6 Dail Statements made by BA showing duplicity...

[nuj]

You'll find out - the hard way, with any luck.

"Careful now, the real you is beginning to show", as you'd say yourself.

[hiding behind a poster]

No need to ask, is their collective silence not eloquent, full and final testimony that their supposedly moral crusade is nothing more than a burning desire for vengeance on the man who has destroyed their political hopes for the last ten years.

To moderators - is that not contempt?

I'd take it down pronto.

It’s only contempt for some other posters, where’s the problem?

The post in which its contained certainly gives the impression that its directed at the Mahon Tribunal. If it isn't, fair enough. But you should make that clear.

[tonys]

I've changed it slightly, but I would have though as I was answering a question it was very clear I was talking about "posters"
adrem wrote:
One comment on all of this - for those posters who imply that their commentary is in some way coming from a neutral position - where are the comments querying Mahon's actions here? If the position was reversed and BAs side lost on 2 (or 1??) point then there would be a plethora of threads highllighting how "outrageous" this behaviour was.

Why is it now nothing major just because it's Mahon who lost/backed down?
No need to ask, is the silence of those posters not eloquent, full and final testimony that their supposedly moral crusade is nothing more than a burning desire for vengeance on the man who has destroyed their political hopes for the last ten years.

[nuj]

Ah, that's better.

Short answer is "no".

Mind you, that "eloquent, full and final" flourish has a touch of the Haugheys about it. Though he did tend to use four, rather than three, adjectives - as in GUBU.

[hiding behind a poster]

Thanks for clarifying that, Tonys. I guess we won't need to contact a law firm now - though I heard somewhere that Ward and Guidera might be very interested in this sort of thing, so I'm sure they'd have taken the case.

[tonys]

Ah, that's better.

Short answer is "no".

Mind you, that "eloquent, full and final" flourish has a touch of the Haugheys about it. Though he did tend to use four, rather than three, adjectives - as in GUBU.

I’m glad you gave a short answer, it should be all the easier for you to stick it.

[droghedasouth]

Tonys - the reason why the tribunal did not call Stronge as a witness until now is in the record of the tribunal. His report was read into the record of the tribunal but the tribunal then made it clear that the report was only expressing an opinion on the transactions and it is the role of the 3 members to do that. His report added no new evidence.

The tribunal has made its foreign exchange calculations quite clear during questioning.
Anyone with a calculator and some time can do it, but a spreadsheet would be far quicker.
Ahern's legal team will discover nothing of any value there.

Given the fuss Ahern's team made about their expert, the tribunal must suspect that when Paddy Stronge did his own revised calculations, after the procedures within AIB were clarified, he ended up agreeing with the tribunal and that would explain why his report is just an assertion of opinion rather than a set of calculations and a conclusion.

[corkman2007]

They have backed down, totally, on the second point, they have conceded that they do not have the right to question him on anything he has said in the Dail, which was the only point Ahern was making.

Wrong. For someone who seems to examine Tribunal statements in such detail, you seem to lack that inclination in the case of statements in the High Court. The Tribunal team did NOT concede that they haven't got the right to question Ahern on Dail statements - in fact they said that they do not wish to question Ahern on the veracity of those statements, but would retain the freedom to refer to such statements. Big, big difference, Tonys. And you know full well that that gives Ahern a problem. For instance, the Tribunal are now free to say "In your Dail statement of (insert date), Mr Ahern, you stated that you had never done xxxxx. However, the following piece of evidence (whatever that might be) suggests that you did xxxxx. Do you do xxxxx, Mr Ahern?

Thus he could well be left with the option of showing the public that he lied in the Dail, or that he's now lying to the Mahon tribunal. And the Tribunal won't have asked him a single question about the veracity of his Dail statements. And Ahern's legal team don't get the protracted legal battle (which, coincidentally, would slow down the Tribunal even further) that they were hoping for.

Spot on. They haven't conceded any right to question Bertie on contradictory statements/answers but they've avoided having to fight to the Supreme Court on the issue of Dail privilege. A very clever move.

[corkman2007]

It's a storm in a teacup, a side issue.

The fundamental issue is his tax status. His lodgement of money on account in anticipation of a settlement with the Revenue speaks volumes about his belief about the outcome of the Revenue investigation.

Interesting point - still don't believe that you would be so dismissive if the court case today was reversed but whatever.

If (and I immediately concede it's a big if) it comes down to the tax issue only then what do we have :

1) a gift from outside the state - not taxable
2) loans from inside the state - not taxable
3) political donations lodged to personal accounts - not taxable

The risk (to BA) is that the loans may be deemed gifts and tax may be deemed payable. If that happens the 70k lodged with Revenue will be used to defray this.

The TCC application will still stand on the basis that when signed he believed himself tax compliant - even though Revenue subsequently determine otherwise. The TCC cert will only fall if it is proven that he knew he was not tax compliant when he signed it. No sign of that so far.

So IF that big if came true then I'm not sure that BA would be in big trouble at all

3) political donations lodged to personal accounts - not taxable

Wrong. Donations lodged to personal accounts and used for personal expenses will be considered gifts by the Revenue. To date, the Revenue has also treated undocumented 'loans' (without documented loan agreements, without repayment schedules, interest rates etc.) as gifts rather than as 'debts of honour'/'loans' as Bertie insists on calling them. Unless the Revenue radically alter their treatment of these payments, or unless Bertie provides documentary evidence that these payments were loans, then they'll be treated as gifts.

Your confidence that Bertie won't be held liable for Gift Tax is obviously stronger than his, otherwise he wouldn't have lodged money on account with the Revenue. If he's proven to have been non-compliant as a taxpayer at any point, his own words will be used against him:

'It would actually give me the greatest of pleasure watching non-compliant taxpayers going to jail. That's the kind of person I am.'