Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
HAVE YOU EVER considered joining an army, but find the Defence Forces just a little bit too mainstream?
Have you grown so tired with things in Ireland that you see no future in the ballot box?
Are you really bored and fancy a bit of a run around?
Then this could be the Gumtree ad for you.
In the ad, posted in the jobs section of the site but which has since been taken down, the poster seeks to recruit ‘revolutionaries’ in order to form an army.
The poster aims to “overthrow the Government and take control of the country for the people of Ireland”, adding that the current government are “inept and incompetent at what they were mandated to do”.
Overthrowing a government can be hard work, especially if you can’t get the numbers. Luckily this ad is looking for a fighting force of between 400 and 500. Or about 15 per cent of the Irish who fought in 1916. And that went well.
As for what would happen after the violent overthrow of our democratically elected parliament, details are kept scarce, save for the internment of any banking executive or politician deemed to have played a part in “the destruction of the Irish economy and sovereignty”.
Don’t think this sounds like a military junta or anything, because a fair trial is promised. At ‘a later date’.
And don’t think just anyone is being sought by our wannabe Shay Guevara, because the ad specifically calls for members of An Garda Síochána and the Defence Forces to sign up.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Inheritance tax is the real scandal. Why should a person be taxed for dying.
@Rob Coins: What’s inherently unfair about it is that these two blokes can marry on a whim to avoid paying it but the children of the deceased have to pay. Before the recession hit the threshold was about 500k so many avoided it, but from about 2010 onwards it was slashed to about 250k and is now about 300k. That means many people inheriting a modest 3 bed would be hit with a substantial tax bill.
@Rob Coins: the real scandal of it all is that money left in a will, is money that has already been taxed, assuming the person that died was above board. Some joke!
@Rob Coins:
What Edmund Burke said about the Penal Laws can also be applied to inheritance tax.
“A machine of wise and elaborate contrivance, as well fitted for the oppression, impoverishment and degradation of a people, and the debasement in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the perverted ingenuity of man”
@Rob Coins: inheritance tax is about preventing some families collecting everything over generations and protecting democracy. A society would become a neo feudal one quickly otherwise. We are far along that path as it is.
@Rob Coins: The person is not being taxed for dying their children are being taxed. The only child is being taxed more because there is a limit per person and not per total.
Massive estates in Britain and Ireland had to be broken up or sold to pay for the taxes.
Inheritance Tax is only one of the few taxes that is NOT in favour of the rich. Now, the media are looking to change this. The British reduced their inheritance tax to favour the rich. Now, we’re looking to do this while our children are sleeping on the streets and our hospitals are in disarray!!!
Feminists be up in arms cos chaps thought of this first!
From a legal standpoint are these lads not admitting to a sham marriage before it even happens? Similar to foreign nationals doing so for citizenship?
@Len Brennan: yep, basically
@Len Brennan: You think revenue will turn up and object on the day or raid the ‘wedding’? Doubt it very much.
@Niall Sullivan: likely not,
But births, deaths and marriages may have some issues, ultimately they have to issue the marriage cert for it to be a legal marriage
@Len Brennan: It’s very hard to prove. A marriage is classified as sham if the couple don’t know each other, don’t live together, don’t share income, don’t speak a common language at least one is a foreign national. Mixed sex couples have been getting married for financial reasons for centuries and our tax code actively encourages it
@Anne Marie Devlin: perhaps, but the people will still claim love etc.
These guys went on Liveline saying it was about avoiding tax.
@Anne Marie Devlin: is not that hard to prove, they’ve been all over the national news telling everyone it’s a sham. Best of luck to them getting away with it but it’s foolish being so blatant about it
@Niall Sullivan: Event may not turn up on the day of the marriage but they may disallow the inheritance being received tax free, if and when it happens.
@Barry Somers: I get your point, but from a legal perspective, i don’t think love is an issue.
@Len Brennan: not according to the contributors on Claire Byrne
@Len Brennan: The younger guy could decide to bring in another partner. then it’s the divorce courts or an annulment.
If there is loop holes to avoid a massive tax bill, you would want to be mad not to avail of it. Best of luck to them.
@Jamie Jj Tobin: To be honest I’ll be stunned if Revenue aloe the asset to pass from one to the other tax free.
They have no power to “disallow” any marriage but they can refuse to apply a tax relief if they feel it is being misused.
Section 811 is a very general anti avoidance provision which disallows transactions or arrangements which are undertaken purely for tax avoidance purposes.
It’s a nice story but may not get a fairytale ending….
@Brinster:
Nail on the head.
There have rumours of similar happening in farming circles since the referendum but by advertising it theses people have forced the Revenue’s hand.
@P.J. Nolan:
15 minutes of fame could prove expensive.
@Brinster: It depends, there are equal protection considerations as well. Could the Revenue prove that they are also applying this legislation to couples of the opposite sex marrying for tax reasons? Do they have specific guidelines and procedures in place for this that deal with same-sex/opposite-sex in a fair and equal way?
Can they justify the risk associated with the cost of fighting this all the way to the ECHR? Have they formally estimated how much additional revenue this could gather for the state, to justify this risk? It’s not just about enforcement, you also have to be able to show that said enforcement is in no way arbitrary or relating to gender. It’s very tricky to do that and my suspicion is that it’s not the kind of thing career civil servants are going to stick their neck out on.
Specifically, will a junior civil servant stick his/her neck out and try and enforce the law as it stands without cover from above? Will a senior civil servant issue a policy directive to their juniors to cover them and assume the risk themselves? My experience with these guys is that they are extremely risk averse and I don’t consider it likely. Time will tell, it’s a very interesting case.
@Brinster:
FG don’t do fairytale endings.
The Party that don’t give a sh### so long as their vulture funds are alright.
Ironically A marriage of friendship is probably the best marriage of all !
So now folks on these forums are supporting tax avoidance. Interesting u-turn.
@MK76: well they are hardly Apple now are they?
@Colin Morris: Same premise Colin, so why should one be okay and the other not?
@MK76: because one is a multi-million global empire that looking after its profits to enrich the already rich. The other is 2 elderly gentlemen trying to keep the roof over their head and having to move at an advanced age which is made more difficult due to hoarding problems.
@Carina Clarke: BS Carina. Tax avoidance is tax avoidance.
And under your populist view of the world, where do you draw the line? Are you okay with very wealthy individuals paying no tax on millions of inherited wealth?
@Carina Clarke:
So what’s the cut off Carina?
At what point are you allowed to evade tax?
If the house is worth less than €400,000?
If you’re over the age of 80?
@Brinster: Is it tax evasion though?
@Dave Murray: Tax evasion is illegal. Getting married and tax avoidance is not.
@MK76: “Tax evasion is illegal. Getting married and tax avoidance is not.”
Firstly, an arrangement which is done purely for the avoidance of tax is disallowed, per Section 811. They even use the term “tax avoidance transaction” – not tax evasion transaction.
Here’s the link – http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/39/section/811/enacted/en/html
So in this case the avoidance (not evasion) is disallowed.
Secondly, regardless of the above, I agree with Dave Murray – this is evasion, not avoidance.
@Brinster: If it were evasion, they would be breaking the law. The got married today so obviously the law has not been broken or the civil ceremony would not go ahead. These two men have nothing but respect and love for each other. Good luck to them.
Fair dues to them..rich ppl have the luxury of luxemburg/liechenstein etc to avoid tax..the money these 2 men ade hoping to avoid paying is only a drop in the ocean compared to the bigger players
Would it be better if marriage was essentially ignored by institutions such as banks and government, and instead there was just legal recognition of a couple raising children? With accompanying special financial status?
Marriage honestly seems like a sham and maybe it should be devalued legally as well in order to reflect that.
@Georgio Zizek: But then why should those raising children only get different tax arrangements?
Marriages come with social, legal and tax implications.
It isn’t all about money, its about so much more especially when it comes to having a say in difficult health situations. Without marriage a partner can have no say
@Georgio Zizek: what about married people that don’t have children?
@Georgio Zizek: Yeah in Canada you have common-law status where 2 people in a relationship and living together for over a year (or 3 in some provinces) can apply for it. So couples in marriage-like relationships have much of the same rights as married couples under federal law. Common-law partners may be eligible for various federal government spousal benefits, such as combined tax returns.
We should look into it here…
@Georgio Zizek: there’s the small matter of the constitution…
@Aidan Mitchell: we already have, check qualified cohabitants.
Apple can get away with how many billion…just saying
I’m getting married next Tuesday to Conor McGregor.I love him as he’s the most gentle person in de world!
You’re all welcome to the bash,eh I mean party.
The question for me is why did they broadcast this? To what end. Did they need to be sure everyone knew they weren’t gay. Was is thought up as a way do devaluate SSM and at the same time gain by
it? If one was going to engage in tax avoidance, would not keeping schtumm be the motto?
Sorry lads a marriage isn’t real until it’s consummated
@Stevie Doran: didn’t know that was part of getting married or indeed having a life partner. Sounds like canon law. Who’s to say that it wasn’t consummated anyway. The surviving partner.
If a man gets up every morning of his working life and say he puts in 40 yrs and he pays his tax and he pays his Vhi and pays his vat on everything he buys and he educates his children and they become good citizens and they do the same ,what is fair about taxing him on his death
I fail to see why this is a big deal.
I’d like to see the Irish courts cast judgement on whether or not they love each other. Now THAT would be interesting.
@Danny Rafferty:
The test isn’t whether they love each other.
It’s whether they entered into an arrangement purely for tax avoidance purposes.
Which they are admitting is their intention…..
@Brinster: based on the interview I saw, one of the men is physically feeble, 85 years of age, unable to look after himself and is incapable of independent living. He would need to enter a nursing home for care otherwise. he is unable to afford to pay for a career. His physical condition is likely to become Moore frail.
The younger man is willing to look after him, around the clock if necessary, without payments and in recompense for this he will get a capital settlement of the family home.
It might be possible to get a capital valuation of the unpaid care commitment and use that to offset the capital value of the property on death but that would not address an early death situation which is a possibility even on the actuarial index of an 85 year old male.
My impression is that the relationship and care arrangement is genuine and the men appear to gave a real affection, a platonic warmth towards, each other.
It so happpens that a civil marriage (query a formalised civil partnership?) is tax effective but it seems that they predominant motive is care and mutual affection based on what the men say.
@Fiona deFreyne:
Fiona that’s all well and good, and laudable etc, but let’s for one minute imagine that these two both recently inherited €1 million.
If so, would you be happy for them to continue with the arrangement tax free?
If not, why not?
Shouldn’t laws be applied equally.
BTW Revenue specificaly disallow transactions where –
“the Revenue Commissioners form the opinion that—
(i) the transaction gives rise to, or but for this section would give rise to, a tax advantage, and
(ii) the transaction was not undertaken or arranged primarily for purposes other than to give rise to a tax advantage,”
which this was (or will be).
Nothing you’ve said comes close to refuting that.
The only test to be satisfied is Revenue’s opinion…..after that it’s the courts.
Best of luck to them
Anti avoidance legislation might kick in. Then the very good idea might unravel.
Why not just get apply for the dwelling house exemption if he is already living with him?
The fact that they came out saying this may make it difficult when the tax man comes a knocking. Legally do they have a leg to stand on? Can Revenue challenge it?
Revenue won’t get trip to tipp
Its always sunny :) ha
@stephen mc galey: Im suprised that the goverment dont want them to produce a baby to prove their union is real .
have your say