Irish freight company goes to the wall . . .

SocSocPol

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.

No Happyman, the mismanagment of the company by its directors forced the company to close.
Revenue do not use attachment orders except as a last resort, blame where balme is due.

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

Revenue Business is the collection of taxes which are used to run this country

ncdadam

bucketybuck wrote: »

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

Sure that's ok then.:rolleyes:

bucketybuck

ncdadam wrote: »

Sure that's ok then.:rolleyes:

Your strange use of smilies aside, do you believe then that the Revenue should let companies away with not paying tax just because they employ people? That is the implication of your post you know. And that would set a very dangerous precedent.

Happyman42

SocSocPol wrote: »

No Happyman, the mismanagment of the company by its directors forced the company to close.
Revenue do not use attachment orders except as a last resort, blame where balme is due.

Looking at what we actually know, I don't think it was 'last resort' time. I suspect there is more to this than what we are being told.

SocSocPol

Happyman42 wrote: »

Looking at what we actually know, I don't think it was 'last resort' time. I suspect there is more to this than what we are being told.

Yes it's Lab/FG conspiracy to increase the unemployment rate!:rolleyes:

ejmaztec

I think that some employers in Ireland act like martyrs, and consider that the world owes them a living just because they employ people. The fact that the employees are the ones making the money for them seems to be irrelevant.

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

Looking at what we actually know, I don't think it was 'last resort' time. I suspect there is more to this than what we are being told.

As I said earlier, we as a supplier have been having serious issues getting money from Target since last November. I would not be at all surprised to hear that the Revenue have been dealing with Target since then, and if so then I would say it would very much be "last resort" time.

Happyman42

SocSocPol wrote: »

Yes it's Lab/FG conspiracy to increase the unemployment rate!:rolleyes:

You can climb up on your pro-government hobby horse if you want, trot on.
I'd like to know what Varadkar and the others members of 'our government for the common man' had to say about the matter, when asked to intervene. What did they do to save the jobs here.

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

Looking at what we actually know, I don't think it was 'last resort' time. I suspect there is more to this than what we are being told.

Exactly we are only hearing one side Revenue can't comment

SocSocPol

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can climb up on your pro-government hobby horse if you want, trot on.
I'd like to know what Varadkar and the others members of 'our government for the common man' had to say about the matter, when asked to intervene. What did they do to save the jobs here.

What do you want Leo Varadkar to do, pay McBriens tax bill himself? Target didn't pay their tax bill, now they are paying the price, which is fair.
I ask you why should my business pay our taxea if the likes of Target are allowed not to pay theirs?

Happyman42

bucketybuck wrote: »

As I said earlier, we as a supplier have been having serious issues getting money from Target since last November. I would not be at all surprised to hear that the Revenue have been dealing with Target since then, and if so then I would say it would very much be "last resort" time.

I have serious issues getting paid all the time, reality of the current business situation, I'm afraid. If I stopped doing business with delinquent accounts I would be out of business. There is a difference between somebody who is never going to pay and somebody who will pay eventually. The first one gets weeded out fairly quickly.
Yes, I could be aggressive and demand payment but I would not last long, therefore I constantly compromise.

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

I have serious issues getting paid all the time, reality of the current business situation, I'm afraid. If I stopped doing business with delinquent accounts I would be out of business. There is a difference between somebody who is never going to pay and somebody who will pay eventually. The first one gets weeded out fairly quickly.
Yes, I could be aggressive and demand payment but I would not last long, therefore I constantly compromise.

As we have found out to our misfortune, Target were one of the ones who were never going to pay.

But sure thats the Revenues fault I guess.

CruelCoin

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that some employers in Ireland act like martyrs, and consider that the world owes them a living just because they employ people. The fact that the employees are the ones making the money for them seems to be irrelevant.

As an employer i reject that.

I start work at 7am, and i don't stop untill 7pm.

Over the dinner table i'm talking about work, during the weekend i'm doing paperwork etc. I cannot make friends with staff so there is no social outlet for me here.
All the financial risk rides on my shoulders. All the buck stops with me.

I hold expertise in each and every single area of the business. It would take multiple staff members combined to replace me.

Like the majority of employers i do more, know more and work more.
Frankly, were the staff to be so awesome, they would have started up businesses of their own. That they didn't is example enough.

Don't be so quick to lambast employers please.

bucketybuck

CruelCoin wrote: »

As an employer i reject that.

I start work at 7am, and i don't stop untill 7pm.

Over the dinner table i'm talking about work, during the weekend i'm doing paperwork etc. I cannot make friends with staff so there is no social outlet for me here.
All the financial risk rides on my shoulders. All the buck stops with me.

I hold expertise in each and every single area of the business. It would take multiple staff members combined to replace me.

Like the majority of employers i do more, know more and work more.
Frankly, were the staff to be so awesome, they would have started up businesses of their own. That they didn't is example enough.

Don't be so quick to lambast employers please.

Do you pay your taxes to the Revenue?

Gummy Panda

CruelCoin wrote: »

As an employer i reject that.

I start work at 7am, and i don't stop untill 7pm.

Over the dinner table i'm talking about work, during the weekend i'm doing paperwork etc. I cannot make friends with staff so there is no social outlet for me here.
All the financial risk rides on my shoulders. All the buck stops with me.

I hold expertise in each and every single area of the business. It would take multiple staff members combined to replace me.

Like the majority of employers i do more, know more and work more.
Frankly, were the staff to be so awesome, they would have started up businesses of their own. That they didn't is example enough.

Don't be so quick to lambast employers please.

I've never seen someone take so much pride in a lemonade stand. CruelCoin will you ever learn :pac:

ejmaztec

CruelCoin wrote: »

As an employer i reject that.

I start work at 7am, and i don't stop untill 7pm.

Over the dinner table i'm talking about work, during the weekend i'm doing paperwork etc. I cannot make friends with staff so there is no social outlet for me here.
All the financial risk rides on my shoulders. All the buck stops with me.

I hold expertise in each and every single area of the business. It would take multiple staff members combined to replace me.

Like the majority of employers i do more, know more and work more.
Frankly, were the staff to be so awesome, they would have started up businesses of their own. That they didn't is example enough.

Don't be so quick to lambast employers please.

I made a special point of saying "some employers", because some of them do fall into the category, and you obviously don't.

CruelCoin

Gummy Panda wrote: »

I've never seen someone take so much pride in a lemonade stand. CruelCoin will you ever learn :pac:

I'm very knowledgable about my lemons now! There's round ones and oval ones and...and and....SHUT UP!

CruelCoin

ejmaztec wrote: »

I made a special point of saying "some employers", because some of them do fall into the category, and you obviously don't.

Coolio

geeky

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can climb up on your pro-government hobby horse if you want, trot on.
I'd like to know what Varadkar and the others members of 'our government for the common man' had to say about the matter, when asked to intervene. What did they do to save the jobs here.

They were asked, according to the manager, to make representations on behalf of the company. It would be absolutely grotesque for them to intervene on behalf of a company that didn't want to pay its tax. 1.9m pre-tax profits last year with shareholders’ funds of £7.3m - that's more than enough to settle a €300,000 bill if a company is being properly run.

Seriously, no "government of the common man" would lean on the Revenue to let this joker of a businessman off.

CruelCoin wrote: »

As an employer i reject that.

I start work at 7am, and i don't stop untill 7pm.

Over the dinner table i'm talking about work, during the weekend i'm doing paperwork etc. I cannot make friends with staff so there is no social outlet for me here.
All the financial risk rides on my shoulders. All the buck stops with me.

I hold expertise in each and every single area of the business. It would take multiple staff members combined to replace me.

Like the majority of employers i do more, know more and work more.
Frankly, were the staff to be so awesome, they would have started up businesses of their own. That they didn't is example enough.

Don't be so quick to lambast employers please.

Yes, you work hard. So do I, as another employer. We have far more risk, and work more because we're emotionally invested in the business. The upside is greater reward when it comes good, and far more freedom about who we work with. Employing people doesn't give either of us a right to flout the tax laws.

Happyman42

geeky wrote: »

a company that didn't want to pay its tax.

Where are you getting this info from?

Einhard

ncdadam wrote: »

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

So what exactly is your solution? Do you think the Revenue should allow this company not to pay their tax? That's a terrible idea. If target doesn't have to pay tax, why should other companies? If target doesn't have to pay tax, that means they have a huge financial advantage over compliant companies, which means they can drastically reduce the prices they charge, undercutting other companies in the process, and thus leading directly to the closure of those other companies. I mean, seriously...it's a dumb idea.

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can climb up on your pro-government hobby horse if you want, trot on.
I'd like to know what Varadkar and the others members of 'our government for the common man' had to say about the matter, when asked to intervene. What did they do to save the jobs here.

Firstly, how do you know they didn't do all they could to save the jobs? Secondly, what exactly could they have done? You're surely not suggesting that TDs should have the power to lobby the Revenue Commissioners not to collect taxes from certain individuals? Because that would be a seriously dumb move.

It's strange: company owes a shedload of money, including taxes which the directors refused to pay. The Revenue decide that they are not going to get the money any other way except through an attachment order. Company closes because of mismanagement and what amounts to fraud, and somehow the government and the Revenue Commissioners are to to blame? Jesus Christ, the mind boggles.

Happyman42

Einhard wrote: »

Firstly, how do you know they didn't do all they could to save the jobs? Secondly, what exactly could they have done? You're surely not suggesting that TDs should have the power to lobby the Revenue Commissioners not to collect taxes from certain individuals? Because that would be a seriously dumb move.

It's strange: company owes a shedload of money, including taxes which the directors refused to pay. The Revenue decide that they are not going to get the money any other way except through an attachment order. Company closes because of mismanagement and what amounts to fraud, and somehow the government and the Revenue Commissioners are to to blame? Jesus Christ, the mind boggles.

^^ reactionary bull**** tbh. Nobody is blaming the Revenue here, I am just saying that there must be a better, less damaging way to extract taxes from a company that seemed to be paying it (albeit slowly) Other state institutions make deals, why should the Revenue be any different if it is for the greater good?
Why for instance, was the tax bill allowed to get so big? Somebody was making compromises somewhere along the line, why come the heavy all of a sudden?
If you are saying that all businesses, corporations and individuals are treated in a similar and fair way in this country then it is you who is the fool.

geeky

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where are you getting this info from?

Err, company accounts?

€1.9m pre-tax profits last year with shareholders’ funds of £7.3m.

That's more than enough to settle a €300,000 bill.

Lads who cheat the Revenue are also able to undercut honest operators, putting them out of business.

buck65

Jesus Christ will you look at the facts of what we do know. Target were given an opportunity to clear their tax bill and didn't.

Happyman42

buck65 wrote: »

Jesus Christ will you look at the facts of what we do know. Target were given an opportunity to clear their tax bill and didn't.

And the Revenue acting the way they did proved that the business couldn't function without that money. Target seemed to offer terms that suited the survival of the business first and Revenue would have gotten their money. If this man was a crook he would have headed for the hills a long time ago with the loot, it's ridiculous to suggest that he was in any way crimminal without facts.
Revenue has become extremely aggressive in a very difficult marketplace, that is throwing the baby out with the bath water in many many instances.

Einhard

Happyman42 wrote: »

^^ reactionary bull**** tbh. Nobody is blaming the Revenue here, I am just saying that there must be a better, less damaging way to extract taxes from a company that seemed to be paying it (albeit slowly) Other state institutions make deals, why should the Revenue be any different if it is for the greater good?

Eh yes you are blaming the Revenue here...you're clearly blaming them for not coming up with a "better, less damagaing way to extract taxes", even though you have absolutely no idea what kind of arrangements the Revenue sought to implement with Target. You've consistently implied that the government and the Revenue are somehow at fault here. Yet you have no evidence to back uo your assertions. If you could show me evidence that the Revenue simply pounced on this company and shut them down, then I'd agree with you. But I know from experience that that is not how Revenue generally works. You are making pretty extraordinary claims based on nothing, and I think on this matter, you should either put up or shut up.

Why for instance, was the tax bill allowed to get so big? Somebody was making
compromises somewhere along the line, why come the heavy all of a sudden?

Because Revenue doesn't have an accountant sitting in every office of every company in the land. Mostly, they depend on voluntary declarations, and will rarely send out teams to audit a firm's accounts. That's how bills can arise in this manner. More to the point though: the reason the taxes accumulated to such an extent is because the owners of the company didn't pay them.

If you are saying that all businesses, corporations and individuals are
treated in a similar and fair way in this country then it is you who is the
fool.

Unlike you it seems, I like to see evidence before it makes up my mind on things. You, on the other hand, seem to pluck out of the air things that fit in with your own preconceptions. Ireland has repeatedly come close to the top in indices of nations most amenable to business, and is ranked as low corruption in other international rankings. That would indicate to me that the playing field is relatively level in terms of doing business here. That's what I base my opinions on. I think our definitions of a fool must differ substantially, if you think making one's mind up based on the available evidence is a foolish thing to do.

Happyman42

Einhard wrote: »

Eh yes you are blaming the Revenue here...you're clearly blaming them for not coming up with a "better, less damagaing way to extract taxes", even though you have absolutely no idea what kind of arrangements the Revenue sought to implement with Target. You've consistently implied that the government and the Revenue are somehow at fault here. Yet you have no evidence to back uo your assertions. If you could show me evidence that the Revenue simply pounced on this company and shut them down, then I'd agree with you. But I know from experience that that is not how Revenue generally works. You are making pretty extraordinary claims based on nothing, and I think on this matter, you should either put up or shut up.




Because Revenue doesn't have an accountant sitting in every office of every company in the land. Mostly, they depend on voluntary declarations, and will rarely send out teams to audit a firm's accounts. That's how bills can arise in this manner. More to the point though: the reason the taxes accumulated to such an extent is because the owners of the company didn't pay them.



Unlike you it seems, I like to see evidence before it makes up my mind on things. You, on the other hand, seem to pluck out of the air things that fit in with your own preconceptions. Ireland has repeatedly come close to the top in indices of nations most amenable to business, and is ranked as low corruption in other international rankings. That would indicate to me that the playing field is relatively level in terms of doing business here. That's what I base my opinions on. I think our definitions of a fool must differ substantially, if you think making one's mind up based on the available evidence is a foolish thing to do.

More of the holier than thou, moralising nonsense that means nothing.
Would you say Revenue have gotten more aggressive in the last two years?
What is the function of a Minister for Jobs, would you say? If this was 390 odd jobs in an American corporation, would the Minister have anything to say?
Did the Minister do anything to mediate here.
Do crooks and crimminals seek the assistance of the relevant Minister when they have a problem with an institution of the state?

NOBODY is looking for this company to be given an amnesty or for them to be allowed to NOT pay tax. What we are saying is there has to be a better way to do things.

luckyfrank

target had a couple of large contracts, i know they had a clothing line contract with a top company, put it this way the good contract will go to another company who will be hiring soon i think

buck65

Maybe a tax deferral where companies can owe tax and come to an agreement with the Revenue to pay so much a month whilst still trading profitably whilst still employing staff?

mistermee

i dont know any more about this than anyone else so really my below post is based on a lot of presumptions.

but presuming Target owe revenue €500,000.
If they paid €80,000 this week like they said then that would leave them with a bill of €420,000
I'm also preusming that they could have cleared this over a relatively short period if they were able to repay the guts of €300,000 to revenue over the last 6 weeks or so.

With the loss of 400 jobs. If each of these employees was paying approx €100 per week to revenue in taxes, prsi, levy etc, then thats an immediate loss to revenue of €40,000 per week.

If each of their 250 or so trucks were still on the road, spending a very very conservative guesstimate of €100 per week on Diesel, then thats a further immediate loss of €18,000 in VAT and fuel Tax to revenue per week. (In reality based on the amount of fuel consumed, that figure would be closer to €40k+ per week)

Adding to that weekly VAT loss to revenue and lets say an average dole payment to these now unemployed people of €100 per week, etc, etc, etc, you can see that the figure of €500k outstanding owed to Revenue is becoming less and less significant.

Whilst I completely understand Revenues need to 'clamp down' and 'make an example', I think there should be some sort of leniency showed to companies, particularly those companies employing such significant amounts of people, and most particularly when they appear to be making a considerable effort to repay what is owed. At the end of the day its going to cost the state exponentially more due to loss of earnings directly and indirectly attributed to this company, as well as all the State Benefits they will now have to pay out.

Capt'n Midnight

We're missing out on the import bit.

Fair enough the shareholders got their €7.3m, but what lies ahead for them ?

theblueirish

The Shareholders being Seamus and Ann McBrien.

ejmaztec

mistermee wrote: »

i dont know any more about this than anyone else so really my below post is based on a lot of presumptions.

but presuming Target owe revenue €500,000.
If they paid €80,000 this week like they said then that would leave them with a bill of €420,000
I'm also preusming that they could have cleared this over a relatively short period if they were able to repay the guts of €300,000 to revenue over the last 6 weeks or so.

With the loss of 400 jobs. If each of these employees was paying approx €100 per week to revenue in taxes, prsi, levy etc, then thats an immediate loss to revenue of €40,000 per week.

If each of their 250 or so trucks were still on the road, spending a very very conservative guesstimate of €100 per week on Diesel, then thats a further immediate loss of €18,000 in VAT and fuel Tax to revenue per week. (In reality based on the amount of fuel consumed, that figure would be closer to €40k+ per week)

Adding to that weekly VAT loss to revenue and lets say an average dole payment to these now unemployed people of €100 per week, etc, etc, etc, you can see that the figure of €500k outstanding owed to Revenue is becoming less and less significant.

Whilst I completely understand Revenues need to 'clamp down' and 'make an example', I think there should be some sort of leniency showed to companies, particularly those companies employing such significant amounts of people, and most particularly when they appear to be making a considerable effort to repay what is owed. At the end of the day its going to cost the state exponentially more due to loss of earnings directly and indirectly attributed to this company, as well as all the State Benefits they will now have to pay out.

If they don't actually pay the VAT and PAYE over to the Revenue it's already a loss to the Revenue.

coolisin

Just so i can say,
the only part I'm annoyed about the revenue stepping in is not allowing the wages of the employees to go through last week.
Other then that they are correct, just like quinn no sympathy for the big guy here.

mistermee

ejmaztec wrote: »

If they don't actually pay the VAT and PAYE over to the Revenue it's already a loss to the Revenue.

fair enough but we are led to believe that they paid €214,000 last week and a further €80,000 payment was due to be paid this week. Unless thats lying then it appears they are making an effort.

At the end of the day I know that the company are in the wrong, however this will end up costing the taxpayer (ie: me) a lot more than the €500k they are supposedly owed. For that reason alone I feel that they should find a better solution.

ncdadam

bucketybuck wrote: »

Your strange use of smilies aside, do you believe then that the Revenue should let companies away with not paying tax just because they employ people? That is the implication of your post you know. And that would set a very dangerous precedent.

The point I'm making is that if a company paid €1 million as reported recently and was going to pay this month €100,000 odd, surely some kind of arrangement could have been arrived at.
As it stands, weather it's the company's fault or the revenue's fault doesn't really matter.
There's now 400 more on the dole and that'll cost the state millions over the next year.
That's all, a bit of common sense might have gone a long way.

I have to agree with the owner of the company though, if it was some american multinational that ran into difficulties the politicians would be all over it like a rash trying to sort something out, they're very quiet on this case though.

Happyman42

mistermee wrote: »

fair enough but we are led to believe that they paid €214,000 last week and a further €80,000 payment was due to be paid this week. Unless thats lying then it appears they are making an effort.

At the end of the day I know that the company are in the wrong, however this will end up costing the taxpayer (ie: me) a lot more than the €500k they are supposedly owed. For that reason alone I feel that they should find a better solution.

ncdadam wrote: »

The point I'm making is that if a company paid €1 million as reported recently and was going to pay this month €100,000 odd, surely some kind of arrangement could have been arrived at.
As it stands, weather it's the company's fault or the revenue's fault doesn't really matter.
There's now 400 more on the dole and that'll cost the state millions over the next year.
That's all, a bit of common sense might have gone a long way.

I have to agree with the owner of the company though, if it was some american multinational that ran into difficulties the politicians would be all over it like a rash trying to sort something out, they're very quiet on this case though.

You are right, and that is what a Minister is for in this situation, to mediate between the two, ensuring that the jobs are sacrosanct. Again nbody is asking for leiniency or ammnesty. Just do everything humanly possible to save the jobs.

kingstown

From a different point - we dispatch approx 25 / 35 boxes with Target each day for delivery to our customers next day.
On last Friday we dispatched 22 of which 7 were delivered early Monday i.e. before 11am

First we heard there was an issue was approx 3.45pm yesterday when we were advised there wouldn't be any collection and deliveries going forward.

We tried to contact Target today for an update on where our 15 undelivered parcels from Friday are? - no reply from any contact or depot

We have customers screaming for their orders -and as a result we have had to re issue these orders and ship again today.

Question, where is my stock. - Approx €5000 + Vat in value. (1 pallet in excess of 2K)
Nobody from the company can be contacted, and while I understand there are a lot of very upset people here, the owner has to bare responsibly and contact his customers to explain what they are doing with regard to returning undelivered pallets / parcels.
We will collect these ourselves if possiable........I just want the stock back.

We also have a business to run........ pay staff, Vat, taxes etc.....

bucketybuck

mistermee wrote: »

fair enough but we are led to believe that they paid €214,000 last week and a further €80,000 payment was due to be paid this week. Unless thats lying then it appears they are making an effort.

Like we were led to believe our cheque was in the post...

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

You are right, and that is what a Minister is for in this situation, to mediate between the two, ensuring that the jobs are sacrosanct. Again nbody is asking for leiniency or ammnesty. Just do everything humanly possible to save the jobs.

Ministers cannot and should not mediate between taxpayers and Revenue.
Revenue is set up to be an Office and not a Government Department so there isn't a minister in executive control.

The last thing we need in this country is Ministers having any control over how Revenue deal with individual cases.

mistermee

bucketybuck wrote: »

Like we were led to believe our cheque was in the post...

theres more chance of creditors getting paid if this company was still trading.
unfortunately it seems now that any chance of getting money has completely gone due to the company having ceased trading due to revenue putting a hold on their accounts

mistermee

kingstown wrote: »

From a different point - we dispatch approx 25 / 35 boxes with Target each day for delivery to our customers next day.
On last Friday we dispatched 22 of which 7 were delivered early Monday i.e. before 11am

First we heard there was an issue was approx 3.45pm yesterday when we were advised there wouldn't be any collection and deliveries going forward.

We tried to contact Target today for an update on where our 15 undelivered parcels from Friday are? - no reply from any contact or depot

We have customers screaming for their orders -and as a result we have had to re issue these orders and ship again today.

Question, where is my stock. - Approx €5000 + Vat in value. (1 pallet in excess of 2K)
Nobody from the company can be contacted, and while I understand there are a lot of very upset people here, the owner has to bare responsibly and contact his customers to explain what they are doing with regard to returning undelivered pallets / parcels.
We will collect these ourselves if possiable........I just want the stock back.

We also have a business to run........ pay staff, Vat, taxes etc.....

i was listening to Joe Duffy earlier today and there was a man on who happens to be a landlord to Target in the North.
he was saying that he never had a problem with payment from this company but he had to change the locks on the property he owns and wont allow anyone access to the property or the stock as he doesnt know the legal process himself. i'd say there are a lot of companies stock currently inaccessible for this reason.

ejmaztec

mistermee wrote: »

theres more chance of creditors getting paid if this company was still trading.
unfortunately it seems now that any chance of getting money has completely gone due to the company having ceased trading due to revenue putting a hold on their accounts

Only if it's proven to be insolvent.

ejmaztec

Just had an email from Misco.ie making excuses:

We’re sorry to report that yesterday (Monday 27th August 2012) our delivery partner for Ireland, Target Ireland, decided to cease trading. Target Ireland is a private company, employing around 400 staff at 16 sites and is not part of Misco, Systemax or our UK partner, City Link.
City Link is implementing contingency plans for a replacement partner for the Republic of Ireland. Deliveries to Northern Ireland will continue to be delivered by City Link and are unaffected.

The majority of consignments that were held with Target were delivered yesterday however all remaining deliveries are currently being consolidated and held in the Dublin hub ready to be collected by City Link’s new partner on Wednesday for delivery on Thursday (Friday for outlying areas).

Anyone

Its a joke that the Revenue did this, considering what Target had paid, and had offered to pay showed the company wasnt insolvent. They effectively closed the company down.

Then again, the Revenue has to meet its own targets in relation to collection of tax, and thats all thats important to them.

For what its worth, this isnt the first time I have heard of the Revenue shutting down business's because the owners couldnt pay everything there and then.

And to see that complete and utter bollix sitting in the Dail getting away scot free for what he did, wheres the consistency? He screws the country and his employees, and we the Irish people pay him a wage and a pension.....

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

Ministers cannot and should not mediate between taxpayers and Revenue.

Yes they should. Who would you have mediate? This was obviously a situation where mediation would have helped greatly from what I can see.

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

Yes they should. Who would you have mediate? This was obviously a situation where mediation would have helped greatly from what I can see.

I wouldn't have politicians get directly involved with the Revenue at all - it would be a recipe for disaster if politicians could start putting pressure on the Revenue about how they deal with indivual cases - we have enough corruption thanks.

If the company needed someone to make their case, they should hire someone to speak for them.

martingriff

Anyone wrote: »

Its a joke that the Revenue did this, considering what Target had paid, and had offered to pay showed the company wasnt insolvent. They effectively closed the company down.

Then again, the Revenue has to meet its own targets in relation to collection of tax, and thats all thats important to them.

For what its worth, this isnt the first time I have heard of the Revenue shutting down business's because the owners couldnt pay everything there and then.

And to see that complete and utter bollix sitting in the Dail getting away scot free for what he did, wheres the consistency? He screws the country and his employees, and we the Irish people pay him a wage and a pension.....

I think the point was they were not. In breaking news website the manager even said they had not paid a few instalments. In relation to there offer we do not know what it was.

The Revenue will shut down business that have been shown to not take there responsibilities to heart and this is done so the tax bill for the country does not go up. ALSO LETS REMEMBER REVENUE DID NOT CLOSE THIS BUSINESS DOWN. We do not know what happened between the company and the revenue we have only 1 side

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

^^ reactionary bull**** tbh. Nobody is blaming the Revenue here, I am just saying that there must be a better, less damaging way to extract taxes from a company that seemed to be paying it (albeit slowly) Other state institutions make deals, why should the Revenue be any different if it is for the greater good?
Why for instance, was the tax bill allowed to get so big? Somebody was making compromises somewhere along the line, why come the heavy all of a sudden?
If you are saying that all businesses, corporations and individuals are treated in a similar and fair way in this country then it is you who is the fool.

They do make deals but the issue is what type of deal. As with nobody blaming the revenue I think you should reread the tread and take a look at some of your posts