Bertie artists tax exemption

Hootanany

Hi as far as i can remember Bertie Ahern has still not got a Tax clearance cert
so how come he can avail of the artist exemption for his book Many Thanks sorry if this has come up before

Mr. Incognito

If you are entitled to an exemption you just claim it.

Tax certs are for previous years.

Revenue cannot deny you an exemption just because you are in arrears of prior years taxes.

Anyway afaik Bertie settled with the tax man and there's no issue.

Sleepy

When you say he 'settled' does that mean he's paid all the taxes he owed or come to an 'agreement'?

Biggins

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Anyway afaik Bertie settled with the tax man and there's no issue.

Are you sure about this?
I've been following his career closely so far and have missed this startling new news.
Can you confirm this? If possible by link or source?
So far all reports to be found state he is still disputing the taxes he owes on substantial payments that he received when Minister for Finance in the 1990s.
A certificate stating that Ahern is in negotiation with the Revenue Commissioners has been issued and this is currently deemed as just adequate enough for him still retain his seat in the Dail after all these years of "current negotiation". The ethics committee still is waiting for the full tax clearance as far as I know.

Mr. Incognito

well I don't know.

All I know is that he needed a cert. A cert appeared and now the Revenue is investigating the whip around payments in Manchester.

The legislation only allows Revenue to go back ten years in the case of fraud. If the whip around was in 1993 odd (was it) as far as I know it only came to light bout two years ago so can't really see under what legislation he can be pursued for this anyway.

Look, he's a dodgy little tool bag but seriously who cares.

Even if he owed the Revenue millions they cannot decide whether you get an exemption or not. If you are legally entitled to something you get it. Revenue can't stop that.

nesf

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Even if he owed the Revenue millions they cannot decide whether you get an exemption or not. If you are legally entitled to something you get it. Revenue can't stop that.

Exactly. If a known pedophile priest decided to start writing children's books they'd have to give him the exemption no matter how distasteful it may be.

The_Minister

Facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=243287517137&ref=ts

There, now you can feel like you did something :P

Biggins

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

...Look, he's a dodgy little tool bag but seriously who cares.
Even if he owed the Revenue millions they cannot decide whether you get an exemption or not. If you are legally entitled to something you get it. Revenue can't stop that.

No argument there.
The main point of contention for many partly is that FF are trying to tell the public what to do with their money when one of their leading own (still) can't sort out his own mess, even after years.
Another part of contention is that it still seems to be one rule for us - and another for them.

Anyway your 100% correct. Under our present screwed up system tax-wise he still manages to take what appears to be, unfair advantage of it.
One of many systems that are still a bit of a mess - even after so, so many years of the same government and they still, still haven't got it sorted!

Hootanany

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

well I don't know.

All I know is that he needed a cert. A cert appeared and now the Revenue is investigating the whip around payments in Manchester.

The legislation only allows Revenue to go back ten years in the case of fraud. If the whip around was in 1993 odd (was it) as far as I know it only came to light bout two years ago so can't really see under what legislation he can be pursued for this anyway.

Look, he's a dodgy little tool bag but seriously who cares.

Even if he owed the Revenue millions they cannot decide whether you get an exemption or not. If you are legally entitled to something you get it. Revenue can't stop that.

Ten years are you sure a friend of mine was audited and they went back to 1973

Laminations

So now the story is the Revenues hands were tied and he was entitled to the tax break? Because previously the story was that the Arts Council merely suggest names to the Revenue and they then have final say. Who decided his book qualified for this and even if it did could they not use common sense and see he didnt need the financial aid designed for struggling artists?

Biggins

Play the system right, have the right connections, hire good legal representatives and "bobs your uncle""

jmayo

Can con artists get tax exemptions ?:eek:

yoshytoshy

Biggins wrote: »

"bobs your uncle""

And pats your plasterer;)

yoshytoshy

His daughter probably knows the ropes for this and advised him what to do.

It's just as bad as noel dempsey going on holiday ,when his colleague was up the wall with the tv3 charade.
None of them seem to have an ounce of decency about them.

Laminations

Noel Dempsey is entitled to a holiday. Unfortunately what he didnt understand is that he is not entitled to stay on holiday when the country goes into crisis. Its a bit too 'head under the duvet' for the amount he gets paid

monkeypants

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

A cert appeared

That sums up the process perfectly.

Who the hell is buying his damned book?

Biggins

monkeypants wrote: »

Who the hell is buying his damned book?

Those that ought to be certified? :pac:
Naa, but seriously, probably those that like to read true :rolleyes: life stories from a man that is losing his memory (when approaching a tribunal building anyway!).

Executive Steve

Well his accounts were all fictional, therefore his autobiographical account of himself ought to be considered fiction too.

Also, it's presumably much less of a head wreck getting him to pay taxes on the income from the book, sure by the time they figure out where he's hiding the loot and spent five years on a second tribunal to deal with his literary earnings the cost of going after him for it would be many times higher than the money they could grab back of him, so it's probably just cheaper for the state in the long run to say he can just keep the change.

K-9

[cm]tyranny wrote: »

Well his accounts were all fictional, therefore his autobiographical account of himself ought to be considered fiction too.

Maybe they admired the creative licence used?