‘You will be hearing more about that' – Croke Park moves to address Revenue risk
The Mayo county board meeting in Westport attracted headlines for a variety of reasons, chiefly abusive emails sent to county board officers and a denial of any financial mismanagement. During the course of that meeting, association director general Tom Ryan made a presentation on the loan agreement taken on by Croke Park in 2015. Before he left the stage, he sought to address one other serious matter.
'I just thought while I have the opportunity here, I might chat to you briefly about ongoing engagement with the Revenue Commissioners,' he told the room of delegates.
'We have been working with the Revenue Commissioners over the last six months, maybe a little bit longer. We have undertaken what we call a self-review framework with four pilot counties over five or six specific areas that we just need to be able to reassure ourselves, reassure Revenue and examine how they are transacted from a revenue and taxation point of view.
'That process is just about reaching a conclusion, it is done in the last week or two. We will be presenting the findings of that to the Revenue Commissioners if it hasn't happened already.
'Armed with the learnings from that, both for ourselves and for Revenue, we will try to roll out that process over the course of the remainder of the year to all the other counties within the 26.'
Last December, the GAA called an urgent meeting of all county chairpersons, secretaries and treasurers to discuss the Revenue's risk reviews of counties. Two counties, Mayo and Galway, did not sign off on their 2024 accounts due to outstanding engagements with Revenue.
They, along with Wexford, are concerned with a risk review of 2018 and 2019. The concerns covered a variety of financial matters, including tax liabilities related to Cúl Camp programmes, payments to players and management, nutritional allowances, referee expenses, and team holidays.
Ryan went on to stress this was a separate issue.
'Apart from that, there are long-standing reviews that were paused for Covid-reasons into 2018 and 2019 revenue matters in a small number of counties. One of them is Mayo. But that is outside the scope of these self-reviews.
'We are embarking on it in the same spirit (with) Revenue Commissioners. We are trying to be positive. We are trying to make sure we are on a regime that is practical and workable from the point of view of all counties concerned but that also takes cognisant of some of the challenges and some of the legal aspects that apply to operating what is essentially a voluntary-led not-for-profit organisation.
'You will be hearing more about that. Purely and simply, the reason I don't have facts to lay before you this evening is it's not concluded, we are mid-stream. I think it is going ok but it is not purely within our control.'
Wexford, Galway and Mayo have made voluntary disclosures to Revenue. Others are preparing to adopt the new pilot scheme. This week Offaly GAA treasurer Frank Fitzpatrick told a county board meeting that he met with Croke Park recently to commence this process. They do expect to face a tax liability.
'They look to be placing most of their concentration on payments to management teams,' he is quoted as saying in the Offaly Express. 'Referees was highlighted before as being an issue but that whole thrust has calmed down very considerably. It is mainly management teams they are looking at.'
It comes amidst a period of heightened scrutiny and internal reform. On Tuesday, the GAA released an extensive survey as part of a widespread review of its amateur status. President Jarlath Burns already established the Amateur Status Review Committee (ASRC) in March 2024 under the chair of former Derry player Professor David Hassan.
Burns previously floated the possibility of contracts for inter-county managers, something that the association has acknowledged as an option over the past decade.
The public were asked to make recommendations on how the amateur status can be protected and whether they support the introduction of an agreed allowance for senior inter-county managers.
After a consultation process, the ASRC will report to Árd Chomhairle in early Autumn to seek approval for recommendations, which may come before Special Congress later this year.
They were also asked: 'Do you think the creation of a governance and oversight unit to enforce the amateur status rule, monitor its enforcement, and impose sanctions where the rule is broken would be a positive thing for the GAA?'
Other areas of interest are reducing the number of hours asked of inter-county players per week, the length of the off-season and foreign-based training camps.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
14 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Taxi firm loses €112,509 Vat battle with Revenue at Tax Appeals Commission
A transport firm that owns a 100-strong fleet of taxis has lost a €112,509 Vat battle with the Revenue Commissioners. This follows the Tax Appeals Commission upholding a combined €112,509 Vat assessment issued to the firm by the Revenue Commissioners for the years 2018 and 2019. Revenue issued the assessment in December 2022 after concluding the company was not, as it maintained, providing services constituting the provision of passenger transport, which is exempt from the charging of Vat. The firm appealed the assessment in January 2023 and in its ruling at the end of a 42-page report, TAC commissioner Conor O'Higgins found the company was in fact providing a taxi rental service to drivers in order to carry out their activity and this was not exempt from Vat. Over the 2018/19 period, the company did not charge Vat in respect of its supplies and the persons to whom the appellant provided its taxis were self-employed. A director of the company, who was a taxi-driver for 20 years, described himself as an expert in the taxi industry, and gave evidence at the hearing on behalf of the firm, which was set up in 2016. At the hearing, counsel for Revenue put it to the witness that the purpose of the business of the taxi firm was the leasing or renting out of taxis, and the witness did not agree. He said the taxi firm was involved in "cosying", and asked what he meant by that, he replied: 'Cosying is a joint venture between me and the driver. I supply the vehicle, I supply the meter, I supply the printer, I supply work, I supply everything.' Asked if he had any written evidence he had entered into a joint venture with taxi drivers, the director said: 'Yes. The evidence is of a successful business. I have 100 taxis on the road, where I started out with two. So obviously the joint venture is working out quite well.' He said the cosy agreement was 'a gentleman's agreement'. Counsel for the Revenue showed to the hearing an advert for the firm, which described the business as a 'rental company. Our aim is to provide our drivers with quality rental vehicles and a professional, no-hassle service.' In his findings, Mr O'Higgins noted there was little evidence on which to conclude the appellant was sharing in the income earned by the drivers of its vehicles. He said the passengers transported in the appellant's taxis would be issued a receipt by the person to whom the appellant had provided its tax and the receipt did not bear the appellant's name. On the issue of cosying, Mr O'Higgins found the appellant was doing was supplying a taxi rental service to drivers who could not, or would struggle to, afford to purchase their own taxi.
Irish Times
14 minutes ago
- Irish Times
Transport firm loses VAT battle with Revenue
A transport firm that owns a 100-strong fleet of taxis has lost a €112,509 VAT battle with the Revenue Commissioners. The Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) has upheld a combined €112,509 VAT assessment issued to the firm by the Revenue Commissioners for the years 2018 and 2019. Revenue issued the assessment in December 2022 after concluding that the company was not, as it had maintained, providing services constituting the provision of passenger transport which is exempt from the charging of VAT. TAC commissioner, Conor O'Higgins, found that the company was in fact providing a taxi rental service to drivers and this was not exempt from VAT. READ MORE Over the 2018/19 period, the company did not charge VAT in respect of its supplies and the persons to whom the appellant provided its taxis were self-employed. A director of the company who was a taxi driver for 20 years described himself as an expert in the taxi industry and gave evidence at the hearing on behalf of the firm which was set up in 2016. Why is Ireland not considered a truly rich country? Listen | 39:28 At the hearing, counsel for Revenue put it to the witness that the purpose of the business of the taxi firm was the leasing or renting out of taxis and the witness did not agree. He said that the taxi firm was involved in 'cosying' and asked what he meant by that, he replied 'cosying is a joint venture between me and the driver. I supply the vehicle, I supply the meter, I supply the printer, I supply work, I supply everything.' Asked if he had any written evidence that he had entered into a joint venture with taxi drivers, the director stated: 'Yes. The evidence is of a successful business. I have 100 taxis on the road, where I started out with two. So obviously the joint venture is working out quite well.' He said that the cosy agreement was 'a gentleman's agreement'. Counsel for the Revenue showed to the hearing an advert for the firm which described the business as a 'rental company. Our aim is to provide our drivers with quality rental vehicles and a professional, no-hassle service'. A second witness for the tax company stated that the company was the owner of the largest single fleet of Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (WAV) taxis in the country. In his findings, Mr O'Higgins noted that there was little evidence on which to conclude that the appellant was sharing in the income earned by the drivers of its vehicles. On the issue of cosying, Mr O'Higgins found that what the appellant was doing was supplying a taxi rental service to drivers who could not, or would struggle to, afford to purchase their own taxi.
RTÉ News
43 minutes ago
- RTÉ News
Taxi firm loses €112,509 VAT battle with Revenue at Tax Appeals Commission
A transport firm that owns a 100 strong fleet of taxis has lost a €112,509 VAT battle with the Revenue Commissioners. This follows the Tax Appeals Commission (TAC) upholding a combined €112,509 VAT assessment issued to the firm by the Revenue Commissioners for the years 2018 and 2019. Revenue issued the assessment in December 2022 after concluding that the company was not, as it maintained, providing services constituting the provision of passenger transport which is exempt from the charging of VAT. The firm appealed the assessment in January 2023 and in its ruling at the end of a 42 page report, TAC Commissioner, Conor O'Higgins found that the company was in fact providing a taxi rental service to drivers in order to carry out their activity and this was not exempt from VAT. Over the 2018/19 period, the company did not charge VAT in respect of its supplies and the persons to whom the appellant provided its taxis were self-employed. A director of the company who was a taxi-driver for 20 years described himself as an expert in the taxi industry and gave evidence at the hearing on behalf of the firm which was set up in 2016. At the hearing, counsel for Revenue put it to the witness that the purpose of the business of the taxi firm was the leasing or renting out of taxis and the witness did not agree. He said that the taxi firm was involved in 'cosying' and asked what he meant by that, he replied "cosying is a joint venture between me and the driver. I supply the vehicle, I supply the meter, I supply the printer, I supply work, I supply everything." Asked if he had any written evidence that he had entered into a joint venture with taxi drivers, the director stated: "Yes. The evidence is of a successful business. I have 100 taxis on the road, where I started out with two. So obviously the joint venture is working out quite well." He said that the cosy agreement was "a gentleman's agreement". Counsel for the Revenue, showed to the hearing an advert for the firm which described the business as a "rental company. Our aim is to provide our drivers with quality rental vehicles and a professional, no-hassle service". A second witness for the tax company stated that the company was the owner of the largest single fleet of Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (WAV) taxis in the country. In his findings, Mr O'Higgins noted that there is little evidence on which to conclude that the appellant was sharing in the income earned by the drivers of its vehicles. He said that the passengers transported in the Appellant's taxis would be issued a receipt by the person to whom the appellant had provided its tax and the receipt did not bear the Appellant's name On the issue of cosying, Mr O'Higgins found that what the Appellant was doing was supplying a taxi rental service to drivers who could not, or would struggle to, afford to purchase their own taxi.
