Irish freight company goes to the wall . . .

Anyone

martingriff wrote: »

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

The Revenue wont do it unless they pay everything thats owed in the short term.

Quote from http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0828/irha-hauliers-fuel.html

Revenue Chairman Josephine Feehily is quoted as saying that they want to help viable business and taxpayers who want to pay their taxes, but cannot do so in the short term.

So basically, pay everything up now or we take what we can. Its a very short sighted view. If they feel a company may go bust, they will attempt to take every single asset they can. They have no interest in maintaining a business. So if a creditor(the revenue) strips a company of its assets, they shut it down.


Lets put this into perspective btw, its 400 people's and their families jobs gone for 500k. The Revenue's decision will end up costing the state a lot more than 500k which they havent and wont now collect.

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

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.

The Minister for jobs or any member of the Dail or county council should tell the Revenue how to collect taxes because if they did and a company that may have links to a Td got favour there would be a sh1t storm and you be on here giving out about how the Revenue should be independant.

martingriff

buck65 wrote: »

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?

Check revenue website you will see it is already there with guidelines and a form to fill out with proposals

martingriff

Anyone wrote: »

The Revenue wont do it unless they pay everything thats owed in the short term.

Quote from http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0828/irha-hauliers-fuel.html

Revenue Chairman Josephine Feehily is quoted as saying that they want to help viable business and taxpayers who want to pay their taxes, but cannot do so in the short term.

So basically, pay everything up now or we take what we can. Its a very short sighted view. If they feel a company may go bust, they will attempt to take every single asset they can. They have no interest in maintaining a business. So if a creditor(the revenue) strips a company of its assets, they shut it down.


Lets put this into perspective btw, its 400 people's and their families jobs gone for 500k. The Revenue's decision will end up costing the state a lot more than 500k which they havent and wont now collect.

Great with the selective quoting there why not quote it all or would that not help you rant. Here is everything see said in case you want to note it

Revenue Chairman Josephine Feehily is quoted as saying that they want to help viable business and taxpayers who want to pay their taxes, but cannot do so in the short term.

She says that they can and do put alternative payment arrangements in place to help such customers through difficult periods.
However, she warns that businesses and individuals must engage with Revenue at the earliest possible opportunity - and that such engagement must be realistic

TheBlock

Anyone wrote: »

The Revenue wont do it unless they pay everything thats owed in the short term.

Quote from http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0828/irha-hauliers-fuel.html

Revenue Chairman Josephine Feehily is quoted as saying that they want to help viable business and taxpayers who want to pay their taxes, but cannot do so in the short term.

QUOTE]

Think you may want to read the revenue spokespersons quote again. They say they are willing to work with people who are having difficulties paying and cannot pay them in the short term. Therefore they are willing to accept payment plans provided these plans are adhered to.

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

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.

Absolutely no reason why they can't, as long as it is on record and transparent. The Revenue are collecting on behalf of the Government, who are collecting for us all.
A publc interest is a public interest.

Run_to_da_hills

RTE should have cancelled tonight's Trucking series as a mark of respect to all those that have lost their jobs.

SocSocPol

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely no reason why they can't, as long as it is on record and transparent. The Revenue are collecting on behalf of the Government, who are collecting for us all.
A publc interest is a public interest.

And the first time a politican made a representation and the Revenue acted we would have the shinners and their ilk on here demanding a public inquirey into why the revenue wasn't pursuing tax defaulters.
When push comes to shove some people , like yourself, are little more than oppertunistic mouthpieces who knock everything the state does but never offer viable and realistic alternatives.

MidlandsM

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

RTE should have cancelled tonight's Trucking series as a mark of respect to all those that have lost their jobs.

rubbish........

Fuinseog

LordSutch wrote: »

400 jobs to go at Target Express freight company

Almost 400 people are to lose their jobs at Ireland's largest privately owned transport company College Freight after the company announced it had decided to cease trading. It's understood the company owed the Revenue Commissioners a sum in the region of €1m It's understood the company owed the Revenue Commissioners a sum in the region of €1m

The company which operates as Target Express employed 390 staff in the Republic & the UK. It's understood that the Revenue Commissioners placed attachments on the company's bank accounts last Friday, and that despite ongoing negotiations, the issues could not be resolved.

mich wallace should take over the company. that way the money owed to the revenue could be wavered.

SCOOP 64

MidlandsM wrote: »

Well, I used Target loads...........and they NEVER let me down........so, I'm really gutted for them, and their employee's and families.

thank you!

SocSocPol

Fuinseog wrote: »

mich wallace should take over the company. that way the money owed to the revenue could be wavered.

Indeed it could, so long as the company ceased trading, as Target already has...duh!

SCOOP 64

coolisin wrote: »

No company should be forgiven for not paying taxes, I agree how much was the Tyrone sponsorship deal costing them but yet they weren't paying taxes.

Though revenue can be stupid with companies falling behind, I have seen the other side where they just went after a company because an investor turned out to be an idiot and revenue just wanted everything around that person gone. Lucky that company pulled through and sorted it's stuff out with court protection and saved jobs.

Some great contracts for the competition to pick up, but these 400 people are sitting at home this morning stressing because the work they did good or bad was undone by the people at the top.
Will the competitor's start employing extra people who knows.
The last thing some of them need to be hearing is how another company is better good riddance.

TBH courier companies are all the same, dpd have there moments of incompetency, so do fastway, Dhl have messed up heck even FedEx have majorly dropped the ball on me once or twice. I've used them all. Very little difference with any of them.

Well said!

barneystinson

Happyman42 wrote: »

Absolutely no reason why they can't, as long as it is on record and transparent. The Revenue are collecting on behalf of the Government, who are collecting for us all.
A publc interest is a public interest.

A fundamental principle of most democracies is the separation of duties, and the independence of officers of the State:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0010/sec0101.html

Happyman, indulge me in a little hypothetical situation if you would:
Let's just say Leo Varadkar got onto Revenue at McBrien's request, and Target got a sweetheart deal. Now none of that would be reported in the media, as the company would be entitled to privacy.

And then 6 months later, a competitor of Target (who did everything above board and by the book) go out of business due to losing out to Target on a few contracts. And say the director of that company heard about Target's sweetheart deal. What do you think would happen when that reached the media... can you imagine the headlines? And what posters on here would have to say about it?

ncdadam

barneystinson wrote: »

A fundamental principle of most democracies is the separation of duties, and the independence of officers of the State:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0010/sec0101.html

Happyman, indulge me in a little hypothetical situation if you would:
Let's just say Leo Varadkar got onto Revenue at McBrien's request, and Target got a sweetheart deal. Now none of that would be reported in the media, as the company would be entitled to privacy.

And then 6 months later, a competitor of Target (who did everything above board and by the book) go out of business due to losing out to Target on a few contracts. And say the director of that company heard about Target's sweetheart deal. What do you think would happen when that reached the media... can you imagine the headlines? And what posters on here would have to say about it?

I reckon the scenario you describe above happens all the time in our little banana republic only we never hear about it.

You'd have to know the right people, you know, the ruling elite.

SocSocPol

ncdadam wrote: »

I reckon the scenario you describe above happens all the time in our little banana republic only we never hear about it.

You'd have to know the right people, you know, the ruling elite.

Another believer in the Illuminati conspiracy theory, FFS this just gets better and better.

ncdadam

SocSocPol wrote: »

Another believer in the Illuminati conspiracy theory, FFS this just gets better and better.

This is a country well known for little 'deals' under the table or haven't you noticed.

ncdadam

SocSocPol wrote: »

Another believer in the Illuminati conspiracy theory, FFS this just gets better and better.

Tell me this then, do you trust the government of today?
Do you trust the dept. of finance, the regulators or the banks?
Do you think there's transparency in public life?

Boombastic

So Sean Quinns cousin owns this company I believe....the plot thickens

SocSocPol

ncdadam wrote: »

Tell me this then, do you trust the government of today?
Do you trust the dept. of finance, the regulators or the banks?
Do you think there's transparency in public life?

I dont believe in "illuminati" type conspiracies, nor am I a member of the flat earth society, nor do I believe that tax cheats like McBrien should be allowed to drive(pardon the pun) honest competitors out of business.

ncdadam

SocSocPol wrote: »

I dont believe in "illuminati" type conspiracies, nor am I a member of the flat earth society, nor do I believe that tax cheats like McBrien should be allowed to drive(pardon the pun) honest competitors out of business.

Neither do I.

The point I made earlier was that surely something could have been done to ensure these jobs were saved.

Why wasn't the company put into administration to see what could or couldn't be saved.

It all smells a bit funny to me, on both sides.

bucketybuck

ncdadam wrote: »

Neither do I.

The point I made earlier was that surely something could have been done to ensure these jobs were saved.

Why wasn't the company put into administration to see what could or couldn't be saved.

It all smells a bit funny to me, on both sides.

To save the jobs the management could have ran the company like a proper business.

The company wasn't put into administration because the owner made his own decision to close the company. It very well could have been put into administration, he didn't bother. Thats the owners decision, not the revenues.

Hope this helps.

ebbsy

The company should have got Mick Wallace in to represent them. Liabilities would not have been pursued.

Happyman42

SocSocPol wrote: »

And the first time a politican made a representation and the Revenue acted we would have the shinners and their ilk on here demanding a public inquirey into why the revenue wasn't pursuing tax defaulters.
When push comes to shove some people , like yourself, are little more than oppertunistic mouthpieces who knock everything the state does but never offer viable and realistic alternatives.

barneystinson wrote: »

A fundamental principle of most democracies is the separation of duties, and the independence of officers of the State:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0010/sec0101.html

Happyman, indulge me in a little hypothetical situation if you would:
Let's just say Leo Varadkar got onto Revenue at McBrien's request, and Target got a sweetheart deal. Now none of that would be reported in the media, as the company would be entitled to privacy.

And then 6 months later, a competitor of Target (who did everything above board and by the book) go out of business due to losing out to Target on a few contracts. And say the director of that company heard about Target's sweetheart deal. What do you think would happen when that reached the media... can you imagine the headlines? And what posters on here would have to say about it?

Not if there is a transparent mechanism for arbitration when the situation comes to this, available to all.
But that of course would be putting people first, and we couldn't have that could we?

marienbad

ncdadam wrote: »

Neither do I.

The point I made earlier was that surely something could have been done to ensure these jobs were saved.

Why wasn't the company put into administration to see what could or couldn't be saved.

It all smells a bit funny to me, on both sides.

Loads of things could have been done to save those jobs but the company decided not to pursue them.

Do you understand the process or even read other posts ?

barneystinson

Happyman42 wrote: »

Not if there is a transparent mechanism for arbitration when the situation comes to this, available to all.
But that of course would be putting people first, and we couldn't have that could we?

Arbitration about what?

They've declared a tax liability, and there's a due date for payment of it. If it's a fiduciary tax such as VAT or PAYE/PRSI on payroll deductions, then there's no excuses - that money was never theirs, they are merely collection agents for the State.

As for transparent processes, the office of the Collector General has very clear guidelines for dealing with cases where there is a difficulty with paying a declared liabilities, and I'm pretty sure a previous poster actually linked to them if you'd like to have a look at them. The Revenue Commissioners are subject to oversight from the C&AGs, and Josephine Feehily is liable to be dragged over the hot coals in front of the Dail Public Accounts Committee (in public) if the CG's are found to be acting outside of their remit.

Where the company can't honour it's commitments within this framework, then it is negligent of Revenue, given its mandate "to efficiently and fairly collect taxes", not to act to secure the debt. It would be negligent with regard to its fully compliant customers (who are now at a trading disadvantage to the company in arrears), and with regard to the risk to the Exchequer of allowing the company to reach a point where it is insolvent and the debt becomes irrecoverable.

I would be willing to bet you any amount of money, that if / when the entire facts in this case are known, the CG's actions in attaching will be shown to have been taken at the end of quite a long road, involving multiple failures of the taxpayer to honour agreements. I've never heard of attachment happening in any other circumstances.

Happyman42

barneystinson wrote: »

Arbitration about what?

They've declared a tax liability, and there's a due date for payment of it. If it's a fiduciary tax such as VAT or PAYE/PRSI on payroll deductions, then there's no excuses - that money was never theirs, they are merely collection agents for the State.

As for transparent processes, the office of the Collector General has very clear guidelines for dealing with cases where there is a difficulty with paying a declared liabilities, and I'm pretty sure a previous poster actually linked to them if you'd like to have a look at them.

Where the company can't honour it's commitments within this framework, then it is negligent of Revenue, given its mandate "to efficiently and fairly collect taxes", not to act to secure the debt. It would be negligent with regard to its fully compliant customers (who are now at a trading disadvantage to the company in arrears), and with regard to the risk to the Exchequer of allowing the company to reach a point where it is insolvent and the debt becomes irrecoverable.

I would be willing to bet you any amount of money, that if / when the entire facts in this case are known, the CG's actions in attaching will be shown to have been taken at the end of quite a long road, involving multiple failures of the taxpayer to honour agreements. I've never heard of attachment happening in any other circumstances.

The Revenue exist at the behest of the Gvernment (The people) to collect taxes on the people's behalf. They are not a law onto themselves and a point of independent arbitration should exist to deal with situations like this.
The Revenue cannot discuss individual cases (rightly so) but we should be able to find out why this happened. A simple adjudication after independent mediation would serve this purpose. And would stop the likes of McBrien putting a spin on it, if that is what he is doing.
He is issuing further info tomorrow, will be interesting to see what developes.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

The Revenue exist at the behest of the Gvernment (The people) to collect taxes on the people's behalf. They are not a law onto themselves and a point of independent arbitration should exist to deal with situations like this.
The Revenue cannot discuss individual cases (rightly so) but we should be able to find out why this happened. A simple adjudication after independent mediation would serve this purpose. And would stop the likes of McBrien putting a spin on it, if that is what he is doing.
He is issuing further info tomorrow, will be interesting to see what developes.

You can't be serious ! Are you suggesting all our taxes be subject to ''a simple adjudication after independent mediation '' ?

In the meantime I presume you would have no problem with an immediate increase in your taxes to make up for the shortfall from Target ?

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

You can't be serious ! Are you suggesting all our taxes be subject to ''a simple adjudication after independent mediation ''

I did not say that at all. He tried to see several Ministers, somebody employing 400 people with an obvious grievance about his treatment should have a formalised mechanism to use. It's not a difficult thing to do.

In the meantime I presume you would have no problem with an immediate increase in your taxes to make up for the shortfall from Target ?

You do realise we are going to be paying for all this for quite some time?

Scortho

There has to be more to this story than the tax bill from revenue.

On the face of it the company was very profitable but ran in to a tax problem. Which a lot of companies do for various reasons!
If what the owner says is through about having paid revenue €214,000 last Monday and was able to pay a another €80,000 by Friday on top of wages then would it not have been better to apply for examinership or an injunction on the attachment order!

As he claims the debt owed to revenue was less than 500000 this would be easily cleared within 100 days!
But instead he just closes down the company. It just doesnt make sense as to why he wouldn't have taken this approach. It would appear to have had an extremely good chance of coming out of the examinership process. It had plenty of work going and some fairly decent contracts! According to staff wages were all paid up until 2 weeks ago.

It may be interesting to see what news comes out of this further down the line when the receiver/liquidator goes through its books

barneystinson

Happyman42 wrote: »

I did not say that at all. He tried to see several Ministers, somebody employing 400 people with an obvious grievance about his treatment should have a formalised mechanism to use. It's not a difficult thing to do.

So a business that employs 400 people should get preferential treatment over, say, an individual taxpayer who is in arrears? (All animals are equal but some are more equal than others...?)

Where's the cut-off for preferential treatment? 10 employees, or 50, or 100?

As for "formalised mechanisms", there are several - it appears you've lost sight of the fact that what this boils down to is the relationship between a business and a substantial creditor - so all the usual options are available: examinership, administration, receivership, liquidation. The choice was the director's, and he chose to push the button marked Detonate.

If Mr McBrien (or more properly the company) feels unfairly treated, then he has the right to make a complaint to the Ombudsman. (http://www.ombudsman.gov.ie/en/). But as I said previously, and many others have already said, the CG's will not have done this lightly; there are loads of taxpayers in difficulty all around the country and they aren't being attached, or put to the wall.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

I did not say that at all. He tried to see several Ministers, somebody employing 400 people with an obvious grievance about his treatment should have a formalised mechanism to use. It's not a difficult thing to do.



You do realise we are going to be paying for all this for quite some time?

And whose fault is that may I ask ? You just don't get it and at this stage you never will .

end of the road

Skid wrote: »

It is not fair on other Courier companies who are paying their taxes.

well life in general isn't fair. just how it is.

Skid wrote: »

they should blame their management, not the Revenue.

it wasn't the management who made the order, it was the revenue, if i was one of the staff who lost their jobs today its the revenue i would be blaming. their not going to see a penny of that tax bill anyway so they have failed, sure it may have been a last resort but they have achieved nothing.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

well life in general isn't fair. just how it is.

That's grand so! Can mods close this thread now?

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

I did not say that at all. He tried to see several Ministers, somebody employing 400 people with an obvious grievance about his treatment should have a formalised mechanism to use. It's not a difficult thing to do.

There is a formal mechanism already in place for taxpayers who feel agrieved by a revenue assesment or procedures - that is the Appeal Commissioners.

Political interference would be a disaster, the reasons for which have been explained by various posters over the last few pages.
I'm afraid you're just stuck in your bunker now unwilling to accept common sense.

juan.kerr

I wouldn't believe a word of what the management are saying. Revenue are obviously unable to make a detailed statement on this individual case but the reality is that if the statements from the company were true they wouldn't be in the current situation.

The company management clearly realise they can say what they want as Revenue can't refute it without breaching confidentiality.

Happyman42

barneystinson wrote: »

So a business that employs 400 people should get preferential treatment over, say, an individual taxpayer who is in arrears? (All animals are equal but some are more equal than others...?)

Yes, I think if somebody employing 400 people has an issue that is going to cause the closure of an established and otherwise operational business, that there should be some mechanism to try and stop that happening.

If an individual is in a similar situation the resulting carnage is not as severe.

If Mr McBrien (or more properly the company) feels unfairly treated, then he has the right to make a complaint to the Ombudsman. (http://www.ombudsman.gov.ie/en/). But as I said previously, and many others have already said, the CG's will not have done this lightly; there are loads of taxpayers in difficulty all around the country and they aren't being attached, or put to the wall.

And all I am saying is that the Revenue, like everybody else, should look to the greater good in a situation like this. And the way to do that is to have a final independent arbitration and adjudication by an outside independent agency.

marienbad wrote: »

And whose fault is that may I ask ? You just don't get it and at this stage you never will .

It's the fault of 2 parties who couldn't reach an agreement....like most situations in life.

dvpower wrote: »

There is a formal mechanism already in place for taxpayers who feel agrieved by a revenue assesment or procedures - that is the Appeal Commissioners.

Political interference would be a disaster, the reasons for which have been explained by various posters over the last few pages.
I'm afraid you're just stuck in your bunker now unwilling to accept common sense.

Common sense?....I must tell the employees (who worked happily in a busy company for many years) that one. :rolleyes:

Red_Wake

Happyman42 wrote: »

And all I am saying is that the Revenue, like everybody else, should look to the greater good in a situation like this. And the way to do that is to have a final independent arbitration and adjudication by an outside independent agency.

You sound like you'd prefer if Revenue turned a blind eye to it's regulations.

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

And all I am saying is that the Revenue, like everybody else, should look to the greater good in a situation like this. And the way to do that is to have a final independent arbitration and adjudication by an outside independent agency.

You don't want independent arbitration. You want political interference.

What you fail to understand is that keeping the Revenue away from direct influence of ministers makes Revenue the outside independent agency that you are calling for.

Happyman42

Red_Wake wrote: »

You sound like you'd prefer if Revenue turned a blind eye to it's regulations.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

You don't want independent arbitration. You want political interference.

What you fail to understand is that keeping the Revenue away from direct influence of ministers makes Revenue the outside independent agency that you are calling for.

It doesn't have to be political, I just thought that politicians, being representative of 'us' might be more proactive in perserving jobs and infrastructure first, instead of being reactionary catty commentators, after the event. Which seems to me to be their only offering here.
As I have said all the way here, there has to be a better way, instead of this carnage.
I am also aware that McBrien may very well have used up all of his chances.

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

It doesn't have to be political, I just thought that politicians, being representative of 'us' might be more proactive in perserving jobs and infrastructure first, instead of being reactionary catty commentators, after the event. Which seems to me to be their only offering here.
As I have said all the way here, there has to be a better way, instead of this carnage.
I am also aware that McBrien may very well have used up all of his chances.

What about the role of the Appeal Commissioners so?

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

What about the role of the Appeal Commissioners so?

A bit late for that, won't save those jobs.

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

A bit late for that, won't save those jobs.

So you think that the company should be allowed to ignore the existing mechanisms and we should set up some additional ad hoc ones just for them?

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

So you think that the company should be allowed to ignore the existing mechanisms and we should set up some additional ad hoc ones just for them?

No. :rolleyes:

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

No. :rolleyes:

So now you don't want a mechanism set up to intervene with Revenue?

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

So now you don't want a mechanism set up to intervene with Revenue?

I said nothing about; Ad hoc arrangements, political interference, influencing the decisions of state institution.
What I said was; there has to be a better way than this carnage.
What I said was; there has to be a proactive role for the minister with oversight. Ignoring or refusing the approaches of an employer of 400 people is wrong and irresponsible, especially if an appeals process where to find that Revenue was wrong. (perish the thought that an institution of our state might be wrong!)
What I said was; it should be a formal and transparent process, where all parties are satisfied....including us, the people.

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

I said nothing about; Ad hoc arrangements, political interference, influencing the decisions of state institution.
What I said was; there has to be a better way than this carnage.
What I said was; there has to be a proactive role for the minister with oversight. Ignoring or refusing the approaches of an employer of 400 people is wrong and irresponsible, especially if an appeals process where to find that Revenue was wrong. (perish the thought that an institution of our state might be wrong!)
What I said was; it should be a formal and transparent process, where all parties are satisfied....including us, the people.

You don't know what you are talking about.

- There is a better way than this carnage - pay your taxes

- No, ministers should not have oversight of the revenue, that way leads to cronyism and corruption. The Revenue should most definitely be independent.

- Nobody has ignored the approaches of the business owner, in reality they will have dealing with him for over a year now. Please stop insinuating that this has come out of the blue for Target express.

- No the Revenue are not wrong, as evidenced by the blantantly obvious fact that Target have acknowledged that they have an outstanding debt to the Revenue.

- The process is indeed formal and transparent to the parties involved. I assure you Target express knew full well the consequences of their lack of action.

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

I said nothing about; Ad hoc arrangements, political interference, influencing the decisions of state institution.
What I said was; there has to be a better way than this carnage.
What I said was; there has to be a proactive role for the minister with oversight. Ignoring or refusing the approaches of an employer of 400 people is wrong and irresponsible, especially if an appeals process where to find that Revenue was wrong. (perish the thought that an institution of our state might be wrong!)
What I said was; it should be a formal and transparent process, where all parties are satisfied....including us, the people.

But there is no such mechanism (apart from the Appeals Commissioners process which doesn't appear to have been availed of) so any such process that could be used to save these jobs would necessarily need to be ad hoc.

I'd love to hear what the shape of this new process would be, what powers it would be given, what oversight, what kind of a budget and staffing it would have, how it could exist without undermining the Revenue and the tax base, how it could be protected from undue political interference, how it could operate without undermining well run, compliant companies.

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

But there is no such mechanism (apart from the Appeals Commissioners process which doesn't appear to have been availed of) so any such process that could be used to save these jobs would necessarily need to be ad hoc.

No there isn't, which is why we have carnage.

I'd love to hear what the shape of this new process would be, what powers it would be given, what oversight, what kind of a budget and staffing it would have, how it could exist without undermining the Revenue and the tax base, how it could be protected from undue political interference, how it could operate without undermining well run, compliant companies.

Final and independent arbitration is not a new process, it exists in trade union disputes, why not in a case like this? If Revenue are ultimately right, where's the problem with a transparent process? Why shouldn't we; the ultimate can carriers have access to a fair and balanced review of what happened?