MAJOR PROBLEM Kerry Group Old Shares

kerry cow

If co op were to pick up the penalty and interest part , then dry share holders would be caught too , then again we are A co op , all for one and one for all ??

fepper

NovemberJersey wrote: »

The PLC is in no way to blame for any of this. The revenue are taking the complete piss with the whole thing tbh, they don't have any right from a legal standpoint to do what they're trying to do. Also our accountants are partially to blame but no they can't be forced to make any financial compensation for us, that's part of the rules of being an accountant, any mistakes they make don't fall back on them. And last but not least our Co Op board are largely responsible for this but it's the men who were on the board back in the early 2000's who created this mess, not the current board.

I'm not blaming plc,it's Kerry coop that issued the shares so the problem lies with coop board only,their only function now is to manage our shares and the buck stops with them

NovemberJersey

fepper wrote: »

I'm not blaming plc,it's Kerry coop that issued the shares so the problem lies with coop board only,their only function now is to manage our shares and the buck stops with them

The Co Op board are doing a fairly good job of running Kerry Co Op into the ground, a shower of semi illiterate good for nothings is all they are… all I'd have to gain from a full conversion would be enough Shares to do a few small jobs around my farm but I'd still rather not have them burn through all that money

kerry cow

This is only the tip of the ice burg .wait now till they go after the family transfers at marker value and not the 1.25 euro each that many used etc ...alot of people exposed .alot of shares going to be sold to cover all this .It's going to break some families .

fepper

kerry cow wrote: »

This is only the tip of the ice burg .wait now till they go after the family transfers at marker value and not the 1.25 euro each that many used etc ...alot of people exposed .alot of shares going to be sold to cover all this .It's going to break some families .

Back then thats what revenue valued them at but increased their value up to €200 a share since

kerry cow

Tax adviser told me today that once the share conversion comes on these shares in question , you will be done again for the tax in conversion from co op to plc shares regardless if you sell or not .

fepper

Thats right their residual value is only bout €0.24 each for the conversion from coop to plc share so ur crucified with CGT when the difference in both values is calculated so its better if they are valued high on transfer

BannerBarry

A request for payment has gone out to the largest 400 suppliers.
These are suppliers getting more than 100 shares or so I believe.
It has not gone out to the remaining 3000 or so suppliers yet.

The ICMSA IFA and Co op board are all discussing the matter on your behalf.
Why would anyone consider paying the requested amount until those negotiations are over?

The Co op directors claim they new nothing of the letters... devil in the detail here... They new the issue with the revenue obviously but not that the letters were being sent on that day!
The revenue could only have got the top 400 suppliers list from the Co op and the co ops books and records imo.

The board saying they new nothing about the letters is smoke and mirrors... They new the issue and the position the revenue commissioners took in the matter but did not know the revenue were sending out the letters that particular day.... I hate this lack of leadership at a time when you need them most.

fepper

Would it also show up in tax returns to revenue from the farmers and it would show up there banner

BannerBarry

No. The dividend would show up but that would not differentiate a large supplier with very little shares from a small supplier or former supplier with huge amount of shares from earlier years or bought shares.

fepper

When I paid for the patronage shares through milk account it would be in my accounts as money out expense for buying shares and also under assets held??

BannerBarry

That would be right but this information doesn't go to the revenue in your tax return.
I believe the top 400 suppliers would have come from the Co ops books which mean the Co op directors would have to known of the tax issue here.

fepper

Maybe this love affair that was shown by these milk suppliers/shareholders at the recent agm to the coop board might change their minds now

fepper

Looks like revenue have admitted mistake according to Michael Healy rae on radio Kerry news

Kerry2016

fepper wrote: »

Looks like revenue have admitted mistake according to Michael Healy rae on radio Kerry news

I missed it, what did they say? They've hardly called it off?

We got in contact with the revenue about it already and infairness to them they were very pleasant to talk to and very understanding but one thing I couldn't get over was how they didn't seem to have much understanding of the complex situation

fepper

No but he said that he was talking to revenue staff and they said it was a big mistake on their part.....

marno21

The issue was raised in the Dail today by Michael Moynihan (Cork North West), John Brassil (Kerry) and Niall Collins (Limerick County), as per http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2016112300035?opendocument#HH01200

The actual debate itself hasn't been put up yet so I am awaiting the actual discussion on the subject

Bellview

fepper wrote:

No but he said that he was talking to revenue staff and they said it was a big mistake on their part.....

Don't trust healy rae as he never let's the truth get in the way of a good story. Better have facts from revenue in writing as healy rae great for talking and blaming.. while you will be the one paying the tax bill

pakie ed

Not sure Michael HealyRea had the right number if he met a understanding revenue member, he might have might have got put through to the North Pole by mistake.

NovemberJersey

I don't like the way how the 400 of us who got the letters are expected to magically come up with this money while the other 3,600 suppliers (back in 2011 there was 4,000 milk suppliers I think) haven't even got the letters yet and it was talked about in the farmers journal how a lot of them other suppliers won't be asked for any money, what the hell is that about… between one thing and another we're being forced off the land in a more brutal fashion than the British ever did to us

BannerBarry

It's all about the money!
400 shareholders that got 100 plus shares per annum targeted. 10% of suppliers got over 20% of the patronage shares.
Concentrated efforts on the most likely to yield the most tax.

I know someone that got 20-30 patronage shares per year and sold them.
He paid cgt at 33%.
He had little to no profits in the years in question so will potentially end up getting back cgt when these shares now move to income tax chargeable.

The revenue know that the smallest suppliers and lowest profit guys that sold the shares may gain out of this so why target them yet!
They will in time for sure.... If they think it won't cost them!

fepper

BannerBarry wrote: »

It's all about the money!
400 shareholders that got 100 plus shares per annum targeted. 10% of suppliers got over 20% of the patronage shares.
Concentrated efforts on the most likely to yield the most tax.

I know someone that got 20-30 patronage shares per year and sold them.
He paid cgt at 33%.
He had little to no profits in the years in question so will potentially end up getting back cgt when these shares now move to income tax chargeable.

The revenue know that the smallest suppliers and lowest profit guys that sold the shares may gain out of this so why target them yet!
They will in time for sure.... If they think it won't cost them!

Banner
Do you think all the patronage shares that were issued before 2011 will have their base cost upped when calculating the CGT due if you sold say 8yrs ago

BannerBarry

fepper wrote: »

Banner
Do you think all the patronage shares that were issued before 2011 will have their base cost upped when calculating the CGT due if you sold say 8yrs ago

Great question. The revenue are calculating a gain of ~ 46m by the A Suppliers on these patronage shares.
The inverse of this is a loss of 46m to the existing shareholders on the dilution of their shareholding.

The shares worth 6.66 Group shares in 2013 were now only worth 6.17 Group the day after because of dilution.

I do not see why the existing shareholders could not have this argument but I doubt the revenue would allow it.... the money they have calculated is too handy now and they would not like to see it pis*ed away with logic arguments like you bring up Fepper!

fepper

Couldn't have that Barry,revenue giving us money!!...

NovemberJersey

I've a neighbour milking cows aswell, he had a small few Co Op shares to start off with and he was getting a few patron shares then for the drop of milk he had, because of the dilution of the Co Op shares that he had on day one he ended up being worse off even though he got patron shares, where will he stand with the revenue do ye think? Through off farm income he was in the top tax bracket, the poor man is worried sick now

CiarraiAbu2

fepper wrote: »

Banner
Do you think all the patronage shares that were issued before 2011 will have their base cost upped when calculating the CGT due if you sold say 8yrs ago

You can only go back 4 years to get a tax refund, and that is written in stone.

fepper

CiarraiAbu2 wrote: »

You can only go back 4 years to get a tax refund, and that is written in stone.

They write their own rules to suit themselves,the bistads

NovemberJersey

Some junior minister has come out and said that tax is tax and it must be paid, we're 3rd class citizens in our own country

NovemberJersey

That junior minister is some disgrace coming out and saying tax is tax and must be paid, I'd love to hear the understanding he has of Kerry Group and Kerry Co Op shares because nobody in the revenue seems to understand any of it, even the journalists for the farmers journal had little or no understanding of how it all worked. That junior minister doesn't have to live in the real world at all, how would he get on without his cushy job, government pension and massive expenses allowance. Why can't we just pay CGT on the shares when they're being sold like the rest of the world do

BannerBarry

NovemberJersey wrote: »

That junior minister is some disgrace coming out and saying tax is tax and must be paid, I'd love to hear the understanding he has of Kerry Group and Kerry Co Op shares because nobody in the revenue seems to understand any of it, even the journalists for the farmers journal had little or no understanding of how it all worked. That junior minister doesn't have to live in the real world at all, how would he get on without his cushy job, government pension and massive expenses allowance. Why can't we just pay CGT on the shares when they're being sold like the rest of the world do

I saw that article this morning... He should be reminded of those comments at election time. It was an insult knowing nobody ever from any co op has paid Income Tax on such shares.. His lack of understanding or insulting attitude needs to be reflected in next election he puts his name forward for.