Irish freight company goes to the wall . . .

homerjay2005

squawkbox wrote: »

This. How did the debt build up so much if this was a profitable, viable company.

this is a question that can be asked of most business in this country to be honest, they are being badly run.

Pacing Mule

cournioni wrote: »

They were making €1.62m in after tax profits in 2010, yet they could not pay the company I work for what they were owed?! :rolleyes:

Not defending them in particular but it is possible for a company to show a profit but not have the cashflow to pay bills. Take your company as an example - they will show the sales part of the work they done for Target as revenue / contributing to the profit for your company but they don't actually have the cash from it. (Granted at this point it will most likely end up as being written off as a bad debt) Target may well have been in the same position - owed money themselves and the profit was just a paper one.

ejmaztec

cournioni wrote: »

They were making €1.62m in after tax profits in 2010, yet they could not pay the company I work for what they were owed?! :rolleyes:

If that's the case, they're obvious on the "long finger" method of dealing with creditors.

I get the feeling that the one being bloody-minded is McBrien. I also think that the Rev Coms know that the company can afford to pay up and tried to force his hand. On the face of it, he seems to be the guy pulling the plug on the jobs by his own actions.

SEPT 23 1989

Well done Revenue staff you can sleep well tonight knowing your books are balanced:rolleyes:

2 stroke

One of our suppliers used target, they were so unreliably we used collect from their depot rather than let them deliver. Easy to see now how they could undercut/drive competitors out of business if they didn't pay taxes/suppliers/wages. My sympathy to the drivers, good riddance to the company.

Happyman42

I don't understand why they forced it out of business. It was operating and was making profit. Badly managed maybe but staff where being paid etc.
How come they didn't take this company over and sell it to an American company or is that only an option for mega million pound companies?

Also:Is there a suggestion here that this was a front for or somehow connected to Quinn?

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't understand why they forced it out of business. It was operating and was making profit. Badly managed maybe but staff where being paid etc.
How come they didn't take this company over and sell it to an American company or is that only an option for mega million pound companies?

Also:Is there a suggestion here that this was a front for or somehow connected to Quinn?

They did not force it out of business. They were looking for there money maybe the comppany had been giving them the runaround we will never knbow as we can only hear 1 side.

The revenue put an attachment on the bank and some suppliers that owed the company money to pay it to revenue. The manager decided to close it down.

Plenty of companies and individuals have had attachments and are still in business

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

Plenty of companies and individuals have had attachments and are still in business

Could you give us some examples of companies with similar workforces and payrolls?

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you give us some examples of companies with similar workforces and payrolls?

No I cant. Does the bold bit make a difference why would they have to be similar to that company

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

No I cant. Does the bold bit make a difference why would they have to be similar to that company

Because I can understand how a smaller company might survive attachments but with the fuel costs and payroll here it was as good as shutting the doors.

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

Because I can understand how a smaller company might survive attachments but with the fuel costs and payroll here it was as good as shutting the doors.

I would say it would be the same for any company depending on there credit. Big Medium Small would make no difference I would say. I would think a smaller company would have tighter credit and they would still need to the pay for the above in bold.

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

I would say it would be the same for any company depending on there credit. Big Medium Small would make no difference I would say. I would think a smaller company would have tighter credit and they would still need to the pay for the above in bold.

Far as I know, you will get no or very very little credit on fuel. I would imagine this company owes very little to fuel suppliers because it is next to imppossible to 'owe' them and as this was a huge haulage business it's weekly fuel bill and cash requirement would be mammoth. That would make it different to a lot of other businesses

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

Far as I know, you will get no or very very little credit on fuel. I would imagine this company owes very little to fuel suppliers because it is next to imppossible to 'owe' them and as this was a huge haulage business it's weekly fuel bill and cash requirement would be mammoth. That would make it different to a lot of other businesses

Sorry I should have phrased my response better by credit I mean available money to the company and then I should have put a full stop. My next sentence was about paying payroll and fuel costs aans saying a smaller company would still have to pay these and have these and these could be worse for a smaller company who has less money on hand.

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

Sorry I should have phrased my response better by credit I mean available money to the company and then I should have put a full stop. My next sentence was about paying payroll and fuel costs aans saying a smaller company would still have to pay these and have these and these could be worse for a smaller company who has less money on hand.

My point was that the Revenue action was tantamount to forcing the business to close. You disagree, Tell us please, how do you run a company of this size without access to your bank accounts or give us some examples where this has happened.

Valetta

Happyman42 wrote: »

My point was that the Revenue action was tantamount to forcing the business to close. You disagree, Tell us please, how do you run a company of this size without access to your bank accounts or give us some examples where this has happened.

I think the point is that they did have access to their bank account, but chose to pay payroll/suppliers before the revenue.

If the revenue had been paid up to date then the chances are the business would close anyway, as their suppliers wouldn't have been paid and would have put a hold on supplies.

If a company does not have sufficient cash flow, then there is only one outcome, unfortunately.

buck65

We get 90 days credit from our fuel supplier, granted we would have a bill a tenth of the size of Target.

I just don't understand guys like this who avoid tax. It will always catch up with you. Fair enough he mightn't have the cashflow now to pay the revenue but how did he let it slide so much?

The revenue are doing their job, ruthlessly yes but he was the transgressor and ultimately cost his own workforce their jobs regardless of what anti-govt. spin is put on it.

Happyman42

Valetta wrote: »

If the revenue had been paid up to date then the chances are the business would close anyway, as their suppliers wouldn't have been paid and would have put a hold on supplies.

So, by refusing to reach a deal, Revenue effectively closed the business. Which to me is totally counterproductive. I don't understand why court proceedings weren't issued first.... come into the public domain and explain why you need an installment plan, a deal or whatever and let the Revenue make a transparent case from their angle. Institutions of this state have to make JOBS paramount, based on what we know, this is a ridiculous outcome.

buck65

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, by refusing to reach a deal, Revenue effectively closed the business. Which to me is totally counterproductive. I don't understand why court proceedings weren't issued first.... come into the public domain and explain why you need an installment plan, a deal or whatever and let the Revenue make a transparent case from their angle. Institutions of this state have to make JOBS paramount, based on what we know, this is a ridiculous outcome.

I think the state fundamentally have to enforce what's right and wrong. Seems to me that this guy was given a chance and decided to bluff to get a tax write off - not going to happen these days.

MidlandsM

Ghandee wrote: »

Target, promise pallet will be in customers yard before 9am. Pallet arrives 16.45 (as recently as Friday, never delivered at all)

Liam Connolly road services, promises customer will have pallet before 9am, customer rings to thank me, Liam Connolly truck parked at yard before customers opened for business.

Like i say, sorry to hear of their loss, but they were far from reliable.

wow..wee.....but thats just your experience, I only posted my experience.

ejmaztec

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, by refusing to reach a deal, Revenue effectively closed the business. Which to me is totally counterproductive. I don't understand why court proceedings weren't issued first.... come into the public domain and explain why you need an installment plan, a deal or whatever and let the Revenue make a transparent case from their angle. Institutions of this state have to make JOBS paramount, based on what we know, this is a ridiculous outcome.

They obviously had a deal with the Revenue, and messed the Revenue around by not keeping to it. McBrien decided to cease trading rather than cough up the balance.

He must have been well behind on the instalment arrangement if he paid them a million in the space of six weeks. I wonder what the total sum owed was to begin with.

Happyman42

ejmaztec wrote: »

They obviously had a deal with the Revenue, and messed the Revenue around by not keeping to it. McBrien decided to cease trading rather than cough up the balance.

He must have been well behind on the instalment arrangement if he paid them a million in the space of six weeks. I wonder what the total sum owed was to begin with.

If he was paying up (albeit slowly) I wonder why they pulled the pin. I think like everybody else the Revenue should have priorities, even it means doing deals for the greater good. Do all you can to save the jobs but penalise him personally until he starts running his business properly.

ejmaztec

Happyman42 wrote: »

If he was paying up (albeit slowly) I wonder why they pulled the pin. I think like everybody else the Revenue should have priorities, even it means doing deals for the greater good. Do all you can to save the jobs but penalise him personally until he starts running his business properly.

But they didn't pull the pin, he did.

They probably couldn't penalise him personally because the tax is owed by the company, and the company is a separate legal entity. He and his missus might own all of the company shares, but the Revenue can only go after the company, and not him or his missus.

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, by refusing to reach a deal, Revenue effectively closed the business. Which to me is totally counterproductive. I don't understand why court proceedings weren't issued first.... come into the public domain and explain why you need an installment plan, a deal or whatever and let the Revenue make a transparent case from their angle. Institutions of this state have to make JOBS paramount, based on what we know, this is a ridiculous outcome.

I disagree, it is not the revenues job to facilitate poorly run companies. I could almost guarantee that the Revenue did not pop up out of the blue demanding their money, in my guess they have been engaging with the company for a year now. (It was last November when Target stopped paying our outstanding accounts, just as an example).

I have experienced this from the other side, I lost my job last year because the revenue closed down the company I was working for. We also had a payment plan in place, a plan that we were fulfilling, but they came in and demanded the balance thus shutting us down. But at the end of the day it was the management of the business that were at fault, not the revenue, they should have paid their bloody taxes.

The revenue are not a bunch of sound lads that a place like Target can just put on the long finger, it is not in their interests to have mismanaged companies deciding to just not bother paying their tax.

Happyman42

ejmaztec wrote: »

But they didn't pull the pin, he did.

We are going on what McBrien says here, you accept his contention that he paid a million over 6 weeks but you don't accept his contention that he was forced to close because of the attachments?
He could have taken in revenue for another few weeks/months (not inconsiderable) paid nobody and walked away cash rich, if he was a crook. Seems to me he closed up shortly after attachments where made because he had NO choice. Effectively, the Revenue's action closed the business.

MidlandsM

its strange the way he was able to pay a million over 6 weeks.........why did'nt he pay the taxes in the first instance if he was able to get these funds ???!!!! Hmmmmmm

ejmaztec

Happyman42 wrote: »

We are going on what McBrien says here, you accept his contention that he paid a million over 6 weeks but you don't accept his contention that he was forced to close because of the attachments?
He could have taken in revenue for another few weeks/months (not inconsiderable) paid nobody and walked away cash rich, if he was a crook. Seems to me he closed up shortly after attachments where made because he had NO choice. Effectively, the Revenue's action closed the business.

This is taken from the Revenue guidelines as to what the procedure is when looking for instalment arrangements for tax debts of over €100K.

http://www.revenue.ie/en/business/running/tax-payment-difficulties.html

1. Completion and submission of the Phased Payment Application
(PPA1). To use the instalment calculator facility which will show
the interest payable on the payment arrangement plan proposed,
please click here.
2. Up to date bank statements that will allow Revenue totake a view as to
whether there are increasing excesses on the account and to take a
view on the extent of the account swing
3. List of all/any assets and encumbrances thereon
4. Outline of what cost cutting measures have been implemented in the
business including drawings by the owner/directors
5. Cash flow projections for the following 6 months
6. Up to date management accounts

The Revenue must know the ins and outs of the business, which must mean that they knew that the monies were going to available.

If the Revenue didn't think that the funds were there, they would have gone for a liquidation.

wannabecraig

I used to work for the company about 4.5 years ago and there are nice bunch.
I think all transport companies have issues with delivery time, not sure how target stood up
as I wasn't in that section.

But a lovely bunch of workers and sad to see them lose their jobs.

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

So, by refusing to reach a deal, Revenue effectively closed the business. Which to me is totally counterproductive. I don't understand why court proceedings weren't issued first.... come into the public domain and explain why you need an installment plan, a deal or whatever and let the Revenue make a transparent case from their angle. Institutions of this state have to make JOBS paramount, based on what we know, this is a ridiculous outcome.

How do you know that Revenue were not willing to deal maybe the company was giving them the run around and they decided enough was enough and went for attachment. If they thought they were not viable and would continue to do this and revenue wanted to close them down then liquidation would have happened not an attachment

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

How do you know that Revenue were not willing to deal maybe the company was giving them the run around and they decided enough was enough and went for attachment. If they thought they were not viable and would continue to do this and revenue wanted to close them down then liquidation would have happened not an attachment

I'm basing my opinion on the past actions of the financial wizards and civil servant geniuses who control our state. What are you basing yours on?

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

My point was that the Revenue action was tantamount to forcing the business to close. You disagree, Tell us please, how do you run a company of this size without access to your bank accounts or give us some examples where this has happened.

Well they owed €300K so the attachment would have been for that so lets say they had 400K in the account Revenue would have been given €300K and then the attachment dropped. It is not like the account is down for ever.

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm basing my opinion on the past actions of the financial wizards and civil servant geniuses who control our state. What are you basing yours on?

Thats a complete non-answer, as you well know.

Going Forward

Reading this thread, it appears that half the posters would prefer to live in a socialist state with the Government owning and controlling businesses thereby protecting jobs! (Capitalism has actually failed so..................):)

On a serious note, I hope the workers get jobs soon.

I hear the Irish Road Haulage Association making calls for a diesel rebate, and blaming the availability of laundered diesel for some of their woes.

If the laundered diesel is such a problem, and it obviously is, why are there fec* all Customs checkpoints being set up?

Plus notice how many people are filling up the old 5 gallon drum of marked diesel and throwing it into the boot. Of the diesel car.

Happyman42

bucketybuck wrote: »

Thats a complete non-answer, as you well know.

I'm asking him/her what they are basing their opinions on?
To my mind the institutions of the state have a responsibility to look after the interests of it's people. I am not at all sure the interests of the 'people' where served here.

buck65

That's just populist nonsense, it's like listening to a politician on Vincent Browne, saying nothing but fooling everyone.

Business people deal with numbers, profits,losses, credit, revenue. It is for the most part black and white as is the accounting treatment of it.

Target didn't pay their tax bills so were closed down, that is the rules we play by.

Yes some institutions have gotten away with murder but for the most part regulatory bodies allowed it to happen in the banking sector. All SMEs know that you pay your taxes and your creditors or you go out of business. Yes it is a pity that 400 people are redundant now but the state has no business getting involved with a company like Target. sure liquidate it and hope someone takes it over.

ejmaztec

...and we're also only getting one side of the story, because the Revenue Commissioners aren't allowed to discuss individual cases in public. If it ends up in court we'll find out the truth of the matter. There's more to this than someone being a bit late with the PAYE and the VAT.

Happyman42

buck65 wrote: »

That's just populist nonsense, it's like listening to a politician on Vincent Browne, saying nothing but fooling everyone.

Business people deal with numbers, profits,losses, credit, revenue. It is for the most part black and white as is the accounting treatment of it.

Target didn't pay their tax bills so were closed down, that is the rules we play by.

Yes some institutions have gotten away with murder but for the most part regulatory bodies allowed it to happen in the banking sector. All SMEs know that you pay your taxes and your creditors or you go out of business. Yes it is a pity that 400 people are redundant now but the state has no business getting involved with a company like Target. sure liquidate it and hope someone takes it over.

The employees where paying their taxes too and almost 400 of them where being paid up until attachments, who was looking after their interests, do you think they would have been behind the revenue doing a deal that saw the company survive here? I think they would, but what does the ordinary Joe matter?

Einhard

This is a sad day for the workers, but some of the posts here blaming the Revenune Commissioners are just nonsensical. I seriously doubt that the Commissioners just arrived suddenly last week, had a look at the books, and decided to shut the company down. In instances like these, there is generally a process put in place whereby payments can be facilitated over a longer period. It would seem likely that the company could not, or perhaps would not, abide by such an agreement, and thus the Revenue had no choice but to seek attachment orders on the company's assets.

The thing to remember here is that it's our money. The money that this company and the directors should have paid pays for Social Welfare, for operations, for the roads and hospitals etc etc. I somethimes thing that, in dealing with tax matters, people think that such revenue is an abstract concept without bearing on their daily lives. In reality, the millions essentially defrauded by this company, and gangster Mick Wallace, and that garlic man in Dublin are millions which will have to be cut from the HSE or the Garda or whatever. And yet people have such a laxidasical approach to it. No wonder white collar crme isn't taken seriously in this country.

Also, a lot of posters are condemning the Revenue for seeking attachment orders- the only alternative would be to let the company continue to trade without paying tax. How on earth would that be fair to all the other companies playing by the rules? More fundamentally, it would immediately be struck down as illegal state aid by the first court in which it was raised.

The Revenue did the correct thing in the circumstances. The company chose not to pay taxes, even though it is apparently a profitable enterprise. That's pretty damning. I think it would be helpful if people took stock of the facts of a situation, and maybe thought a bit, before reflexively launching into an anti-government diatribe.

cournioni

I just heard Mr McBrien's comments on the radio there, he says he promised to pay x-y-z, and then another x-y-z monthly. Sounds a lot like the story they were giving our company for years. Total BS.

buck65

I suppose there are people out there who will support this guy and there are people who support the Quinns too.

Actually aren't these guys meant to be related?

buck65

Happyman42 wrote: »

The employees where paying their taxes too and almost 400 of them where being paid up until attachments, who was looking after their interests, do you think they would have been behind the revenue doing a deal that saw the company survive here? I think they would, but what does the ordinary Joe matter?

So the revenue should have gotten the workforce to vote on whether they should have collected their outstanding taxes?

ncdadam

MidlandsM wrote: »

its strange the way he was able to pay a million over 6 weeks.........why did'nt he pay the taxes in the first instance if he was able to get these funds ???!!!! Hmmmmmm

Mick Wallace owes the revenue 4 or 5 times what this company does, yet no sanction.

400 people are now going on the dole because of what looks like intransigence on behalf of the revenue.

How much do you think that'll cost the state now?

This is a backward little sh1thole and it'll never be any different.

My kids are coming of age now and much as it pains me, I'm doing my best to convince them to get out of here and make a decent life for themselves in a properly ran country.

Happyman42

buck65 wrote: »

So the revenue should have gotten the workforce to vote on whether they should have collected their outstanding taxes?

Who said they should have gotten a vote?

SEPT 23 1989

The sit in protests have started

buck65

ncdadam wrote: »

Mick Wallace owes the revenue 4 or 5 times what this company does, yet no sanction.

400 people are now going on the dole because of what looks like intransigence on behalf of the revenue.

How much do you think that'll cost the state now?

This is a backward little sh1thole and it'll never be any different.

My kids are coming of age now and much as it pains me, I'm doing my best to convince them to get out of here and make a decent life for themselves in a properly ran country.

Is Mick Wallace's company still trading?
I think this is important.

bucketybuck

cournioni wrote: »

I just heard Mr McBrien's comments on the radio there, he says he promised to pay x-y-z, and then another x-y-z monthly. Sounds a lot like the story they were giving our company for years. Total BS.

Haha, yeah, we also were promised the cheque was the post. Repeatedly. I'm sure it was all the post offices fault...

SocSocPol

I own a small business, I pay my taxes.
No tax compliant business should be forced to trade in an enviroment where their competitors are not tax compliant and are therfore at a competitive advantage.
Those blaming the revenue need to catch a grip, blame those responsible, the owners of this mismanaged company.

ncdadam

buck65 wrote: »

Is Mick Wallace's company still trading?
I think this is important.

I think it's in liquidation at the moment.

However, this company had a plan in place and most lightly could have traded it's way out of trouble by the looks of it.

It just smacks of cutting the nose off to spite the face.

ncdadam

SocSocPol wrote: »

I own a small business, I pay my taxes.
No tax compliant business should be forced to trade in an enviroment where their competitors are not tax compliant and are therfore at a competitive advantage.
Those blaming the revenue need to catch a grip, blame those responsible, the owners of this mismanaged company.

Tell that to the 400 people who are now on the dole.

bucketybuck

ncdadam wrote: »

400 people are now going on the dole because of what looks like intransigence on behalf of the revenue.

I think you will find 400 people are now going on the dole because of mismanagement on behalf of the owners.

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm basing my opinion on the past actions of the financial wizards and civil servant geniuses who control our state. What are you basing yours on?

Experience in the matters