Author Topic: BERTIE AHERN You couldn't make this sh1t up  (Read 808 times)

Offline silverbullet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26702
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • You don't want to do it like that
BERTIE AHERN You couldn't make this sh1t up
« on: February 20, 2023, 08:03:27 pm »
But they did:
During a Dáil debate the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern defends the cost of his makeup expenses.

 It had been the practice of all Taoisigh to wear makeup since the televising of Dáil proceedings began in 1990. Dublin South East Green Party TD John Gormley questions Taoiseach Bertie Ahern about his priorities and suggests that €480 a week was too much to spend on cosmetics.

It’s extraordinary that ...you spend more money on makeup than any of the ladies in the cabinet. What sort of priorities do you have when you’re heading around like the ‘Queen of Drumcondra’?

He asks Bertie Ahern should he be known as the L’Oreal Taoiseach ‘because he is worth it’?

The daily rate for the Taoiseach’s professional makeup artist is €187.45 (gross) per day and two makeup artists were employed on a rotational basis for 2/3 days a week.

An RTÉ News report broadcast on 24 May 2006. The reporter is Gareth O’Connor.
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipM2mA9lQPIBzJjmwGyYghO9rCuTw8LKiafrB5Df






Offline silverbullet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26702
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • You don't want to do it like that
Re: BERTIE AHERN You couldn't make this sh1t up
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2023, 08:08:45 pm »
But they did:
During a Dáil debate the Taoiseach Bertie Ahern defends the cost of his makeup expenses.

 It had been the practice of all Taoisigh to wear makeup since the televising of Dáil proceedings began in 1990. Dublin South East Green Party TD John Gormley questions Taoiseach Bertie Ahern about his priorities and suggests that €480 a week was too much to spend on cosmetics.

It’s extraordinary that ...you spend more money on makeup than any of the ladies in the cabinet. What sort of priorities do you have when you’re heading around like the ‘Queen of Drumcondra’?

He asks Bertie Ahern should he be known as the L’Oreal Taoiseach ‘because he is worth it’?

The daily rate for the Taoiseach’s professional makeup artist is €187.45 (gross) per day and two makeup artists were employed on a rotational basis for 2/3 days a week.

An RTÉ News report broadcast on 24 May 2006. The reporter is Gareth O’Connor.
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipM2mA9lQPIBzJjmwGyYghO9rCuTw8LKiafrB5Df
I wonder if his favourite colour is ORANGE:




Offline markmiwurdz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4331
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: BERTIE AHERN You couldn't make this sh1t up
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2023, 09:33:50 pm »
Infacta one the biggest chancers that's ever darkened a door..

Offline silverbullet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26702
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • You don't want to do it like that
Re: BERTIE AHERN You couldn't make this sh1t up
« Reply #3 on: February 22, 2023, 07:32:42 pm »
"It was a"Political Donation" for my own personal use".

Bent as a Three-pound note:

A tax break that benefited one person only...A FF donor.

The closure of one man's tax relief
Shane Coleman reports on the closing of a controversial tax relief in today’s Tribune.

Section 4 of the Finance Bill, published last week, ends the benefit-in-kind tax exemption on employer- provided art objects introduced by [Bertie] Ahern, as a late amendment to the 1994 Finance Act, despite opposition from the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners.

This tax exemption became a major issue over a decade ago when the Sunday Tribune revealed the measure had benefited businessman Ken Rohan and that it was applied retrospectively for the previous 12 years, effectively neutralising any efforts to pursue Rohan for back taxes.

Ken Rohan, a multi-millionaire property developer, was tapped for donations to Fianna Fáil while Bertie Ahern was finance minister between 1992 and ’94. He owned a mansion in Wicklow known as Charville House. The mansion was built in 1797 and is described by the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage as “one of the most memorable country houses in Wicklow”. As you might imagine, it’s worth a few quid.

Over a number of years Rohan decorated the gaff with many pieces of period furniture, antiques and artworks using money from his company Airspace Investments. The items were therefore owned by Airspace but Rohan was benefiting personally from them. The Revenue Commissioners thus defined them as being a benefit-in-kind of Rohan’s employment by Airspace and sent him a tax bill for 12 percent of the items value and two years of their use. This amounted to €150,000 per annum. Rohan disputed the bill. He knew that Revenue knew if they got payment for two years they could seek payment for the other ten years which he had personally enjoyed and used items bought by Airspace.

He appealed against the Revenue Commissioners to the Appeal Commissioners and won his case. Revenue weren’t happy with the decision and tried again, this time billing him for two different years. Rohan appealed once more and started a lobbying campaign, getting the Irish Georgian Society, National Heritage Council, Bord Failte and even the Department of Arts, Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht to write to the finance minister and senior decision-makers on his behalf. The Georgian Society, strangely, claimed if such bill was to be paid then hundreds of priceless pieces of art would be lost to the country as their owners looked to export them. This was despite nothing new – legislation, procedures or calculation methods – actually being on the cards.

Rohan himself wrote to the Minister for Finance, Bertie Ahern, arguing along similar lines. He suggested an amendment be made to the up-coming Finance Bill which would allow owners of certain types of artworks, furniture and antiques to avail of full tax relief. He even went so far as to have his accountants draft the amendment, which he included in the letter to Ahern.

The officials in Finance and Revenue weren’t impressed. Revenue sent correspondence to Ahern’s office outlining why exactly such items should be defined as benefit-in-kind. Finance then drafted a response to Rohan saying, to paraphrase, “you’re having us on, right? Pay up.”

Before sending the letter to Rohan the Finance officials gave it to Ahern to sign. Ahern drew two lines across the pages and told the officials he wanted the legislation drawn up as, well, as requested by the multi-millionaire Fianna Fáil donor, Ken Rohan.

This was done as per the minister’s orders. Bizarrely, it included details that the tax relief should cover the twelve years previous to the legislation’s enactment. Retrospective coverage was almost completely unique to this tax relief.  It meant Revenue could not seek monies for any years over which Rohan benefited from use of items owned by Airspace. Essentially it tied their hands, they couldn’t do anything to get money from Rohan for the use of the items.

Few noticed the amendment at the time. A few years later Matt Cooper got word that there had been something afoot. He investigated the matter and found evidence of the events detailed above, which he published in the Sunday Tribune in early 1999. In May of that year Charlie McCreevy, then minister for finance, in response a written question from Michael Noonan said…

Around the same time, the Department of Arts, Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht wrote supporting the case and referring in particular to the case of one named individual. The individual concerned also wrote to the Minister in October 1993 seeking an amendment to the Finance Acts indicating that such a change would be doing a great service to Irish heritage and that there was a danger of persons moving works of art out of the country for sale. In January 1994, representations were forwarded by the Department of the Taoiseach from Bord Failte supporting the proposed change to the Finance Acts.

Having examined the matter and the representations received, the Minister decided that a suitable provision would be included in the Finance Bill to deal with such circumstances.

This provision was enacted as section 19 of the Finance Act, 1994, with the support of both sides of the House.

While the application of tax law is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners, I understand from the Revenue Commissioners that one taxpayer has applied for and benefited from the section since its introduction.

It appears, since the introduction of the tax relief and its closure, Ken Rohan was the only individual to which it applied. Matt Cooper reckons he saved €1.5m or so on what would have been a 12 year bill. It’s impossible to calculate how much he would have paid eventually had the relief not been implemented.

I have no idea where Ken Rohan is or what he is doing. Bertie Ahern is still sitting in the Dáil.



There are further elements to this story, to find out more I recommend – once again – you read ‘Who Really Runs Ireland?‘ by Matt Cooper.




Offline silverbullet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26702
  • Karma: +2/-0
  • You don't want to do it like that
Re: BERTIE AHERN You couldn't make this sh1t up
« Reply #4 on: February 22, 2023, 07:33:13 pm »
Bertie Ahern and the tax exemption
Posted on January 27, 2010 by kenfoxe / 0 Comment
While Bertie Ahern was fortunate enough to be deemed eligible for the artist’s exemption for his memoirs, others have not fared quite so well.

Figures from the Revenue Commissioners show that seventeen people have been refused the tax break in the past four years.

All of them appear to have taken their cases to the Revenue Appeals Commissioner, where eleven of the cases ended up being overturned.

That leaves six people who have been refused the artist’s exemption since 2006 and if you’re one of those “non-artists” and wish to speak about your experience, get in touch with me on ken.foxe (at) gmail.com.

The figures from the Revenue Commissioners:

Year   Number of cases   Category   Decision
2006   6*   6 in (a) a book or other writing   2 upheld
4 overturned

* Note: one of these cases heard at Circuit Court

Year   Number of cases   Category   Decision
2007   4   4 in (a) a book or other writing   1 upheld
3 overturned

Year   Number of cases   Category   Decision   
2008   5   4 in (a) a book or other writing
1 in (d) a painting or other like picture

2 upheld
3 overturned

including the case in Cat. (d)


Year

Number of cases   Category   Decision
2009   2   2 in (a) a book or other writing   1 upheld
1 overturned

What is most interesting about this whole affair is that the Revenue Commissioners and their counterparts in the Arts Council appear to have very different ideas about who should and who should not benefit.

The Arts Council are not in a position to comment directly on Bertie Ahern because they were never consulted about it.

However, this lengthy statement, issued to the Sunday Tribune, gives a fair idea of what they might have said had they been asked.

“The Arts Council regards the Artists’ Exemption Scheme as enlightened legislation, unique to Ireland, of which every citizen can be proud. It demonstrates to all that our society still values and nurtures creative artists. It sends a clear signal to the world that this country is a hub of creativity, innovation and fresh thinking, and that is an excellent location for smart-economy investment.

“The Arts Council is asked regularly throughout the year by the Revenue Commissioners for a recommendation on whether or not a particular publication falls within the guidelines of the scheme. In the case of an appeal by an individual against a Revenue Commissioners’ decision, Arts Council officers will offer an opinion and answer questions at the proceedings of Revenue Appeals Commission. We take these duties very seriously, and make an assessment in each case on the basis of the Revenue Commissioners’ published guidelines.

“The guidelines are very clear that biographies and autobiographies do not qualify for the artists’ exemption. The only exception to this is if the book encompasses “…the subjects of fiction writing, drama, music, film, dance, mime or visual arts, and related commentaries by bona fide artists”.

“In recent years the Revenue Appeals Commissioners have made several rulings in favour of plaintiffs, and against the recommendations of the Arts Council.

“We were not asked for a recommendation on any book by Bertie Ahern, nor have we considered it, and therefore have no comment on it.”

Is it not truly bizarre that we have two state agencies with a completely different understanding of the artist’s exemption.

Obviously, the major concern for the Arts Council is that the operation of the scheme has come into disrepute because the public might perceive it as going to undeserving people, like Bertie Ahern.

In that scenario, a new government might find it expedient to abolish the exemption altogether.

 


Show Unread Posts