Should Mick Wallace resign over his VAT 'problem'?

bmaxi

No

secman wrote: »

Mick Wallace does not owe this money, MJ Wallace & Sons Ltd owes the money. the concept of Limited Liability seems to be somewhat overlooked here !


Nice little side show for the Govt to get their teeth into, the slate in the Dail bar is prob as much !

Secman

Mick Wallace, as a director of M.J, Wallace, made a conscious and deliberate decision to defraud the taxpayers of this country. The money was in his trust having been paid to him by compliant taxpayers, he and he alone made the decision to steal that money and I don't care what "lofty intentions" he claims.
That makes him a criminal in my eyes and unfit to hold public office.

eire-kp

I haven't read the whole thread so not sure if it was mentioned but of course he should resign only a few months ago Paul Begley got 6 years for his VAT offences.

Judgement Day

Don't care

bmaxi wrote: »

Mick Wallace, as a director of M.J, Wallace, made a conscious and deliberate decision to defraud the taxpayers of this country. The money was in his trust having been paid to him by compliant taxpayers, he and he alone made the decision to steal that money and I don't care what "lofty intentions" he claims.
That makes him a criminal in my eyes and unfit to hold public office.

Yes, yes - in your eyes but the law is the law and the Revenue Commissioners have made their stand. What would you like him charged with - possession of a pink shirt or a 1970s hairstyle? :rolleyes:

bmaxi

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

Yes, yes - in your eyes but the law is the law and the Revenue Commissioners have made their stand. What would you like him charged with - possession of a pink shirt or a 1970s hairstyle? :rolleyes:

Whether he's charged with anything or not, and it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that he will be, I have certain standards and having a thief as my public representative does not meet them.
Wallace's defenders advance similar reasoning as kept the likes of Lowry, Ahern, Haughey, et al in the Dáil

EI_Flyboy

Don't care

It's my understanding that Mick was paying off the debt to revcomm when the courts stepped and put a halt to this by freezing the company's assets. I heard this once on the news and never again. If this is the case, it seems obvious that he's getting the shaft to keep the spotlight off the rest of the crooked shower in the dail. The revcomm wouldn't have put him in a position where he couldn't pay, they know it's not in our or their interests plus they're actually quite smart that way, they would've let him stay in business.

Bertie had the courts on his side when they decided he didn't need to declare the financial particulars of his divorce. What's with the court bias? This to my mind is a much bigger issue.

The list of corrupt politicians is as long as your arm, not one of them ever serving time for it and they all did it to feather their own nests not to make sure wages got paid. The double standard flies high and mighty in Ireland.

You could always follow the cause of his inability to pay right back to the bursting of the property bubble and ask yourself whose fault was that?

Limited liability means just that, this story should end there. Every gombeen harping on his case has a vested interest in not having their affairs scrutinised too closely and are only too glad to chime in and waste our time following this diversion.
So the real question is why can't he pay?

TheChevron

All his earrings should be seized and melted down to form a scissors to cut his hair with.

EI_Flyboy

Don't care

goat2 wrote: »

i would prefer in cases like his, people who owe monies to the tax system be it vat or whatever, no matter what their background,
that they pay it into the system on instalment basis say once a week or month, and when they stop or refuse payment that they be brought to court and receive five to ten yrs minimun sentence automatically,
that way we would have the revenue coming in, and not paying to keep them in jail costing us more to keep them along with the loss of millions.
things need to be kept moving,

do i think that he should resign his seat, yes , if he did not tell his electorate the truth.
no, if, he told them about this, it is the enormous sum that concerns me,

He was paying until the courts stepped in and froze the company's assets so you can thank the courts for costing us the 2.1million. The big distinction you need to draw is that Mick is a seperate entity to his company and its his company that owes the money. That's the law, like it or lump it.

john47

No

Flyboy, it might be the law but we all know in our hearts, including himself, that what he did was purposeful and wrong. He even admitted to intentionally defrauding the state and he said he has no intention of paying it, that's nothing to do with the courts.

"For a different kind of politics" - that was his slogan during the campaign. He lied to the revenue comissioners and he lied to the 14,500 people in Wexford who gave him a 1st preference vote.

He has also damaged the work that other honest politicans have been doing in reinforcing the idea that "all them lads in the Dail are the same, a robbing lying crowd of crooks".

What else could a bankrupt property developer do - ohh hang on - sure he should join FF and get it over with.

John Ryan

dickthemick

chieftan65 wrote: »

I think people are getting a bit ahead of themselves in this thread.
Firstly, before there's any talk of bi elections or replacements mick wallace's seat has to be vacant and from what i can see anyone who has the bare faced cheek to head off to watch soccer in poland when they're in the situation he's in wont walk away from a big salary too quickly.

secondly. why would a replacement have to be an established politician in wexford? maybe a good strong independant will come to the fore, someone who doesn't need the clown factor to be elected, someone who's actually tax complient, someone who doesn't have a hidden agenda to run for election. i know i know nice thought in an ideal world but we can always hope

know anyone who fits that bill?

secman

Don't care

As far as I am aware MJ Wallace & Company Ltd made a voluntary disclosure to Revenue owning up to the under declared liability on the company VAT3 returns and Revenue, as they are entitled to do, applied Interest & penalties to bring the liability up from €1.4 m to just over €2m. The fact that the company is in receivership and unable to pay any debts is immaterial at this stage. Every day of the day Limited companies are going into Examinership, receivership , creditors or members voluntary liquidations and Revenue are listed on the majority of them.

The Govt take hard immoral decisions all the time...... cut hospital budgets, cut back social welfare, cut back special needs payments, there is even a special dept which decides the cost per patient benefit of covering certain cancer treatment drugs availability to patients in dire need... playing GOD !

Yet they pay bank debts, pension pay offs, find money for speciaL ADVISORs.
Governments have no problem lying to us "in certain circumstances" , remember our IMF Bail out that was not happening, Spain only last week denied their bail out .

Secman

chieftan65

No

dickthemick wrote: »

know anyone who fits that bill?

I wish i did my friend

EI_Flyboy

Don't care

john47 wrote: »

Flyboy, it might be the law but we all know in our hearts, including himself, that what he did was purposeful and wrong. He even admitted to intentionally defrauding the state and he said he has no intention of paying it, that's nothing to do with the courts.

That's precisely the attitude that allowed crooked politicians to dig us into the scheisshole we're currently in. They don't appeal to our better judgement but to our hearts and knees. Any other politician caught in similar or worse situations has fudged and obfuscated the facts so far that millions upon millions have been wasted on tribunals to uncover the truth. Mick just did us a huge favour by being honest plus he's actually within the law. The sooner people start thinking with their heads, the sooner we'll have decent honest politicians working for us and not for Germany or the banks.

StupidLikeAFox

No

Judgement Day wrote: »

His 'crime' has been dealt with by the Revenue Commissioners and that's that.

Firstly I don't know why you put crime in commas. And I don't think it should be a case of owning up and "thats that". Thats the attitude in too many cases involving politicians, tribunals etc, and its about time it stopped.

We can't just make up the law as we go along to feed a public - media inspired - frenzy for retribution.

I agree, however I am fairly sure that deliberately underdeclaring VAT is an offence and should be punished. Im not calling for an execution, but I dont think he should get away scot free. Remember it was the company that settled, but it was Mick Wallace that underdeclared

This whole Mick Wallace affair suits the government down to the ground as it takes the spotlight off the country's finances and the EU/Euro project going down the toilet. There's NO Plan .A. let alone Plan .B. to save the country from joining Greece/Spain etc.

The Revenue releases a list of defaulters at regular intervals each quarter so if youre trying to say it is some sort of government media spin you are completely wrong. In fact Mick came out himself and held his hands up on the matter.

Also the euro project, the billions going into the banks, cut backs in other areas etc etc doesn't make a difference to the fact that MW deliberately set out to defraud the state (which he admitted to himself)

StupidLikeAFox

No

Just for comparison sake, here is a list of the prosecutions that revenue have executed recently. If you google the persons name and add "revenue" to it there are news stories about the cases, so you can see exactly what was involved - from the couple I looked at the sentences ranged from 9 months to 5 years.

Here is a case which is almost identical to Wallaces - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1025/1224306446000.html

Following an audit by the Revenue Commissioners, Rowland admitted she had not remitted her VAT invoices as she “needed the money to pay staff and keep the business running.”

So it is a fairly serious offence alright. Although the fact that Mick Wallace made a settlement might mean that he avoids getting brought to court for charges like these, not really sure how it works

Bishop_Donal

arseagon wrote: »

I reckon the Catholic church owes the Irish people at least €2.1m if not 100 to 1000 times that. Maybe they'd be so good as to offer some help and not take it out on the people of Wexford?

You might be good enof to set out where the money was mis-appropriated?

You might also point out when the people of Wexford were given the opportunity to get rid of their church representatives (& specifically when they declined that opportunity).

Wallace is a public representative. He deliberately submitted a fraudulent tax return to understate the liability of his company. If the people of Wexford want him to represent them, that is their entitlement (at least until he is a bankrupt).However they should bear the consequences if he means that much to them.

Judgement Day

Don't care

ColHol wrote: »

Just for comparison sake, here is a list of the prosecutions that revenue have executed recently. If you google the persons name and add "revenue" to it there are news stories about the cases, so you can see exactly what was involved - from the couple I looked at the sentences ranged from 9 months to 5 years.

Here is a case which is almost identical to Wallaces - http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1025/1224306446000.html


So it is a fairly serious offence alright. Although the fact that Mick Wallace made a settlement might mean that he avoids getting brought to court for charges like these, not really sure how it works

Thanks for posting the above and it's incredible isn't it - Mick Wallace is not the first business person in Ireland whose business got into difficulty! As for the old fart of a judge having the cheek to talk down to the unfortunate woman and telling her that she was unsuited to run a business...how many has the ffing judge ever employed..:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

vicwatson

No

Thanks for posting the above and it's incredible isn't it - Mick Wallace is not the first business person in Ireland whose business got into difficulty!

No, but one of the first who has admitted defrauding the state and is a public representative.

Remember he gave massive pay increases to himself and his son in advance - I cannot wait to see if revenue release the dates as to when the "settlement" was made and when the pay increases were given to themselves.

The survey that you attached to the OP doesn't lie.

He is a disgrace (as are others) and should resign to save face (any that can be saved that is)

oldyouth

Don't care

vicwatson wrote: »

No, but one of the first who has admitting defrauding the state and is a public representative.

You're perfectly right with your post, but I think the word "admitting" is huge in this context

EI_Flyboy

Don't care

vicwatson wrote: »

No, but one of the first who has admitting defrauding the state and is a public representative.

Remember he gave massive pay increases to himself and his son in advance - I cannot wait to see if revenue release the dates as to when the "settlement" was made and when the pay increases were given to themselves.

The survey that you attached to the OP doesn't lie.

He is a disgrace (as are others) and should resign to save face (any that can be saved that is)

I doubt that survey is representative of the country or Waterford in particular.

I also doubt Mick intended to hide the 1.4m forever, that's just impossible without some extremely fancy accounting and our revcomm have gotten extremely proficient at sniffing out that kind fraud. So if Mick intended paying it back, that pushes the case for fraud out the window. The thing is, the revcomm see this kind of thing all the time and don't see it as a hanging offense because it's not in their interest to put people out of business as the end result of that is everyone loses. What they do is they look at the business, decide what it can be reasonably expected to pay without causing bankruptcy and put in place a manageable repayment scheme. They never set out with the intention to bankrupt a business so the question is why was the business bankrupted, who benefits(because we certainly don't)?

Oh and I have no idea by what stretch of the imagination 700k constitutes as scot free...?

bmaxi

No

oldyouth wrote: »

You're perfectly right with your post, but I think the word "admitting" is huge in this context

Admission of a crime is not absolution of the crime. We don't know why he admitted it when he did, perhaps wiser counsel prevailed or perhaps his accountant was getting jittery.

oldyouth

Don't care

bmaxi wrote: »

Admission of a crime is not absolution of the crime. We don't know why he admitted it when he did, perhaps wiser counsel prevailed or perhaps his accountant was getting jittery.

I agree, it is not right what he did, I'm just saying that we have had corrupt politicians exposed in recent times who still won't admit they did anything wrong. Mick appears to be taking the brunt of our justified anger for the wrongdoings of all the others by being so open.

As I say, it doesn't excuse the crime, but Mick handles things his own unique way

Tzar Chasm

Don't care

Mick will be on south east radio at 5.45 tonight to give his version of events

john47

No

Flyboy, you keep saying "he's actually within the law"

You, IMHO, are wrong.

He and/or his company defrauded the revenue commissioners. That is a criminal offence.

He and/or his company also stole his staffs pension money. That was also a criminal offence.

He is a criminal, but because he carried out this offence (WHICH HE HAS ADMITTED TO SO I SUPPOSE THAT'S OKAY THEN) before he was elected then it's fine...

John Ryan

vicwatson

No

oldyouth wrote: »

You're perfectly right with your post, but I think the word "admitting" is huge in this context

Sorry that should of course mean "admitted" not "admitting" but it has the same meaning and I know what you are saying, there is a massive difference in openly addmitting that you have defrauded the state and then you expect to keep your job :rolleyes: Crazy stuff

vicwatson

No

So if Mick intended paying it back, that pushes the case for fraud out the window

He has no intention of paying it back as MJ Wallace Ltd is broke, has no money to pay.

The case of fraud stands regardless of whether the money was paid back or not.

You cannot rob a bank and then say sorry here's the money back can I now go on my merry way? I think not.

vicwatson

No

bmaxi wrote: »

Admission of a crime is not absolution of the crime. We don't know why he admitted it when he did, perhaps wiser counsel prevailed or perhaps his accountant was getting jittery.

I don't think OLDYOUTH meant he should be absolved just because he admitted it.

allthedoyles

No

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

Mick will be on south east radio at 5.45 tonight to give his version of events

He needs to be very careful in what he says - I hope he has used the best advisors in writing that speech .

EI_Flyboy

Don't care

john47 wrote: »

Flyboy, you keep saying "he's actually within the law"

You, IMHO, are wrong.

He and/or his company defrauded the revenue commissioners. That is a criminal offence.

He and/or his company also stole his staffs pension money. That was also a criminal offence.

He is a criminal, but because he carried out this offence (WHICH HE HAS ADMITTED TO SO I SUPPOSE THAT'S OKAY THEN) before he was elected then it's fine...

John Ryan

That was dealt with months ago and the fact that that wasn't used to beat him with with publicly goes to show how serious an offense it is. We get one guy who does all he can to save his business and his employee's jobs and he's hung out for a public beating. Another guy bare face lies to the courts about his means so he can defraud his wife and kids by pretending he's destitute and without a bank account while running the states' finances, the courts collude with him to keep this a secret while he's supposed to running the country(into the ground). The country's reaction? The poor guy, ah sure isn't is it terrible he's being picked on like that! Now he and his crooked cronies are sitting back drawing huge state pensions and being chauffeured around in Mercs after driving up the costs of tribunals to the tune of millions because of their incessant lies. Should they be allowed to keep their pensions?

Double standards.

john47

No

Wow - hang on there.

I am not defending anyone, either the FF bunch of lying thieving bastXXXs or the lying thieving Mick Wallace.

I am not advocating double standards, you are. You are giving out about one type of liar and thief but defending another. Lowry, Haughey, AHearne, Wallace. All the same in my book ...

John Ryan

john47

No

In answer to the question - yes he should resign, then he should run in the by-election and give Wexford people the say in whether they want him back. That's democracy...

John Ryan