

Ivor Calley had to walk for something like this,and IIRC that was only a lick of paint worth 2/3k.

brianthebard

brianthebard wrote:

No matter how innocent before guilty you treat the situation Ahern still has some serious answering to do.

Agreed.
However,I do put a pinch of salt on his "enemies" for want of a better word waving what are essentially allegations and treating them as proof.
Posters here are doing likewise.

How do you think it would go down with the tax office, gardai, whatever, if I gave you a briefcase of cash?

In Berties case I'll await and see how it is accounted for.At present I can go to my bank and take my ssia all out in cash and hand it to whomsoever I choose without telling anybody.
The money would be legitimate.
I simply don't know where Bertie/Celia spent this money supposedly for house repairs-Did they get a fitted kitchen? Did they get oil heating in? Did they replace the facia boards?All of which would have been expensive.
None of us know but hey don't let that stop some people running away with themselves.

The only thing so far here is a legitimate need to have answers to allegations in the interests of finding out whether there was a wrong or not.

I don't want to think he's a criminal because that tells the international community that for the last ten years we've been led by someone who's dishonest and a political joke. Its a smack in the face to the Irish electorate. But this is really quite damning evidence.

Really? now you are doing it using the phrase "damning evidence".
It poses a legitimate question and no more at this stage but it's hardly "damning evidence".

Sometimes I wonder do people stop and think about things or just have their own kangeroo court all in their own mind.
Most people don't actually going on the fair hearing they gave Ahern already.

I'd agree with the notion that if anything is proven,he's in the soup but remember there seems to be a lot of digging going on with Ahern by people with various unrelated axes to grind.
Ahern has already been awarded €30,000 in a libel trial as a result of one of these alegations.
Another dodgy item would be the fact that Owen o'Callaghan has claimed that Tom Gilmartin lied to the Mahon Tribunal about a deal between the two of them in the evidence he has given to the Mahon tribunal.
This will all be analyised in the current session of Mahon.
If thats the case it wouldn't make Gilmartin a stellar witness.

LostinBlanch

Tristrame wrote:

However,I do put a pinch of salt on his "enemies" for want of a better word waving what are essentially allegations and treating them as proof.

Tristrame wrote:

Another dodgy item would be the fact that Owen o'Callaghan has claimed that Tom Gilmartin lied to the Mahon Tribunal about a deal between the two of them in the evidence he has given to the Mahon tribunal.
This will all be analyised in the current session of Mahon.
If thats the case it wouldn't make Gilmartin a stellar witness.

So you give out because some people are treating allegations as proof. yet you can blithely state as fact an allegation that Tom Gilmartin lied to Owen O'Callaghan?

Glenbhoy

Tristrame wrote:

Agreed.
At present I can go to my bank and take my ssia all out in cash and hand it to whomsoever I choose without telling anybody.
The money would be legitimate.

No, it wouldn't - if you gave the money to an unrelated person there is a possibility they would have to pay tax on it, regardless, you and they would have to declare it to the revenue if it amounted to (I think) more than 80% of the threshold for 3rd party gifts.

I simply don't know where Bertie/Celia spent this money supposedly for house repairs-Did they get a fitted kitchen? Did they get oil heating in? Did they replace the facia boards?All of which would have been expensive.
None of us know but hey don't let that stop some people running away with themselves.

It's of no consequence what they spent it on - if they got it, chances are gift tax would have been payable on it.

Judt

I think the fact that the leader of the country, and a serious political figure for many years, has quite a lot of, well, "interesting", financial dealings that are at least worth a second look; coming from a party and a country which has had a history of such things - with Bertie's own boss for many years being the poster child among quite a few of Bertie's peers who have gone down for dodgy financial dealings.... Well, smoke and fire and all that.

The_Minister

LostinBlanch wrote:

So you give out because some people are treating allegations as proof. yet you can blithely state as fact an allegation that Tom Gilmartin lied to Owen O'Callaghan?

He said that it is a fact that O'Callaghan has made the claim. This is a fact. He did not say, nor imply, that O'Callaghan's allegation was true.

LostinBlanch

LostinBlanch wrote:

So you give out because some people are treating allegations as proof. yet you can blithely state as fact an allegation that Tom Gilmartin lied to Owen O'Callaghan?

No I said that O'Callaghan has claimed that Gilmartin has lied.
The fact that O'Callaghan has claimed that he lied is a fact.

Glenbhoy wrote:

No, it wouldn't - if you gave the money to an unrelated person there is a possibility they would have to pay tax on it, regardless, you and they would have to declare it to the revenue if it amounted to (I think) more than 80% of the threshold for 3rd party gifts.

Not if it was spent on a house you haven't bought yet and not if the price agreed for the house later took cognisance of the work done.

It's of no consequence what they spent it on - if they got it, chances are gift tax would have been payable on it.

Again not if it was spent on a house that they haven't bought yet.
That would be acting as an agent for Michael Wall.It would be them spending Walls money on Wall's behalf.Theres nothing illegal if thats what they are suggesting they did as it seems they are.

It is a tad slipshod of them though going on their story given that they didn't at the time it seems consider that people would demand answers for transparency.

Glenbhoy

Tristrame, I appreciate what you're saying here re spending money on the house whilst acting as agents, however, i doubt that the revenue would see it that way, and I imagine a tax liability would arise in the absence of documentation (which given his record is unlikely to exist).
My initial point is still valid, if you go out today with your SSIA in cash and give it someone, both of you will have to make the revenue aware of that (if you and they are classed as having a Class III relationship - ie not related).

nesf

Tristrame wrote:

That would be acting as an agent for Michael Wall.It would be them spending Walls money on Wall's behalf.Theres nothing illegal if thats what they are suggesting they did as it seems they are.

Exactly. The thing is if that is what happened and she didn't keep receipts for all of it then she's a bit of a muppet tbh.

LostinBlanch

Tristrame wrote:

No I said that O'Callaghan has claimed that Gilmartin has lied.
The fact that O'Callaghan has claimed that he lied is a fact.

Apologies, my misreading of your post.

Glenbhoy

Glenbhoy wrote:

Tristrame, I appreciate what you're saying here re spending money on the house whilst acting as agents, however, i doubt that the revenue would see it that way, and I imagine a tax liability would arise in the absence of documentation (which given his record is unlikely to exist).

I actually don't know what the situation is or what revenue procedure might be in relation to a UK resident spending money on a house he owns in Ireland.
It might in actual fact not be a matter for Ahern or Ms Larkin at all but a matter for the UK inland revenue who in turn would need to have evidence that the £30K was untaxed in the UK.
I'm not aware that a person resident elsewhere in the EU cant spend their own money on a house they own in another EU country and have to inform the revenue about it.
That would imply a need for double taxation ie being taxed on the same income in two countries in the E.U.
It wouldnt matter who the person was being asked to spend the money for them on their own house.

My initial point is still valid, if you go out today with your SSIA in cash and give it someone, both of you will have to make the revenue aware of that (if you and they are classed as having a Class III relationship - ie not related).

I don't if the gift is less than €25k actually as most SSIA's are.
As a self employed person I know you must declare any payment above approximately €6000 to a business if you are declaring the payment in your accounts.
That would also apply afaik to company to company transactions.

I absolutely do not have to tell any authority bar the Road taxation office that I have spent 20k in after tax cash of my own income to buy something from ebay or whatever or to do up my house.
If I am wrong,please give me the statute that I'm unaware of-thanks.

Glenbhoy

I don't if the gift is less than €25k actually as most SSIA's are.
As a self employed person I know you must declare any payment above approximately €6000 to a business if you are declaring the payment in your accounts.
That would also apply afaik to company to company transactions.

I absolutely do not have to tell any authority bar the Road taxation office that I have spent 20k in after tax cash of my own income to buy something from ebay or whatever or to do up my house.
If I am wrong,please give me the statute that I'm unaware of-thanks.

I think you're deliberately misinterpreting what I've said - if you gift someone your ssia you and they will have to declare that to the revenue, if the person is not related to you, and if the value of the gift exceeds €15,200.
http://www.revenue.ie/forms/gt15e.pdf
http://www.revenue.ie/leaflets/cat1.pdf
As for the issue of tax on the gift Bertie received - here are the facts:
Bertie/Celia received £30Kstg and lodged it in one of their bank accounts, that is now a gift, that is taxable in the revenues eyes, what they spent it on is of no relevance, unless there is documentary evidence that the money was retained by wall and they were acting on his behalf etc.
What about the $45K dollars that the Mail referred to yesterday btw? You any explanations for that?
If the tribunal had sat and confirmed all these allegations today, do you think it would have impacted much on the election? Do people actually care that much? Has Bertie run his course anyway?

Glenbhoy

Glenbhoy wrote:

I think you're deliberately misinterpreting what I've said - if you gift someone your ssia you and they will have to declare that to the revenue, if the person is not related to you, and if the value of the gift exceeds €15,200.
http://www.revenue.ie/forms/gt15e.pdf
http://www.revenue.ie/leaflets/cat1.pdf

Oh I'm sorry I was working on this and the category 3 allowance.

As for the issue of tax on the gift Bertie received - here are the facts:
Bertie/Celia received £30Kstg and lodged it in one of their bank accounts, that is now a gift, that is taxable in the revenues eyes, what they spent it on is of no relevance, unless there is documentary evidence that the money was retained by wall and they were acting on his behalf etc.

Sorry could you tell me what evidence you have to factually indicate that celia lodged £30k stg into her bank a/c? for the record please.

What about the $45K dollars that the Mail referred to yesterday btw? You any explanations for that?

Could you link and post to the article.You are not giving enough information for me to comment.

If the tribunal had sat and confirmed all these allegations today, do you think it would have impacted much on the election?

I don't know,I guess it would depend on what Ahern had to say for himself.

Do people actually care that much? Has Bertie run his course anyway?

Thats being decided as we speak by the voters like it should be.

Voipjunkie

Tristrame wrote:

Oh I'm sorry I was working on this and the category 3 allowance.
Sorry could you tell me what evidence you have to factually indicate that celia lodged £30k stg into her bank a/c? for the record please.
Could you link and post to the article.You are not giving enough information for me to comment.
I don't know,I guess it would depend on what Ahern had to say for himself.Thats being decided as we speak by the voters like it should be.

Mr Ahern also said that £30,000 which had been received by Celia Larkin was a Stamp Duty issue and put towards the refurbishment of a house and he said it was entirely appropriate.

From here http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/mahon.html

I guess that means that the 30 grand did exist

Although berties explanation is not great what is a stamp duty issue ???

Glenbhoy

Mr Ahern also said that £30,000 which had been received by Celia Larkin was a Stamp Duty issue and put towards the refurbishment of a house and he said it was entirely appropriate.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0430/mahon.html

There are also numerous other admissions by Bertie that this took place, but the above should suffice.

Re the $45K, I don't have a link, but here is what they say on politics.ie - I also read the story in full yesterday, it is essentially excerpts from an interview the tribunal held with Bertie recently according to Connolly. Ahern has not denied anything about it - i suppose he couldn't as he and all his team had their phones off yesterday.
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=19443

scargill

from breakingnews.ie

Taoiseach faces further questions on Larkin payment
30/04/2007 - 13:33:20

Taoiseach Bertie Ahern is today reacting angrily to suggestions of wrongdoing in relation to a cash payment of stg£30,000 made to his then partner Celia Larkin in 1994.

The money was used to fund work on a house in Drumcondra which Bertie Ahern was renting at the time and which was owned by the businessman Michael Wall.

Ahern insists the transaction to Celia Larkin was “entirely appropriate”.

“Any money that Ms Larkin received was towards, it was a stamp duty issue, and it was towards the refurbishment of the house,” he said.

“It had nothing whatever to do with the allegation that I've to answer.”

Can anyone explain this to me:

“Any money that Ms Larkin received was towards, it was a stamp duty issue, and it was towards the refurbishment of the house,” he said.

Heinrich

scargill wrote:

from breakingnews.ie



Can anyone explain this to me:

“Any money that Ms Larkin received was towards, it was a stamp duty issue, and it was towards the refurbishment of the house,” he said.

Must have been an old house so that's all right.:rolleyes:

If Wall was the owner why was Celia handling Stamp Duty money?

Not accusing anyone but "a liar needs a good memory"

ronbyrne2005

I live nearby to Bertie. The house was only a few years old when this occured. 30k punts would buy you a lot in 1994/1996.

Heinrich

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

I live nearby to Bertie. The house was only a few years old when this occured. 30k punts would buy you a lot in 1994/1996.

Must be the gold plated door knocker then.

I would imagine that the landlord was the one to deal with the financial aspects of the house. The lordly tenants would simply pay their rent. Am I missing something?

Judt

As I keep on saying, there's a lot of smoke coming from a building right next to a whole bunch of FF ones that have already burned down. There comes a point when you have to say to yourself "Hang on here a minute..." This guy is standing right next to a bunch of proven corrupt types, all this stuff is popping up and we're to assume that he was the virtuous one of them all? Corruption cases are notoriously difficult to prove (look at Italy), but if I'm frank then I have to say that I'm seeing far too much smoke for there not to be a fire somewhere.

Either that or Bertie just happened to have one of the most convoluted financial setups in the country at a time when he was a senior member of a government full of corrupt individuals from the top down. Odd, no?

scargill

I think he is trying to bamboozle us by throwing in words like "stamp duty issue". It's just a bit of smoke screen more or less telling us "It's complicated, you wouldn't understand but I did nothing wrong".

scargill

And this has to be a crazy statement:

“It had nothing whatever to do with the allegation that I've to answer.”

It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Dave!

It's disappointing that the if the opposition goes too hard on the Taoiseach on matters like this (not that there's been anything illegal proven in this case -- yet), then Bertie lets the tears pour out, and the public side with him. In the original Bertiegate saga, he just gave a bullsh*t excuse, and the opposition couldn't attack him. If anything even remotely illegal emerges from this one, I had better hear Enda, Pat, and Trevor the very next day calling for the Taoiseach to step down.

Glenbhoy

Glenbhoy wrote:

Re the $45K, I don't have a link, but here is what they say on politics.ie - I also read the story in full yesterday, it is essentially excerpts from an interview the tribunal held with Bertie recently according to Connolly. Ahern has not denied anything about it - i suppose he couldn't as he and all his team had their phones off yesterday.
http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?t=19443

In other words,it's hearsay.
LoL about the phones,I'm sure some of them were on as Brian Lenihan was on the politics programme last night.

Scargill wrote:

Can anyone explain this to me:

“Any money that Ms Larkin received was towards, it was a stamp duty issue, and it was towards the refurbishment of the house,” he said.

Well I'll make a stab at it...
Maybe Wall's deal on the house with Ahern was subject to Wall contributing towards the do-ing up of the house via Celia up to say the amount he would have to pay in stamp duty?

I mean if thats the case and theres nothing illegal in Celia being an agent for Wall in the organising of the house refurbishment-then Ahern will have a cake walk in the tribunal.
Though if I was him,I'd be searching the Vase on the dressing table for some of the receipts aswell.

The_Minister

DaveMcG wrote:

(not that there's been anything illegal proven in this case -- yet),

There was nothing illegal about the other case either. It was a bit dodgy, but it wasn't actually illegal. It only became illegal a week or so ago. (AFAIK that was one of the conditions of the PDs staying with FF)

Dave!

yeh i know. it was merely immoral, lol.

I guess that's one of the reasons why they couldn't ask him to step down. If he had clearly broken the law, they might have been able to go harder on him.