Irish Election are pleased to announce our collection of Irish 
What Bertie said in 2006
Read more about: Bertiegate, Corruption, Scandal, Tribunals
Bertie’s tax affairs regarding the dig-outs are back in issue. One reason he needed the dig-outs to be loans is that they wouldn’t be taxable income (although I also vaguely recall a claim that the Manchester nixer wasn’t taxable because it was received outside the Republic). But anyway, the Irish Mail on Sunday (which really needs to get a website) has put back in play Bertie’s claim around the time of the Dobson weepie that his tax affairs were in order. Eamon Gilmore is first out of the stalls with a statement, although he doesn’t specify which statement of Bertie to which he’s referring. Some candidates below.
The key day seems to be Wednesday 27 September.
My friends had asked to have a function to raise the money for me. There is no tax implication because it was a loan to be repaid with interest. That was the very clear position I had established with my colleagues … However, the procedures I followed, the actions I have now taken and what I have told the tribunal and the public yesterday and today breach neither the ethics code, the tax code, nor legislation …
Mr. Rabbitte: The Taoiseach, as Minister for Finance, was the boss of the Revenue at the time. Did he seek and receive clearance from the Revenue that he can say that he has no tax liability? A loan not repaid after 13 years, with an express refusal to accept repayment in the case of certain donors, is a gift with tax implications. Did he get clearance? If the payments constituted loans, what does the Taoiseach calculate that he now owes? What was the rate of compound interest, and how much is now outstanding?
On the question of accepting €50,000, surely that breached the ministerial code of conduct even then. The Taoiseach has spoken of Mauritius and other outrageous allegations made against him that I am certain are entirely baseless. It reminds me of his statement last night that he had no bank account between 1987 and 1994. Is he telling the House that when he was Minister for Finance and responsible for running the country’s Exchequer he had no bank account in the jurisdiction? Did he have one outside the jurisdiction, or was there no bank account during that entire period?
Perhaps the Taoiseach might be specific about the Manchester event. Was there a series of such events but a single payment? He referred in the interview to his having paid capital gains and gift tax, but he did not say on what he had paid it or why it was liable.
The Taoiseach: I know the law, although I am not an expert on every aspect. However, many years ago my tax advisers checked the issues in detail on the basis that it was a loan with interest. Subject to correction, I believe that the rate throughout the loan period was 3% — the interest rate that a person would have received on a deposit from 1993 or 1994. It was calculated yearly, and the total interest would be more than €20,000. I receive an annual figure from my tax adviser. It was calculated over the entire period on that basis. I paid capital gains tax and gift tax. It is not appropriate for me to spell out what I paid, but I assure the Deputy that I did so following advice.
LIES:DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS.
the political damage being wielded by the drip factor is becoming harder to ignore. Ahern has attempted once to head off this story with the Dobson interview. As Gavin has shown, that interview lies close to tatters.
If he is unwilling to risk the same thing again, with good reason, and head off this story by placing a full story in public view is there anything he can do other than sit and allow these leaks, stories and innuendo to drag on?
Especailly when the answer suspected might not come as a shock.