The Issues Around Bertiegate in a Nutshell
Read more about: Bertiegate, Blogging, Fianna Fail 
Summed up by a very astute comment by Elizabeth on GUBU;
“As you are aware, my judicial separation proceedings concluded around November/December 1993. The issues which I have been explaining to the tribunal – such as why I was renting a house, why my friends gave me money and why I did not operate a bank account for a period of years – are all related to my judicial separation.”
The first two are plausible, at a stretch. But why would a judicial separation be a reason for anyone not “operating a bank account for a number of years”? I can think of only two possible explanations:
(1) The husband’s sworn affidavit of means was not a true reflection of his actual means or his ability to pay maintenance. If the court knew the true extent of the husband’s means, it would order higher maintenance payments to the wife and children. If the wife suspected this, she could apply to the court for a discovery order of any bank accounts and, therefore, the husband closed his accounts and operated on a cash only basis or through bank accounts nominally controlled by others.
(2) As above, but the wife was aware the affidavit of means grossly understated the husband’s means. She was aware that certain amounts could not be declared in the affidavit because they had not been declared to the revenue. She colluded in this in return for, for example, a large lump sum or 100% of the house.
So it seems the only possible explanation for not having a bank account is that he was either cheating his wife and children of maintenance or he was evading tax or, of course, a combination of the two. Or am I missing something? I know these are in camera matters, but what other explanation could there possibly be?
It is also clear from his answers to the Sunday Independent that all the work on the house was paid for in cash – “cash was a more convenient way to effect payment; hence, the £50,000 was withdrawn”. Why is paying in cash more convenient than writing a cheque? One assumes that all those who worked on the house declared all their earnings for income tax and VAT.
Also, why would someone, who was so hard up that his friends had to bail him out, immediately build a conservatory and convert the attic of a four bedroom house that was to be occupied by two adults? Not to mention paying £29,000 in 1994 to an interior design shop – bearing in mind that the average industrial wage in 1998, the earliest year I could find statistics for, was £17,500. Rather out of character for a man who has always boasted of his simple tastes!
There’s more. Today’s Irish Times has a new twist, straight from the horse’s mouth –
Mr Ahern later confirmed to reporters that in the past six months he had made a payment to the Revenue Commissioners relating to the payments and gifts he received in the early 1990s.
He denied this was at odds with his statement in the Dáil last October that he had no tax liabilities on the money he had received. He insisted that his advice was that this was still the case and that he would be refunded most of the money he had given to the Revenue Commissioners.
The Irish Times has learned that the Taoiseach was approached by the Revenue Commissioners after the payments controversy last October with a query as to whether he had a tax liability from that time.
Under taxation law, a person who believes they may have a tax liability can make a voluntary payment “on account” in order to avoid penalties or prosecution for tax evasion. Following negotiations with the Revenue Commissioners, some or all of that sum can be refunded if the Revenue finds or accepts that there is limited or no liability.
So look at the loophole Bertie has now driven through tax law. You claim initially that there’s no tax liability. When the Revenue point out that there might be, you say “very sorry, here’s a few quid on account” — and you avoid all the penalties while they calculate the tax that you should have paid in the first place. Hopefully he didn’t need another dig-out for the this payment to the Revenue.
There’s another plausible explanation. He’s making it all up.
There’s another plausible explanation. He’s making it all up.
- another
+ only one
Yeah, I really want this dodgy character as Taoiseach again. /sarcasm
Bertie should have stepped down 6 months ago and FF should have elected a new party leader, going into an election with a corrupt character like Bertie is like breaking your legs before a race.
I have read the statement via politics.ie
The issue is surreal.
One knows from the Haughey issues, that the full truth cannot emerge until a Taoiseach is not in government & then it will take years to unravel (to use a knitting rather than a washing/laundering term – both traditionally performed by the female gender)!
I am an emigrant & really want to return to Ireland. Do you know Mr Wall’s address?
I too am quite prepared to allow Mr Wall to stay in his house whilst still paying full rent to him and arranging refurbishment and payment of required taxes for him at no extra charge.
Therefore I am an idiot.
Bertie is now introduced a new definition of tax-compliant: if you’ve had no communication with the Revenue –
Speaking today in an interview with journalist Matt Cooper on Today FM, Mr Ahern said he was tax compliant and that this was not at odds with what he had told the Dail in his statement last year.
“When I said that in the Dáil I hadn’t even communicated with the Revenue. So what I said in the Dail was absolutely factual,” Mr Ahern said.
On his dealings with the Revenue since then, Mr Ahern said his advisers believe that he is “totally tax compliant and that I don’t owe anything”.