MAJOR PROBLEM Kerry Group Old Shares

Kerry2016

kerry cow wrote: »

I'd be surprised if they haven't a stack of shares .They would be very forward thinking and known to be cute movers .

I know how many shares he has approximately, I wish he was a cute mover and owned about 20 times more shares than what he has because he might actually want to convert them then

BannerBarry

Your point is 100%.. the new Chairman can have his own legacy... have fellas buying drinks for him at the pub for putting an average 150k in every farmers pockets.... the grief such a position will most likely get for the next 4-5 years is not something I would want... Mr Chairman give th members of the Holding company called Kerry co-op what they want please

Kerry2016

Our new chairman doesn't have any successor according to himself anyway so what the **** difference does it make to him what happenes us milk suppliers, its none of his business and we can all run our own businesses

Wait and see he'll start some propoganda regime going forward trying to convince fools that if the shares get converted that there'll be nobody there to buy our milk off us, he might even be low enough to use our co op shares to buy the processing plants back off the PLC using our Co Op shares

kerry cow

That is a possibility that all dry share holder should shiver at .The prospect of owning our new kerry Co op 2 .paid for in co op share exchange .share for plant and mill .
Brexit and trump !! Anything is possible .aib and boi shares broke people , maybe co op share also ???
Heard co op shares on grey market are going to get very hard to shift .
We are on a round about with no direction , hope we don't crash

fepper

In fairness,a Kerry coop 2 is pie in the sky fantasy!!the coop shares will be valued in line with plc share price but on their own without the bonus of conversion,price of coop share will drop so you have to keep them or else you'll be thrown in with the vultures

BannerBarry

Kerry co-op function is that of a holding company. It holds shares in Kerry Group PLC primarily.
Should any reckless Director wish to move from holding investments to owning bricks and steel in Listowel then the purpose of the company will have moved and the directors are liable personally to the shareholders for any loss they cause... the directors need to be very careful now days in what they do in the interests of a minority of shareholders.
They haven't engaged the C shareholders or requested feedback on what the C's want to do with the company... Again they need to be very careful on many fronts i would think

Kerry2016

The milk processing plants etc aren't even worth much are they? Kerry don't even own Dawn milk anymore, what would Kerry Co Op 2.0 even do with the milk

Out of interest have any of ye ever met anyone with any amount of Co Op shares who's wanted to have them shares used to start off Kerry Co Op again?

One of the saving graces of being a company and no longer having those mental Co Op rules is that the Co Op board will be breaking the law if they try piss our shares away

BannerBarry

Kerry2016 wrote: »

The milk processing plants etc aren't even worth much are they? Kerry don't even own Dawn milk anymore, what would Kerry Co Op 2.0 even do with the milk

Out of interest have any of ye ever met anyone with any amount of Co Op shares who's wanted to have them shares used to start off Kerry Co Op again?

One of the saving graces of being a company and no longer having those mental Co Op rules is that the Co Op board will be breaking the law if they try piss our shares away

Has anyone ever left the wallet on the street for someone to steal their money?
I think not.

Similarly with the Grey market price of shares worth €400 per share... has anyone gone to the Mart with a prized fresian heifer and wanting to sell her for €500 knowing she's worth €1100.... This is what's happening with the Kerry Co op shares... the Directors have a duty to approve shares at prices that reflect the underlying value of these shares.

BannerBarry

The Revenue Commissioners have said that it is in 'no doubt' that any patronage shares should be included in farmers’ returns and subject to income tax.

If true, thousands of farmers around the country could be liable for income tax on such shares.

Speaking at the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and reform, Paul Walsh, Principal Officer, Income and Capital Taxes Division of the Revenue Commissioners said Revenue is quite certain that its technical interpretation of the law, that the shares should be subject to income tax, is correct.

“It is well established that where you get value for providing a services you tax the non monetary benefit at the market value. These patronage shares have a greater value than the base value.”


However, in an apparently conciliatory move, the Revenue’s Charlie Phelan said that it would limit the scope of this probe to 2011 only, rather than the three-year period covering 2011, 2012 and 2013. The 400 Kerry suppliers that received letters from the Revenue two weeks ago will be sent another update in the post in the coming days.

Phelan told the meeting that Revenue had been looking the valuation of patronage shares in Kerry for over a year.

“We were not aware of the patronage shares until very recently. We only recently realised that in addition to getting paid for milk farmers were able to buy these patronage share and these shares should be on the trading accounts.”

He also said that patronage shares from other co-ops will be examined by Revenue.

Kerry2016

BannerBarry wrote: »

The Revenue Commissioners have said that it is in 'no doubt' that any patronage shares should be included in farmers’ returns and subject to income tax.

If true, thousands of farmers around the country could be liable for income tax on such shares.

Speaking at the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and reform, Paul Walsh, Principal Officer, Income and Capital Taxes Division of the Revenue Commissioners said Revenue is quite certain that its technical interpretation of the law, that the shares should be subject to income tax, is correct.

“It is well established that where you get value for providing a services you tax the non monetary benefit at the market value. These patronage shares have a greater value than the base value.”


However, in an apparently conciliatory move, the Revenue’s Charlie Phelan said that it would limit the scope of this probe to 2011 only, rather than the three-year period covering 2011, 2012 and 2013. The 400 Kerry suppliers that received letters from the Revenue two weeks ago will be sent another update in the post in the coming days.

Phelan told the meeting that Revenue had been looking the valuation of patronage shares in Kerry for over a year.

“We were not aware of the patronage shares until very recently. We only recently realised that in addition to getting paid for milk farmers were able to buy these patronage share and these shares should be on the trading accounts.”

He also said that patronage shares from other co-ops will be examined by Revenue.

So basically it's a case of everyone pays up and we all have to get over it? Over 4,000 farmers got patron shares, revenue haven't got the man power if even a quarter of them appeal it

BannerBarry

Not sure tbh. The revenue process > 50k notice of assessments in October & November per year in Kerry alone.. why couldn't they manage a further 3,000 they have not yet sent letters to or Appeals that have identical wording as advised by KCO tax advisors.

It's the quiet time of the year I suppose for them so they should be able one would think.... They may earn some extra expenses even out of it up and down to Kerry Group HQ!

BannerBarry

The Farmers Comic seems to have a much better article

The Indo article above seems completely wrong reading the below.

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/checked-nc-revenue-to-go-ahead-with-tax-assessments-for-400-kerry-farmers-241114

cute geoge

Can anyone here clarify what is the maximum time revenue can check retrospectively in relation to the patronage shares .I.e. Is there any possibility they could go back 10 years or more for patronage shares issued in the noughties .Also T.D. john brassil raises the point the shares in 2011 were based on 2010 milk supply .

Kerry2016

cute geoge wrote: »

Can anyone here clarify what is the maximum time revenue can check retrospectively in relation to the patronage shares .I.e. Is there any possibility they could go back 10 years or more for patronage shares issued in the noughties .Also T.D. john brassil raises the point the shares in 2011 were based on 2010 milk supply .

I'm not giving you a smart answer but they can go back as far as they ever feel like it to go after tax that they think they're owed, they're gonna go after all the years previous once they've got this sorted out first

kerry cow

What is the story for the guys who haven't got a letter and does this 4 year rule exclude these guys once January 17 arrives

BannerBarry

cute geoge wrote: »

Can anyone here clarify what is the maximum time revenue can check retrospectively in relation to the patronage shares .I.e. Is there any possibility they could go back 10 years or more for patronage shares issued in the noughties .Also T.D. john brassil raises the point the shares in 2011 were based on 2010 milk supply .

I was of the belief that they could go back forever but I read they can only go back 6 years unless there is a fraud or purpose errors identified.
Hence the reason they have rushed on the 2011 before year end.
I may he wrong here but that what I read from all the articles on this.
We can only ever go back 4 years for a credit though... Fair eh!

CiarraiAbu2

They can go back as far as they want, you need to hold information for six years that's why people get mixed up, refunds only four years to claim.

Lets say you got a six year audit and were due refunds back years 5 & 6 and owed tax for 1,2,3 & 4, you wouldn't be able to offset them.

NovemberJersey

Anyone see the article in the farmers journal today about some fella from kilflynn wanting to take our patron shares off us? That's the 2nd week in a row our new chairman has had an article in the letters section of that paper

BannerBarry

NovemberJersey wrote: »

Anyone see the article in the farmers journal today about some fella from kilflynn wanting to take our patron shares off us? That's the 2nd week in a row our new chairman has had an article in the letters section of that paper

It might be cheaper yet to give them back if the co op shares tank over all that's going on and the Directors do not do a Share exchange like the shareholders want.

The simplest solution was for fellas to now pay for the shares received in 2011 2012 2013 at 65 75 and 90.
There would then be no income tax liability therfore. If Kerry co-op Directors then did a share exchange for 20% €76 on average owed divided by €400 per share windfall from the Group shares) it would pay for buying the shares at Grey market rates now.

The money paid in by the Patronage shares from thosr years would sit in the co op bank account to be used as a special divided or other down the road....or to just pay the board directors.
An Accountant at the meeting proposed that solution but it isn't obviously being done by the board. Maybe it's too late to pay for the shares at this point.

kerry cow

Look we just need to pay up the tax at the end of the day it will be allowed when sold against cgt .and let's just move on and let business resume and conversion will happen there after .otherwise this whole saga will drag on and on .Revenue are never wrong , end of

BannerBarry

kerry cow wrote: »

Look we just need to pay up the tax at the end of the day it will be allowed when sold against cgt .and let's just move on and let business resume and conversion will happen there after .otherwise this whole saga will drag on and on .Revenue are never wrong , end of

I'm sure that is what will happen but the alternative proposal seems to be more efficient... particularly if the Holding company named Kerry co-op is ever shut down.
You would still have the same cost for cgt of 65 75 and 90 but would not pay income tax being the difference

NovemberJersey

What do you people all think will happen after the test case is eventually over ? The co op are really at nothing now trying to keep a block of PLC shares to protect the farmers like they're always on about , I don't know anywhere where a son has got the farm + the co op shares , it's not like the co op board can force farmers to will their co op shares to whichever child takes over the farm. In another 10 years very few of the milk suppliers will be the owners of co op shares but hopefully in 5 years even there won't be a co op anymore

cute geoge

NovemberJersey wrote: »

What do you people all think will happen after the test case is eventually over ? The co op are really at nothing now trying to keep a block of PLC shares to protect the farmers like they're always on about , I don't know anywhere where a son has got the farm + the co op shares , it's not like the co op board can force farmers to will their co op shares to whichever child takes over the farm. In another 10 years very few of the milk suppliers will be the owners of co op shares but hopefully in 5 years even there won't be a co op anymore

Even though milk suppliers might not be the owners of co op shares ,they still will control more then likely the co op board as all you need to vote is one share in the co op
If stan stood by his word to pay the leading price ,there would be no problem by having all the co op shares converted .After the carry on this year by kerry probably paying the worst price ,any supplier with shares will more then likely be against full conversion with exception of the likes of kerry 2016 who has built up his nest egg

NovemberJersey

cute geoge wrote: »

Even though milk suppliers might not be the owners of co op shares ,they still will control more then likely the co op board as all you need to vote is one share in the co op
If stan stood by his word to pay the leading price ,there would be no problem by having all the co op shares converted .After the carry on this year by kerry probably paying the worst price ,any supplier with shares will more then likely be against full conversion with exception of the likes of kerry 2016 who has built up his nest egg

I don't have many shares just the few patron shares I got and my way of looking at it is that I just want the conversion , if people wanted control over the milk price they should have voted against the co op becoming a PLC back in '86 , it's 30 years ago now since the preverbial horse bolted . 20% of all the milk we produce in this country is being sold into intervention , is it any wonder milk prices are on the floor . Stan should have just paid the leading milk price as u said , maybe it will take a new CEO to get a conversion , Stan has been there since '08 I think and I don't think he will ever be short of a few pound

BannerBarry

NovemberJersey wrote: »

I don't have many shares just the few patron shares I got and my way of looking at it is that I just want the conversion , if people wanted control over the milk price they should have voted against the co op becoming a PLC back in '86 , it's 30 years ago now since the preverbial horse bolted . 20% of all the milk we produce in this country is being sold into intervention , is it any wonder milk prices are on the floor . Stan should have just paid the leading milk price as u said , maybe it will take a new CEO to get a conversion , Stan has been there since '08 I think and I don't think he will ever be short of a few pound

Stan has alot to answer for alright.
The current board seem to have very strong links to most of the farming organisations and with them boys controlling the board the future for our 1.6bn holding company looks bleak.
The Farming organisations are quick to publish they rang the Revenue they are in contact with the Co-Op Board etc and ate not providing any real benefits to the 3400 members impacted here.
Just like their meat factory protests... take the picture for the Rag and run home after the picture is taken.

Our Kerry co op board bring back an ex chairman that was voted out by the members. He has a great understanding of the tax per the dealer... do members at this year's agm agree :-)

Back to the Future I say. I believe the best hope of winning the Patronage shares tax battle now rests with Ex CEO Denis Bro..... why can't the Kerry Co-op board bring him back as a consultant instead of an Ex Chairman that is very much linked to the current Group / Co op troubles?

Kerry2016

I'd read that some Co Op shareholders below in Limerick organised a meeting about all of what's going on, anyone know who was behind it? It would probably be worth talking to them

CiarraiAbu2

kerry cow wrote: »

Look we just need to pay up the tax at the end of the day it will be allowed when sold against cgt .and let's just move on and let business resume and conversion will happen there after .otherwise this whole saga will drag on and on .Revenue are never wrong , end of

Don't do anything in haste, wait till the test case is over might not be as bad as you think yet, and yes sometimes they are wrong

kerry cow

Correct me but did revenue confirm in some report that it is only recently that this value of grey trading came to their attention ? And if so how could any common law abiding farmer who did declare his shares and his stamp duty at the time of receipt now be held accountable for a grey market that revenue only now deem to be income for the years 11 ,12 ,13 .
99% of farmers had no idea of their value .
It was not a free market to sale and it had to be approved by kerry board , why did the co op allow the transfer of these shares at a high value ?? .

BannerBarry

The Revenue have been accepting cgt on Kerry co op shares for years and for sales at Grey market rates so what they now say seems questionable.

200K shares coming on the Grey market when received in 2011 to 2013 would have caused the Grey Market to tank and the €65 75 90 values would surely be only half those Revenue values .... see what has happened Oil with a small amount of over supply causing prices to tank in the last year.

The best option is for the Kerry Co op 2 to have a share up structure for active milk suppliers only and have the price controlled by the board like Glanbia Co-Op do. Hold back in the good years, pay out in the bad years...

Co op 1 is not fit for the original purpose it may have been set up for and the B's and C's are sick of the current structure and lack of information coming from the board, shares trading on rhe Grey market at less than half their true value, a board that appear only interested in the fate of the milk suppliers etc.

kerry cow

There is a article in farmers journal today from a kerry milk supplier who wants his shares canceled all 330 of then worth 80k because he has a liability of around 23k .feel he can get on fine without them
Still profit there in the spoils and a conversion to come.
With the article ,is there a bit of hocus pocus !!!
.typical dumb farmer attitude that serves no good to the preying public eye .