Will the Dail career of Mick Wallace be truncated?

[MPB]

Mick. When he stole VAT taken from people, and denied these funds to the exchequer

Sure the exchequer would only have handed them to German Banks.

Better off with Mick in my opinion.

[DCon]

Sure the exchequer would only have handed them to German Banks.

Better off with Mick in my opinion.

well everyone should stop paying taxes if that's the case

But then there would be no money to pay Mick for his "research"

Wallace cannot choose to pay VAT collected. It was his duty. Moral and Legal.

[Baron von Biffo]

well everyone should stop paying taxes if that's the case

But then there would be no money to pay Mick for his "research"

Wallace cannot choose to pay VAT collected. It was his duty. Moral and Legal.

That's why the whole thing is a bit of a quagmire for Higgins and the ULA.

Wallace claims justification for refusing to pay the VAT just as the ULA claims justification for refusing to pay the HC. The cases are morally identical yet Higgins wants to have it both ways by attacking Wallace while encouraging people to emulate him.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Wallace claims justification for refusing to pay the VAT just as the ULA claims justification for refusing to pay the HC. The cases are morally identical yet Higgins wants to have it both ways by attacking Wallace while encouraging people to emulate him.

Bullsh*t - only right-wing hacks argue that view - simply because every right-wing nutjobs would do the same if they got half the chance.

There is a galaxy of a difference between a property developer who overstretched himslef while raking in massive profits who took VAt from working class people and then, in effect, put it in his own pocket instead of passing it on to revenue - and half the households in the country refusing to pay an unjust tax that will rise dramatically and potentially impoverish large swathes of society (while the same government refuse to tax the rich and change company law so the likes of Wallace can't hide his assets).

[Kev Bar]

Bullsh*t - only right-wing hacks argue that view - simply because every right-wing nutjobs would do the same if they got half the chance.

There is a galaxy of a difference between a property developer who overstretched himslef while raking in massive profits who took VAt from working class people and then, in effect, put it in his own pocket instead of passing it on to revenue - and half the households in the country refusing to pay an unjust tax that will rise dramatically and potentially impoverish large swathes of society (while the same government refuse to tax the rich and change company law so the likes of Wallace can't hide his assets).

You make overseeing the erection of bricks and mortar seem a crime in itself.
Do we have evidence of him raking in massive profits?

[C. Flower]

Bullsh*t - only right-wing hacks argue that view - simply because every right-wing nutjobs would do the same if they got half the chance.

There is a galaxy of a difference between a property developer who overstretched himslef while raking in massive profits who took VAt from working class people and then, in effect, put it in his own pocket instead of passing it on to revenue - and half the households in the country refusing to pay an unjust tax that will rise dramatically and potentially impoverish large swathes of society (while the same government refuse to tax the rich and change company law so the likes of Wallace can't hide his assets).

According to Wallace, the money from the apartments in question went straight to the bank, into a black hole, and there was no money in his pocket to pay the VAT. He did not, if this is correct, put it in his pocket. His offence was to make a false return.

His company was wiped out by the crash. That was always going to involve people not being paid. The SP must have been aware of that.

[Jolly Red Giant]

You make overseeing the erection of bricks and mortar seem a crime in itself.

Building the stuff is not a crime

Do we have evidence of him raking in massive profits?

I didn't see him offering any cut price homes to poor families

According to Wallace, the money from the apartments in question went straight to the bank, into a black hole, and there was no money in his pocket to pay the VAT. He did not, if this is correct, put it in his pocket. His offence was to make a false return.

The bank wasn't entitled to it - the money belonged to Revenue - it is the same situation as your employer collecting your PAYE tax and PRSI and then using it to pay their bank debts instead of passing it on to Revenue. The money went to the bank for the benefit of Wallace and his company - it shouldn't have - and the fact that it didn't meant that Wallace was no different than any other tax dodging property developer.

His company was wiped out by the crash. That was always going to involve people not being paid. The SP must have been aware of that.

It could be argued that it was a reasonable assumption but assumptions are not the same as cold hard facts and it would be wrong to make any hard and fast judgement based purely on assumptions. However, and this is the important point - neither Joe Higgins nor the Socialist Party had any knowledge about Wallace using the VAT to pay his companies debts instead of paying it to Revenue and Wallace told blatant lies about that on the radio yesterday. If he was willing to lie about that (something that served him absolutely no benefit and was purely designed to damage the Socialist Party and Joe Higgins) then it poses a question mark over the veracity of everything he said.

[C. Flower]

[quote]

Building the stuff is not a crime



I didn't see him offering any cut price homes to poor families


The bank wasn't entitled to it - the money belonged to Revenue - it is the same situation as your employer collecting your PAYE tax and PRSI and then using it to pay their bank debts instead of passing it on to Revenue. The money went to the bank for the benefit of Wallace and his company - it shouldn't have - and the fact that it didn't meant that Wallace was no different than any other tax dodging property developer.

I presume that a cheque / cheques - inclusive of VAT - were paid by creditors over to Wallace's company, and the Company account was in the red because the business was failing. Wallace had clearly always paid his VAT up to that point. The man was wrong not to declare the liability, but he was by his account not in the position to pay it. This is capitalism at work - bubbles and busts and financial carnage are built in. It is silly to try to paint Wallace as some kind of Quinn.

He said he had told Higgins about this months ago. Surely at this stage it is months since this became public ?

[Baron von Biffo]

Bullsh*t - only right-wing hacks argue that view - simply because every right-wing nutjobs would do the same if they got half the chance.

There is a galaxy of a difference between a property developer who overstretched himslef while raking in massive profits who took VAt from working class people and then, in effect, put it in his own pocket instead of passing it on to revenue - and half the households in the country refusing to pay an unjust tax that will rise dramatically and potentially impoverish large swathes of society (while the same government refuse to tax the rich and change company law so the likes of Wallace can't hide his assets).

There's at least three claims there that could do with a little evidence to support them.

(1) That Wallace's companies were raking in massive profits.

(2) That the VAT was paid by working class people.

(3) That half the households in the country are refusing to pay the HC.

That aside, tax dodging is tax dodging plain and simple. The ULA and the individual elements that make it up don't have the moral authority to criticise Wallace for something they justify in other cases.

[Stanley 2]

Mick. When he stole VAT taken from people, and denied these funds to the exchequer

Mick is trying to blame the Banks for his Vat woes, he is making out he put the Vat into the bank and they kept it.

The Bank does not know what funds are Vat or otherwise, their only clue is when he writes out a cheque to the Rev and they then decide whether to pay it or not on the basis of their arrangements with Mick, which quite obviously were not healthy.

It is begining to look like Mick was stripping out funds to buy assets which were not agreed with his Bank.

ACC should get on with it and do us all a favour by bankrupting him and have him kicked out of the Dail.

[Baron von Biffo]

According to Wallace, the money from the apartments in question went straight to the bank, into a black hole, and there was no money in his pocket to pay the VAT. He did not, if this is correct, put it in his pocket. His offence was to make a false return.

His company was wiped out by the crash. That was always going to involve people not being paid. The SP must have been aware of that.

VAT never belongs to the business or its owners, they merely collect it on behalf of the Revenue. That's a nuance that seems to be lost on most Irish business people though because they tend to look on it as working capital.

It's almost as if the local authority worker who took in your car tax decided to use it to pay his mortgage and repay it whenever the fancy took him. Of course if he did and it was discovered he wouldn't have the option of a slap on the wrist and a mention in Swindlers List - It would be treated as theft and dealt with accordingly.

[C. Flower]

Mick is trying to blame the Banks for his Vat woes, he is making out he put the Vat into the bank and they kept it.

The Bank does not know what funds are Vat or otherwise, their only clue is when he writes out a cheque to the Rev and they then decide whether to pay it or not on the basis of their arrangements with Mick, which quite obviously were not healthy.

It is begining to look like Mick was stripping out funds to buy assets which were not agreed with his Bank.

ACC should get on with it and do us all a favour by bankrupting him and have him kicked out of the Dail.

Where is the evidence for that ? The most likely situation is that the money was paid into the company account which was in the red.

[C. Flower]

VAT never belongs to the business or its owners, they merely collect it on behalf of the Revenue. That's a nuance that seems to be lost on most Irish business people though because they tend to look on it as working capital.

It's almost as if the local authority worker who took in your car tax decided to use it to pay his mortgage and repay it whenever the fancy took him. Of course if he did and it was discovered he wouldn't have the option of a slap on the wrist and a mention in Swindlers List - It would be treated as theft and dealt with accordingly.

You're absolutely right about the ownership of VAT. However, if it is paid into an account that is in the red, the bank won't allow it to be passed on.

[Baron von Biffo]

I presume that a cheque / cheques - inclusive of VAT - were paid by creditors over to Wallace's company, and the Company account was in the red because the business was failing. Wallace had clearly always paid his VAT up to that point. The man was wrong not to declare the liability, but he was by his account not in the position to pay it. This is capitalism at work - bubbles and busts and financial carnage are built in. It is silly to try to paint Wallace as some kind of Quinn.

He said he had told Higgins about this months ago. Surely at this stage it is months since this became public ?

You're absolutely right about the ownership of VAT. However, if it is paid into an account that is in the red, the bank won't allow it to be passed on.

I've advocated changing the system so that VAT payments are automatically remitted directly the the Revenue rather than allowing them to 'rest' in business accounts. That would eliminate much of the fraud.

[Baron von Biffo]

Where is the evidence for that ? The most likely situation is that the money was paid into the company account which was in the red.

He shouldn't have been paying money that wasn't his into accounts that were in the red.