He may also incur the wrath of revenue, if he was withdrawing company funds on a company credit card then he has a tax liability on it, would be funny to see him/the FAI get a full audit from revenue.
Printable View
He may also incur the wrath of revenue, if he was withdrawing company funds on a company credit card then he has a tax liability on it, would be funny to see him/the FAI get a full audit from revenue.
Now your talking. Those funds taken out don't qualify as expenses. Therefore it's treated income which has a tax rate of circa 50% not to mention interest and penalties that have to be applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by centre mid
he's no idiot and will have it all boxed off in some way. he may say the cash was FAI petty cash and have some way of backing that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
i don't think any of the recent revelations will be enough for him to resign fully. he needs a push (a very big one at that!).
Neither are the Rev they won't buy any of this ( it's wheather they act or not)Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
There's a limit to what revenue will allow you claim as a legitimate expense. You can't put in a receipt for every meal you've ever had. At some point it's just taking money out of the FAI which would be classed as earnings and be liable for income tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by jbyrne
I don't think there's a defined limit as such. If he was legitimately in meetings with people, he's allowed to claim expenses. He'd have to have details of who he met and why of course.
The petrol receipts are also potentially dodgy. You can't claim petrol as an expense unless you have a company car. Otherwise, you claim mileage. But certainly what was revealed implied small amounts of petrol, which means no car, which means not allowable
A limit as in before they will look into it, afaik its pretty much self assessment unless you start taking the mick, although I could be thinking of the self-employed.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
If there was no limit. People expense everything and pay no taxesQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Revenue don't get details of expenses though. So they'd have no way of knowing if he's claiming a lot or very little.
Fully agree though that they should be interested in this. They could easily write to the FAI asking for copies of all expenses claims for the past three years for example
No - there's no limit on legitimate expenses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diggs246
Whether these were all legitimate is a separate matter
They'd be in the audited accounts, they can ask for further details. The FAI have to keep receipts.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Well yes, I know that.
But they don't get reported to Revenue like your pay does - so they've no way of knowing if you're taking the mick. Unless something like this blows up of course
Interesting what Deloitte have done over the last couple of days, given what they said 7th of June 2018.
Would the personal expenses of Delaney on FAI business not be covered by the fixed per dium standard rates, whatever the revenue standards are set on?
And if Delaney spends on behalf of the FAI, then that's a FAI expense, even if it's a lavish 4 course meal for 6 homeless footballers.
Correct. Receipts need to be kept for up to 7 years for all audited and non-audited accounts. In some cases like TV and stuff like that Suits and clothes are expenseable for example. But the cash withdrawals are more difficult to prove if he didn't receipt everything up to the amount withdrawn from the ATM.Quote:
Originally Posted by centre mid
Well they do. Unless you're taking the **** for years. They have loads of factors and measures. For example a standard contractor or consultant would have a limited set of expenseable items and on average wouldn't be more than a few thousand a year. They'd be recognised as such, based on income and revenue. If someone is expensing way more one year from the next, alarm bells will ring in revenue or if for example expected expenses total for a given type of organisation. This is exactly why they also carry out random audits, where this is happening and they feel the investigation cost meets the return.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
If Deloitte were doing their job properly they would have taken copies of the credit card statements and queried those transactions. Most smaller companies will write BIK on those that are personal expenditure and then make them pay tax on it. Problem with the likes of Deloitte and the larger firms is theyll bill you on first day and walk out if the required information isnt there. Still getting their money so they dont care.
So the Revenue amounts are generally allowances.
For mileage - yes, he's covered by that (unless he has a company car). So he can't claim petrol as well.
On lunch - not so straightforward. If you're off-site, you can claim whatever it is - about thirteen quid I think - for lunch without a receipt. It's enough to be able to show you were off-site that day.
But that doesn't stop you from charging a more expensive lunch meeting as expenses. You can't claim the allowance and give a receipt of course. But it's accepted that business meetings do often have to keep up appearances. So he could easily claim E200 for lunch if meeting, say, the head of UEFA in a top restaurant to discuss the Euro 2020 finals.
Similar story with hotels - there's an overnight allowance, but you can exceed it if you have a receipt. So again, Revenue won't have a problem with the Ritz. (On the flip side, I've heard of people away on work for a week claiming overnight allowance but being put up by a friend - means free money)
The big things at the moment are the cash withdrawals (sprays harder to vouch), the petrol, and the treatment of goods rent BIK (it appears no employer's PRSI has been paid)
Expenses could well be an issue too, but it would need an audit to ascertain what's legit and what (if anything) isn't
No, they don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
An employee's expenses are not returned or declared to Revenue.
Revenue right now have no idea what expenses he has claimed.
The auditors should probably have reviewed them briefly in their audit though.
Ya i didnt say individual employees do, thats not my point. Expected expenses for a given organisation/contractor/ltd company whatever.
Shane Ross has told the committee that the entire board are to step down.
Lunch is only covered if you are x number of miles and/or 10 hours away from your office/home. And its capped, as is dinner. However organisations usually have caps themselves below the threshold. But client entertainment is also limited per year but not per event/meal.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
How would FIFA see this? It sounds like government interference.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Client entertainment is not limited per yearQuote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Yes sorry youre right I was thinking about the limit on staff entertainment like christmas party or that is limited per employee to £150.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
I think he's just passing information on, I don't think he (as an agent of the government) has told them to step down. The board has decided themselves to step down after the agm.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Ya i read the article afterwards, the post was a bit misleading.
google is great, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
I survived long without it. YOu and your ilk, such as delorean and most on here, thrive on it.
So, most people on an internet forum (including me) use Google. I'm trying hard to get offended but it's entirely accurate I'm afraid.
I don't believe the Government have the authority to force out Delaney and/or the board.What they do have is the right to withhold public money and I can only presume that would be the leverage the Government would use to 'encourage' change.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
I use search engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Possible ODCE investigation: https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019...-fai-accounts/
we'll get another ludicrous tribunal out of this at this rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
And the new FAI board will be elected as per the FAI constitution, not appointed by the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
edit: this reply was made free from search engine interference.
FAI auditors also formally notifying the Companies Office that proper books of account aren't being kept. This may be as simple as them covering their arses about not being told of the 100k
ya i mentioned it earlier theres two images going around, might as well search engine them and put them up on here.
ITs total ass covering by D & T. Because last year they signed off on the accounts after conducting the audit.
This is my concern, vote for the same at the next AGM. Provincial heads get elected to board, board decides on CEO. Whats to say these are any more capable. I think running of the game leave to the board, a bit like central council in the GAA. Set up a new entity for the administration and day to day running of the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
That might be your's and others' concern but it won't be FIFA's.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
#altavista4lyfQuote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
DuckDuckGo FTW