Irish freight company goes to the wall . . .

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

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



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?

Arbitration is needed where there is a dispute over what has happened. In this case there is no dispute, all parties concede that Target Express did not pay their tax.

The penalties for non-payment of tax are also well known. Therefore any arbitration would be irrelevant. The independent body could only confirm what is already known, that the company did not pay their tax and that they now face the legislated consequences.

Perhaps you don't really mean arbitration?

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

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



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?

To be utterly transparent we would need to know all dealing with revenue all conversations, debts of the company in respect to taxes and prior dealing with the revenue in dealing with tax debts. Would you really want the public knowing this. It would also need for all not just someone with 400 could be 1 could be a sole person for it to be fair

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

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



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?

There is no question that Revenue are right - and if Revenue get it wrong there is an existing appeals procedure.

What you are looking for us to set aside the rules and have some third party setting tax rates on a case by case basis - a recipe for disaster.

Can you point to a model for the system you want in any other juristiction?

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

To be utterly transparent we would need to know all dealing with revenue all conversations, debts of the company in respect to taxes and prior dealing with the revenue in dealing with tax debts. Would you really want the public knowing this. It would also need for all not just someone with 400 could be 1 could be a sole person for it to be fair

We trust judges to make decisions, without bias or influence, on cases all the time.
Same here, no need to reveal details, you have somebody entrusted to review both sides of the issues and make a judgement.
If McBrien had something to offer when he made approaches to the Ministers, don't you think the greater good would have been served by listening to him?
If an independent body could have knocked heads together and thrashed out a deal that accomodated everybody....would that not have been a result where everybody wins?
This way, 400 jobs go, the begrudgers have a field day and McBrien walks off into the sunset anyway.

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

We trust judges to make decisions, without bias or influence, on cases all the time.
Same here, no need to reveal details, you have somebody entrusted to review both sides of the issues and make a judgement.
If McBrien had something to offer when he made approaches to the Ministers, don't you think the greater good would have been served by listening to him?
If an independent body could have knocked heads together and thrashed out a deal that accomodated everybody....would that not have been a result where everybody wins?
This way, 400 jobs go, the begrudgers have a field day and McBrien walks off into the sunset anyway.

You saying Revenue can't make decisions without bias or influence. Don't forget they are the ones who have had the case from start to finish have all the notes done all the conversations and agreements and what not. Maybe he had an offer but that offer has to be beneficial also to the state not just to the company. And as we have to go back to we do not know what discussions have been going on between revenue and the company. We can only hear one side unless the company give revenue permission to talk. Whatever mechanism is but out that is all we would have and if a company decided to close up shop and blame that mechanism you be right on here complaining about them.

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

We trust judges to make decisions, without bias or influence, on cases all the time.
Same here, no need to reveal details, you have somebody entrusted to review both sides of the issues and make a judgement.

If only we had some sort of state body to look after financial issues such as these. :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

Had this been a non-private company, it would still be trading, because no way would a quoted company with a large number of shareholders, and a lot more directors, just decide on a whim to cease trading. They would have at least kept it going even if it were only to maintain the value of the goodwill.

With Target, the goodwill is shot to ribbons, with its customers being pissed off having to apologise to their customers, who must be screaming blue murder because they're not getting deliveries.

McBrien has left everybody in the lurch, including Target's employees.

Happyman42

ejmaztec wrote: »

Had this been a non-private company, it would still be trading, because no way would a quoted company with a large number of shareholders, and a lot more directors, just decide on a whim to cease trading. They would have at least kept it going even if it were only to maintain the value of the goodwill.

With Target, the goodwill is shot to ribbons, with its customers being pissed off having to apologise to their customers, who must be screaming blue murder because they're not getting deliveries.

McBrien has left everybody in the lurch, including Target's employees.

Which begs the question...why?
If this was a crooked company or man, why didn't he walk away when the company was booming in the Celtic Tiger?

ejmaztec

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which begs the question...why?
If this was a crooked company or man, why didn't he walk away when the company was booming in the Celtic Tiger?

I'd say that the "why" is because he allowed his emotions to get the better of him and decided to walk away. He might be regretting it now, who knows?

If the CEO of a publicly quoted company had tried to do that, the other directors would have voted him out and appointed a new CEO.

I don't think that anyone is even implying that there's any "crookery" involved in this.

fair play for ever

Three points
(1) As previously pointed out Revenue don't go nuclear (i.e attachment order) without going through a very long process and normally only after been fustrated a number of times.
(2) It's one thing paying x amount in a week to pay the arrears but it hasn't been established(and never will)whether they were also keeping their current liabilities to revenue paid. With 400 staff their monthly paye-prsi must have been conservatively in excess of 70k per mth and in addition a bi-monthly vat bill.
(3) A friend of mine employs 50 staff in the transport industry and Target would have been regarded in the industy as been on the slippery slope for the past 6 months
Their pallet rate was way lower than the market and not regarded as viable.I suppose there is a warning to customers/consumers there -If you decide to use someone who is way cheaper than everyone else then you can't complain if it goes wrong.
Finally knew some of the staff from calling in and sympathising with them.Its never easy when you lose your job and I'm talking from experience.Try and keep positive.

end of the road

bucketybuck wrote: »

There is a better way than this carnage

not realy

bucketybuck wrote: »

pay your taxes

no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
most would try not to pay any tax if they thought they would get away with it lets be honest.
at the end of the day its the 400 people who have lost their jobs i'm concerned about not revenue or the management of the company

bucketybuck

end of the road wrote: »

not realy

no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
most would try not to pay any tax if they thought they would get away with it lets be honest.
at the end of the day its the 400 people who have lost their jobs i'm concerned about not revenue or the management of the company

What on earth are you talking about.

theblueirish

Seems the truth is starting to seep out.

http://targetexpresscorkworkers.blogspot.ie/2012/08/press-release-target-sit-in-cork-plant.html

We, the workers at Target Express, Cork Depot, strongly dispute the version of events at the company as put out by Mr.Seamus Mc Brien yesterday. The contention of Mr.McBrien is that the company has been and is solvent, and it is the fault of the Revenue Commissioners that the company has been put in to receivership.

Mr McBrien has given figures to the media which illustrate that the company retains strong shareholder value and is profitable. However, the last accounts that have been filed for College Freight, which owns Target Express Ireland (its trading name), go back to 2010. These do show that the company had 7.8 million worth of shareholders funds, the shareholders being Mr.McBrien, his wife Ann McBrien and their daughter Michelle Cunningham, the current HR and Risk Director of Target Express. At December 2010 also, the company made a profit for that year of 1.6 million.
However, these healthy finances do not represent a new company, Target Express Logistics Ltd, which was set up in May 2011, without the knowledge of the workers. This new company is now 15 months old. This company made an annual return on the 30th of Nov 2011 but did not file any company accounts whatsoever. Its directors are Seamus McBrien and Ann McBrien from Enniskillen, Co.Fermanagh. There is no evidence of any shareholders value in this company nor do we know if this company has made any profit in the 15 months since it was incorporated.
Another O’Brien family company known as Farnley Investments and its subsidiary ASDA Property Holdings Ltd last made returns in 2010 at the same time as College Freight (Target Express trading name), making exactly the same profit for that year (1.6 million) and having a virtually identical share value (7.6 million). All five of the family companies are private and have never issued public share capital.
As a result, we as workers are being faced with a complex mix of five companies all owned by the same family members whose last returns go back to 2010. We are worried at the setting up of a new Target Express company (Target Express Logistics) as we have no evidence that at this point in time, August 30 2012, that this company is any way solvent.
In fact it isn’t even clear to us whether we work for Target Express Ireland /College Freight or Target Express Logistics Ltd. If we do work for the latter company, we honestly do not know whether it is in a solvent position to discharge its financial obligations. We do not know to what extent the figures for 2010 reflect the current financial state of the company we work for.
We know that the company has been in some financial difficulty in the past year. In recent months there were delays for the workers in getting paid wages. We know of at least one situation where a cheque to a worker’s father (having completed work for the company) in the Cork plant bounced in the past 6 months. We also know that at around the same time, a redundancy cheque to a manager in another depot also bounced. We are aware of large unpaid bills for diesel also in Cork.
The message that we are making is clear: Target Express was not closed down in our view simply by the Revenue Commissioners. In fact, the precarious financial situation of the company is evidenced by the fact that a large proportion of the tax and PRSI that workers have paid in the last two years has not been paid over to the Revenue Commissioners. We believe that the management have been mis-representing the situation in this regard in the media. We do not believe that the Revenue Commissioners would have taken such action for amounts of money less than a million euro, where there were 390 jobs at stake.
We have serious questions as to what the financial state of the company is at this point, as we are anxious to be paid. We would like to know to what the real financial position of the company is at this point. Our interest in this information is simply to get paid: our wages for the past two weeks; a week on hand and outstanding holiday pay. We also need to negotiate an acceptable redundancy package.
The behaviour of Mr. McBrien however is to not engage with workers nor has he indicated when a receiver may be appointed; or whom this person might be. In fact, he has basically told us to leave the premises in Cork empty handed. We are not assured either by the inter-company complexity that now exists and view with some distrust the setting up of a new company in May last year which has not returns to the Companies Registration Office.
We have worked very hard for this company. We have wives and children going back to school this week. None of us have any savings worth talking about. We cannot claim the dole because the company has not issued us with our P45s. We are in a state of both limbo and penury. We have no choice but to occupy the plant until these issues are resolved. We simply have nothing to lose at this point.
We are appealing to the government; public representatives and the general public to get behind us in order for us to get our due entitlements.

SocSocPol

theblueirish wrote: »

Seems the truth is starting to seep out.

http://targetexpresscorkworkers.blogspot.ie/2012/08/press-release-target-sit-in-cork-plant.html

We, the workers at Target Express, Cork Depot, strongly dispute the version of events at the company as put out by Mr.Seamus Mc Brien yesterday. The contention of Mr.McBrien is that the company has been and is solvent, and it is the fault of the Revenue Commissioners that the company has been put in to receivership.

Mr McBrien has given figures to the media which illustrate that the company retains strong shareholder value and is profitable. However, the last accounts that have been filed for College Freight, which owns Target Express Ireland (its trading name), go back to 2010. These do show that the company had 7.8 million worth of shareholders funds, the shareholders being Mr.McBrien, his wife Ann McBrien and their daughter Michelle Cunningham, the current HR and Risk Director of Target Express. At December 2010 also, the company made a profit for that year of 1.6 million.
However, these healthy finances do not represent a new company, Target Express Logistics Ltd, which was set up in May 2011, without the knowledge of the workers. This new company is now 15 months old. This company made an annual return on the 30th of Nov 2011 but did not file any company accounts whatsoever. Its directors are Seamus McBrien and Ann McBrien from Enniskillen, Co.Fermanagh. There is no evidence of any shareholders value in this company nor do we know if this company has made any profit in the 15 months since it was incorporated.
Another O’Brien family company known as Farnley Investments and its subsidiary ASDA Property Holdings Ltd last made returns in 2010 at the same time as College Freight (Target Express trading name), making exactly the same profit for that year (1.6 million) and having a virtually identical share value (7.6 million). All five of the family companies are private and have never issued public share capital.
As a result, we as workers are being faced with a complex mix of five companies all owned by the same family members whose last returns go back to 2010. We are worried at the setting up of a new Target Express company (Target Express Logistics) as we have no evidence that at this point in time, August 30 2012, that this company is any way solvent.
In fact it isn’t even clear to us whether we work for Target Express Ireland /College Freight or Target Express Logistics Ltd. If we do work for the latter company, we honestly do not know whether it is in a solvent position to discharge its financial obligations. We do not know to what extent the figures for 2010 reflect the current financial state of the company we work for.
We know that the company has been in some financial difficulty in the past year. In recent months there were delays for the workers in getting paid wages. We know of at least one situation where a cheque to a worker’s father (having completed work for the company) in the Cork plant bounced in the past 6 months. We also know that at around the same time, a redundancy cheque to a manager in another depot also bounced. We are aware of large unpaid bills for diesel also in Cork.
The message that we are making is clear: Target Express was not closed down in our view simply by the Revenue Commissioners. In fact, the precarious financial situation of the company is evidenced by the fact that a large proportion of the tax and PRSI that workers have paid in the last two years has not been paid over to the Revenue Commissioners. We believe that the management have been mis-representing the situation in this regard in the media. We do not believe that the Revenue Commissioners would have taken such action for amounts of money less than a million euro, where there were 390 jobs at stake.
We have serious questions as to what the financial state of the company is at this point, as we are anxious to be paid. We would like to know to what the real financial position of the company is at this point. Our interest in this information is simply to get paid: our wages for the past two weeks; a week on hand and outstanding holiday pay. We also need to negotiate an acceptable redundancy package.
The behaviour of Mr. McBrien however is to not engage with workers nor has he indicated when a receiver may be appointed; or whom this person might be. In fact, he has basically told us to leave the premises in Cork empty handed. We are not assured either by the inter-company complexity that now exists and view with some distrust the setting up of a new company in May last year which has not returns to the Companies Registration Office.
We have worked very hard for this company. We have wives and children going back to school this week. None of us have any savings worth talking about. We cannot claim the dole because the company has not issued us with our P45s. We are in a state of both limbo and penury. We have no choice but to occupy the plant until these issues are resolved. We simply have nothing to lose at this point.
We are appealing to the government; public representatives and the general public to get behind us in order for us to get our due entitlements.

What say the Happymans of this thread now, so eager to defend McBrien and castigate the Revenue?

ronan45

Hmmmm

I smelled something fishy here to be honest !!!!:rolleyes:

It just didnt make sense driving such a company to be shut down over a 300k

Me awaits with baited breath for mores infos;)

martingriff

The liquidator (or one of them) was in Newstalk this morning he described the company as hopelessly insolvent was papers given to the court. While he said that the taxes Mr. McBrien were talking about were true they were historic taxes and the true tax bill was over 600K which included 2011 P35. So it looks like this company was not as good as it seems. It may have been paying off certain taxes but was increasing the bill rather than lowering it. Sometimes you have no option but to take an extreme option. Wonder what Happymans thinks now

theblueirish

Read this on twitter, If NI companies not in admin why didn't they receive cheques on Tuesday?

Vincent Murphy ‏@MurphyVincent
#TargetLiquidator aware of at least four companies in group, 2 in NI, 2 in ROI. One of them College Freight Services (NI) not in admin.

cournioni

martingriff wrote: »

The liquidator (or one of them) was in Newstalk this morning he described the company as hopelessly insolvent was papers given to the court. While he said that the taxes Mr. McBrien were talking about were true they were historic taxes and the true tax bill was over 600K which included 2011 P35. So it looks like this company was not as good as it seems. It may have been paying off certain taxes but was increasing the bill rather than lowering it. Sometimes you have no option but to take an extreme option. Wonder what Happymans thinks now

He didn't seem to be happy to believe the people that actually dealt with this company as suppliers and knew what they were like, so he probably won't change his tune. We have lost out on a lot of money with this company closing, but in truth we were never going to be paid by them anyway.

I feel sorry for the workers that lost their jobs and I hope they can get back into work as soon as possible but I have absolutely no sympathy for the management of this company. Other businesses are better off without having to deal with them.

Happyman42

SocSocPol wrote: »

What say the Happymans of this thread now, so eager to defend McBrien and castigate the Revenue?

martingriff wrote: »

The liquidator (or one of them) was in Newstalk this morning he described the company as hopelessly insolvent was papers given to the court. While he said that the taxes Mr. McBrien were talking about were true they were historic taxes and the true tax bill was over 600K which included 2011 P35. So it looks like this company was not as good as it seems. It may have been paying off certain taxes but was increasing the bill rather than lowering it. Sometimes you have no option but to take an extreme option. Wonder what Happymans thinks now

And here come the Pat Rabitte like vultures to pick over the corpse for their own personal gain. :rolleyes: Useless as an ashtray on a motorbike in any real sense.

Now we'll see them all coming out of the wood work claiming they knew this, they knew that. But will one of them, Rabitte, the pariah liquidators, the Revenue do any thing proactive, will they f**k.

If what the workers are saying is right, why weren't the fraud squad sent in?
Can we learn nothing in this country?

theblueirish wrote: »

Read this on twitter, If NI companies not in admin why didn't they receive cheques on Tuesday?

Vincent Murphy ‏@MurphyVincent
#TargetLiquidator aware of at least four companies in group, 2 in NI, 2 in ROI. One of them College Freight Services (NI) not in admin.

I heard last night from a client that Lisnaskea (Fermanagh) is open and working. The Gardai were manning the gates in Clones (Monaghan) and the PSNI where on the gates in Lisnaskea on Monday and Tuesday but have now disappeared.

theblueirish

Lisnaskea is where his brothers company works from. They are the logistics and warehouse company that supply Smiths Toys etc.

dvpower

Happyman42 wrote: »

If what the workers are saying is right, why weren't the fraud squad sent in?

Yesterday you were looking for a sweetheart deal for the company under the guise of protecting the workers. Today you think the workers are lying.

It seems like its all about the owners of this company for you.

Happyman42

dvpower wrote: »

Yesterday you were looking for a sweetheart deal for the company under the guise of protecting the workers. Today you think the workers are lying.

It seems like its all about the owners of this company for you.

You need to learn to read dvpower. Do you have an inkling of what,
'If what the workers are saying is right, why weren't the fraud squad sent in?'
means?

And I wasn't looking for any sweetheart deal, I said several times that all taxes should be paid. My point was that this could all have been done without the carnage if only the institutions of this state did their jobs 'proactively'

Enjoy picking over the corpse with Mr Holier Than Us All Rabitte. Whatever good will come of that.

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

And here come the Pat Rabitte like vultures to pick over the corpse for their own personal gain. :rolleyes: Useless as an ashtray on a motorbike in any real sense.

Now we'll see them all coming out of the wood work claiming they knew this, they knew that. But will one of them, Rabitte, the pariah liquidators, the Revenue do any thing proactive, will they f**k.

If what the workers are saying is right, why weren't the fraud squad sent in?
Can we learn nothing in this country?



I heard last night from a client that Lisnaskea (Fermanagh) is open and working. The Gardai were manning the gates in Clones (Monaghan) and the PSNI where on the gates in Lisnaskea on Monday and Tuesday but have now disappeared.

You and I have been talking about this on the forum for the last couple of days I am not out like a vulture to pick at the bones as you say. I have no personal gain over this I am debating it.

However for the last few days you have been talking about Revenue should do this Ministers should do that and now the complete picture is starting to emerge I am wondering what you think the company has done.

As has been shown to you countless times the Revenue will work with a company as much as is possible however the Revenue have a job to do which is collecting taxes for this state and a company must work with the revenue and pay it dues. Just because it has employees does not mean it can treat it anyway different from an individual. I wonder if a company is owed that type of money would you expect it to just say oh ya no problem pay whatever you want whenever you want. The company was over 600K in the red to the revenue not the amount Mr. McBrien had been talking about.

You are great with the insults I have a feeling you have had problems with Revenue before.

coolisin

Well there you go, proper info.
Funny the way the media played this. Or mr o Brian.
I just hope the workers can get paid swiftly with a redundancy deal to boot.

So is this guy going to pull a Quinn and use the north south devide to hide behind and avoid prosecution?

bucketybuck

I DEMAND A MINISTER BE APPOINTED TO MAKE A DEAL WITH THE REVENUE ON MR MCBRIENS BEHALF!!!

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

You are great with the insults I have a feeling you have had problems with Revenue before.

Here we go! :rolleyes:

ongarite

Why does this sounds nearly like the Quinn group fiasco and this guy is related to Sean Quinn!

Sets up dummy company and withdraws all equity from the parent company with only his family as the shareholders.

Happyman42

ongarite wrote: »

Why does this sounds nearly like the Quinn group fiasco and this guy is related to Sean Quinn!

Sets up dummy company and withdraws all equity from the parent company with only his family as the shareholders.

I asked that in my first post on this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80473045&postcount=57

Of course it wouldn't be the job or responsibility of any state institution or Minister to spot what the legendary dogs on the street can see and do something 'proactive' about it because that might stop their cronies doing the same in the future. :rolleyes:

bucketybuck

Happyman42 wrote: »

I asked that in my first post on this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80473045&postcount=57

Of course it wouldn't be the job or responsibility of any state institution or Minister to spot what the legendary dogs on the street can see and do something 'proactive' about it because that might stop their cronies do the same in the future. :rolleyes:

Still blaming the victim I see. This is all still the Governments fault I see.

Happyman42, when you are in a hole, dip up!

The worst part about your posting is that you still fail to grasp that the Revenue were already pro-active about this case. They will have been trying to sort it for a year now, but because it isn't some high profile minister involved you think nothing was being done.

Your posts in this thread have amounted to little more than "won't somebody think of the children".

Cue the rolleyes smilie in 3,2,1...

Valetta

Happyman42 wrote: »

I asked that in my first post on this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80473045&postcount=57

Of course it wouldn't be the job or responsibility of any state institution or Minister to spot what the legendary dogs on the street can see and do something 'proactive' about it because that might stop their cronies do the same in the future. :rolleyes:

I think you'll find that the Revenue Commissioners are a "State institution" and did indeed do something proactive about it.

Happyman42

bucketybuck wrote: »

Still blaming the victim I see. This is all still the Governments fault I see.

Happyman42, when you are in a hole, dip up!

The victims are the 390 people out of a job and us, the taxpayer. The blame lies with the people with the power to stop them becoming victims.
Maybe you will see that that is what I have been saying all along when you stop the childish triumphalism.

Who would you vest with the responsibility to spot what was going on? Me? The workers?
You are flat out saying Revenue knew the state of this company, do they have any responsibilty for allowing this to be stripped out, if that is what has happened?
Should there be a warning system and a course of action?

Is that all too 'proactive' for you to deal with while you gloat?

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

The victims are the 390 people out of a job and us, the taxpayer. The blame lies with the people with the power to stop them becoming victims.
Maybe you will see that that is what I have been saying all along when you stop the childish triumphalism.

Who would you vest with the responsibility to spot what was going on? Me? The workers?
You are flat out saying Revenue knew the state of this company, do they have any responsibilty for allowing this to be stripped out, if that is what has happened?
Should there be a warning system and a course of action?

Is that all too 'proactive' for you to deal with while you gloat?

So because they employ people the Revenue should allow them to do whatever they see fit that is no way to collect there money. What the revenue know is the state of the taxes not whenever Mr. McBrien is stripping out a company. Nobody here is being triumphalism we are just pointing out facts which you seem to ignore that because we can only get one side of the argument at the beginning we had no idea who was to blame. Why should the Revenue be beholden to a company to do whatever they want. If a company are not paying there taxes in a timely manner as so many are doing as I don't see 2 many getting attachments and closing down then the revenue have a right to step in and to try and get as much taxes for us the taxpayer and also for the benifit of the other compliant companies around Ireland.

I think from evidence now in the public domain is the company was is such a dire straight it would have been closed soon (and that is terrible for the workers) and McBrien saw a way of trying to shift the blame on another party to try and make himself look good. That I dont agree with

buck65

Happyman, you would make a great politician :rolleyes:

barneystinson

Happyman42 wrote: »

bucketybuck wrote: »

Still blaming the victim I see. This is all still the Governments fault I see.

Happyman42, when you are in a hole, dip up!

The victims are the 390 people out of a job and us, the taxpayer. The blame lies with the people with the power to stop them becoming victims.
Maybe you will see that that is what I have been saying all along when you stop the childish triumphalism.

Who would you vest with the responsibility to spot what was going on? Me? The workers?
You are flat out saying Revenue knew the state of this company, do they have any responsibilty for allowing this to be stripped out, if that is what has happened?
Should there be a warning system and a course of action?

Is that all too 'proactive' for you to deal with while you gloat?

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here Happyman; it seems that on the one hand you want a tax official, or some kind of state employee, sitting in/on every taxpayer in the country, policing their every transaction in real time?

And at the same time you want some kind of arbitration process in place, besides the existing appeals commissioners, which in order to work would have to be capable of convening, deliberating and deciding on issues within weeks, if not days...

I think you've just solved the problem of what to do with our few hundred thousand unemployed...

bucketybuck

barneystinson wrote: »

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here Happyman; it seems that on the one hand you want a tax official, or some kind of state employee, sitting in/on every taxpayer in the country, policing their every transaction in real time?

And at the same time you want some kind of arbitration process in place, besides the existing appeals commissioners, which in order to work would have to be capable of convening, deliberating and deciding on issues within weeks, if not days...

I think you've just solved the problem of what to do with our few hundred thousand unemployed...

As I said to him earlier, basically he wants a new state body to do exactly what the Revenue do now.

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

So because they employ people the Revenue should allow them to do whatever they see fit that is no way to collect there money. What the revenue know is the state of the taxes not whenever Mr. McBrien is stripping out a company. Nobody here is being triumphalism we are just pointing out facts which you seem to ignore that because we can only get one side of the argument at the beginning we had no idea who was to blame. Why should the Revenue be beholden to a company to do whatever they want. If a company are not paying there taxes in a timely manner as so many are doing as I don't see 2 many getting attachments and closing down then the revenue have a right to step in and to try and get as much taxes for us the taxpayer and also for the benifit of the other compliant companies around Ireland.

I think from evidence now in the public domain is the company was is such a dire straight it would have been closed soon (and that is terrible for the workers) and McBrien saw a way of trying to shift the blame on another party to try and make himself look good. That I dont agree with

So martingriff,tell us again; on the basis of what information did they apply attachments?
Remember now what everyone 'knew rightly' and agreed on this thread....'Revenue must have known what state this company was in and that they were never going to get their money'.
If Revenue knew this, why weren't the Fraud Squad sent in immediately?

Oh wait, that's not their responsibility!:rolleyes:
Is it any wonder this ended up in carnage and the worker and taxpayer are left picking up the tab?

martingriff

bucketybuck wrote: »

As I said to him earlier, basically he wants a new state body to do exactly what the Revenue do now.

Hi think its time to stop talking with him now he/she is never going to back down and admit they were a bit haste

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

So martingriff,tell us again; on the basis of what information did they apply attachments?
Remember now what everyone 'knew rightly' and agreed on this thread....'Revenue must have known what state this company was in and that they were never going to get their money'.
If Revenue knew this, why weren't the Fraud Squad sent in immediately?

Oh wait, that's not their responsibility!:rolleyes:
Is it any wonder this ended up in carnage and the worker and taxpayer are left picking up the tab?

Okay first lets start this slowly an attachment is an order by the revenue or whoever can do it is to place an order on a bank account for a specific amount of money to be paid to the revenue until this is done they cannot withdraw any money. Once it has been fulfilled it is lifted.

The Revenue job is to collect money from individuals/companies wich owe them money. We clear so far.

The revenue will work with the company but there must be some satisfactory outcome for the state which seem not to be happening here as there tax bill was rising and not falling and if this was going on for a year then there must have been some delaying by the company which in fairness is not on. Still clear

If this is happening then the Revenue have a number op options which is set out to the individual/company in letters that the revenue can take these are, sheriff, solicitor, attachment and the very nuclear option of liquidation/bankruptcy. Either of these option can be taken and due to reasons not known by us they chose attachment. Attachments do not close business down. Still Clear

So the revenue work to get the taxes to run this country they cannot possible know unless audits or a whistle blower informs them of any nefarious actions. Are you saying there should be a revenue/fraud official in place for every place that taxes or due.

Mr. McBrien and his action have left the workers in there very bad situation of been jobless not the revenue.

barneystinson

Happyman42 wrote: »

So martingriff,tell us again; on the basis of what information did they apply attachments?
Remember now what everyone 'knew rightly' and agreed on this thread....'Revenue must have known what state this company was in and that they were never going to get their money'.
If Revenue knew this, why weren't the Fraud Squad sent in immediately?

Oh wait, that's not their responsibility!:rolleyes:
Is it any wonder this ended up in carnage and the worker and taxpayer are left picking up the tab?

Should the fraud squad be sent in to every company that becomes, or appears to be in danger of becoming, insolvent?

Our tax system works on self assessment, with Revenue reserving the right to audit or query the taxpayer's declaration. Declaration in this case doesn't appear to be the problem, but collection of declared tax.

The collector general's office are responsible for collecting tax that has been declared/assessed, and their actions in the case will have been dictated by the policies and guidelines under which they operate - I think you'd be well served to have a look at these guidelines before digging your hole any deeper here, as that will answer your question as to what information they based the decision to attachment.

You appear to be living in a fool's paradise; wanting a State run country that simultaneously monitors everything Big Brother style, with even more layers of bureaucracy than we already have, that would somehow interfere less with economic activity...

I'm not saying the present system is perfect, or that there's no merit in your suggestion that state institutions could be more proactive, but pouring more bureaucracy onto everything is seldom the answer.

SocSocPol

ongarite wrote: »

Why does this sounds nearly like the Quinn group fiasco and this guy is related to Sean Quinn!

Sets up dummy company and withdraws all equity from the parent company with only his family as the shareholders.

And then has the Happyman's of this world defending him to the hilt in an opportunistic attempt to get a dig in at the politicans and revenue. Sickening.

Happyman42

martingriff wrote: »

Okay first lets start this slowly an attachment is an order by the revenue or whoever can do it is to place an order on a bank account for a specific amount of money to be paid to the revenue until this is done they cannot withdraw any money. Once it has been fulfilled it is lifted.

The Revenue job is to collect money from individuals/companies wich owe them money. We clear so far.

The revenue will work with the company but there must be some satisfactory outcome for the state which seem not to be happening here as there tax bill was rising and not falling and if this was going on for a year then there must have been some delaying by the company which in fairness is not on. Still clear

If this is happening then the Revenue have a number op options which is set out to the individual/company in letters that the revenue can take these are, sheriff, solicitor, attachment and the very nuclear option of liquidation/bankruptcy. Either of these option can be taken and due to reasons not known by us they chose attachment. Attachments do not close business down. Still Clear

So the revenue work to get the taxes to run this country they cannot possible know unless audits or a whistle blower informs them of any nefarious actions. Are you saying there should be a revenue/fraud official in place for every place that taxes or due.

Mr. McBrien and his action have left the workers in there very bad situation of been jobless not the revenue.

barneystinson wrote: »

Should the fraud squad be sent in to every company that becomes, or appears to be in danger of becoming, insolvent?

Our tax system works on self assessment, with Revenue reserving the right to audit or query the taxpayer's declaration. Declaration in this case doesn't appear to be the problem, but collection of declared tax.

The collector general's office are responsible for collecting tax that has been declared/assessed, and their actions in the case will have been dictated by the policies and guidelines under which they operate - I think you'd be well served to have a look at these guidelines before digging your hole any deeper here, as that will answer your question as to what information they based the decision to attachment.

You appear to be living in a fool's paradise; wanting a State run country that simultaneously monitors everything Big Brother style, with even more layers of bureaucracy than we already have, that would somehow interfere less with economic activity...

I'm not saying the present system is perfect, or that there's no merit in your suggestion that state institutions could be more proactive, but pouring more bureaucracy onto everything is seldom the answer.

SocSocPol wrote: »

And then has the Happyman's of this world defending him to the hilt in an opportunistic attempt to get a dig in at the politicans and revenue. Sickening.

Which bit of 'there must be a better way to avoid this carnage' do you guys not understand?

Revenue didn't know about the state of the company, and the new holding companies set up now? Sure you guys knew the state of the company yesterday!
How come Pat Rabitte was very sure about the liquidity and the state of this company this morning?

martingriff

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which bit of 'there must be a better way to avoid this carnage' do you guys not understand?

Revenue didn't know about the state of the company, and the new holding companies set up now? Sure you guys knew the state of the company yesterday!
How come Pat Rabitte was very sure about the liquidity and the state of this company this morning?

Up until this morning what I was sure was what I know about what Revenue do and what was in the papers all I was trying to get from you was to see that we did not know what was going on as was shown by what came from the papers given yesterday.

hgv....eeer

Hi Lads, new on tonight. I have been reading on this and thought I would add my bit too.

Well a bit about me. I am an artic driver here in Ireland. I have done the UK and Continent too. I have hauled all sorts of goods over the years. New to me was this multi drop lark Target was into. An absolute nightmare.

I think it is fair to say, they had the plug pulled for one reason and one reason only.... they were skint. Just my opinion now but. Fair play to revenue pulling that plug before they (Target) bought down many other companys with them.

So why were they skint???

Again, just my professional opinion and experience:

Diesel prices are way too high and just getting higher.

Vehicle maintenance and parts are extremally high and need to be done.

Shop keepers (not all) keeping couriors (drivers) on the premises for hours on end to sort out the goods for them (dunnes), thus doing Irish goods in staff out of jobs!

Too many competitors undercutting each other in the bid to get to the bottom. (Target in the past few months were the biggest offenders, under cutting everyone and at such a loss it was rediculous)

My worry, as a driver, is again, apart from the above, we will end up putting good reputable hauliers out of business leaving us with the fly by nights who who undercut so low you can not compete, do not keep their vehicles in roadworthy conditions thus leaving us with death traps on our roads with drivers paid so little, they just don't care about anything but getting home.

So they were skint because they were part of the lowering the bar group, undercutting to no profit thinking they could rely on volume alone. It had a reverse effect with many companys whom it actually annoyed.

We have drivers in the industry who have no knowledge of what a drivers role is. We are not shop keepers, hotel porters nor are we hospital porters. We are drivers, we are hauliers, we get the goods from point of collection to the point of destination that is all. We also have people in our transport office's who have no knowledge of transport and are ... "ahh sure, tis the way it is" people. Unfortunately, in Ireland, we do not understand the basics of haulage.

Not a rant, just an opinion into why they went under.

blue4ever

I don't normally tip in here - but the previous poster puts it nicely, from his professional perspective

martingriff

hgv....eeer wrote: »

Hi Lads, new on tonight. I have been reading on this and thought I would add my bit too.

Well a bit about me. I am an artic driver here in Ireland. I have done the UK and Continent too. I have hauled all sorts of goods over the years. New to me was this multi drop lark Target was into. An absolute nightmare.

I think it is fair to say, they had the plug pulled for one reason and one reason only.... they were skint. Just my opinion now but. Fair play to revenue pulling that plug before they (Target) bought down many other companys with them.

So why were they skint???

Again, just my professional opinion and experience:

Diesel prices are way too high and just getting higher.

Vehicle maintenance and parts are extremally high and need to be done.

Shop keepers (not all) keeping couriors (drivers) on the premises for hours on end to sort out the goods for them (dunnes), thus doing Irish goods in staff out of jobs!

Too many competitors undercutting each other in the bid to get to the bottom. (Target in the past few months were the biggest offenders, under cutting everyone and at such a loss it was rediculous)

My worry, as a driver, is again, apart from the above, we will end up putting good reputable hauliers out of business leaving us with the fly by nights who who undercut so low you can not compete, do not keep their vehicles in roadworthy conditions thus leaving us with death traps on our roads with drivers paid so little, they just don't care about anything but getting home.

So they were skint because they were part of the lowering the bar group, undercutting to no profit thinking they could rely on volume alone. It had a reverse effect with many companys whom it actually annoyed.

We have drivers in the industry who have no knowledge of what a drivers role is. We are not shop keepers, hotel porters nor are we hospital porters. We are drivers, we are hauliers, we get the goods from point of collection to the point of destination that is all. We also have people in our transport office's who have no knowledge of transport and are ... "ahh sure, tis the way it is" people. Unfortunately, in Ireland, we do not understand the basics of haulage.

Not a rant, just an opinion into why they went under.

Mr. McBrien pulled the plug not revenue. They put an attachment on the banks so any monies in the bank account would go to them then it would have unfroze it. If revenue was pulling the plug it would have been a liquidation order not an attachment order.

Rest of post is good.

SCOOP 64

blue4ever wrote: »

I don't normally tip in here - but the previous poster puts it nicely, from his professional perspective

Yes ,he does make some very good points,hes obviously been in the trade for a while,know what he means by places like dunnes, not just sign and go anymore.

hgv....eeer

martingriff wrote: »

Mr. McBrien pulled the plug not revenue. They put an attachment on the banks so any monies in the bank account would go to them then it would have unfroze it. If revenue was pulling the plug it would have been a liquidation order not an attachment order.

Rest of post is good.

Many companys have survived an attachment order have they not?

He, Mr McBrien, couldn't pay people upto 7+ weeks prior! hense the sit ins.

So effectivelly, Revenue put a stop to the nonsense.

martingriff

hgv....eeer wrote: »

Many companys have survived an attachment order have they not?

He, Mr McBrien, couldn't pay people upto 7+ weeks prior! hense the sit ins.

So effectivelly, Revenue put a stop to the nonsense.

Companies and individuals have survived attachments. My point is Revenue was not pulling the plug by an attachment they had no idea how bad the company was only by the details they were given. But in a way you could be right but my point is THEY did not pull it McBrien did due to the handling of the company.

hgv....eeer

martingriff wrote: »

Companies and individuals have survived attachments. My point is Revenue was not pulling the plug by an attachment they had no idea how bad the company was only by the details they were given. But in a way you could be right but my point is THEY did not pull it McBrien did due to the handling of the company.

But maybe, just maybe, they did!!!! let us not forget them poor lads/lasses in the sit in, waiting for their pay, back pay, holiday pay and redundancy... they went home once told by the liquidator that there is in fact no mony at all. They will have to get there redundancy from us, the tax payer. They also explained that they would help them all they can to speed things up.

I think, the tax man new a hell of a lot more than he can let on due to Mr McBrien NOT allowing by not signing a disclosure waiver... hense the reason why polititions will not and can not get involved!!! It would be illegal.

EDITED AT 21:40

So effectivally they pulled the plug knowing he was skint and could not carry on!

martingriff

hgv....eeer wrote: »

But maybe, just maybe, they did!!!! let us not forget them poor lads/lasses in the sit in, waiting for their pay, back pay, holiday pay and redundancy... they went home once told by the liquidator that there is in fact no mony at all. They will have to get there redundancy from us, the tax payer. They also explained that they would help them all they can to speed things up.

I think, the tax man new a hell of a lot more than he can let on due to Mr McBrien NOT allowing by not signing a disclosure waiver... hense the reason why polititions will not and can not get involved!!! It would be illegal.

Don't think they would have done it that way. The company was up sh1t creek the Revenue did something they do at times but not regularly and McBrien thought I can now close it down and blame someone else and look good. Did not work out. If Revenue knew what you are suggesting then they would have liquidated and got a receiver in before the tax bill got any bigger. Plus to let you know there is a government fund to pay wages dues plus holiday pay.