Latest news with #BrianLenihan
Irish Times
2 days ago
- Business
- Irish Times
Crash, part two: austerity bites and Cowen's Morning Ireland humiliation
In part two of a three-part series on Brian Cowen's ill-fated 2008-2011 government, Pat Leahy and Hugh Linehan continue the story. After the fateful 2008 decision to bail out Ireland's banks, Cowen and his Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan spent the next year struggling to shore up Ireland's worsening finances. Throughout 2009 and 2010 the mood in the country darkened as recession bit. Spending cuts and tax rises were introduced in a series of hair-shirt budgets. As a result, confidence in the government was already on the floor when Cowen made an infamous appearance on Morning Ireland in September 2009. But what did Cowen actually say in the interview, and what impact did it have?
Irish Times
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Is it time to acknowledge the legislative achievements of Charles Haughey?
Approaching the centenary of his birth in September, and 60 years after the passing of the Succession Act in 1965, is it time to give greater credit to the legislative record of Charles Haughey ? As minister for justice from 1961-1964, Haughey, still in his 30s, introduced ground-breaking legislation that would change lives. It included the Criminal Justice Act, 1964, which abolished the death penalty with exceptions retained for killing gardaí, prison officers and diplomats. These exceptions were removed in 1990 when Haughey was taoiseach. He also introduced the Adoption Act, 1964, which built on the 1952 Adoption Act and emphasised the rights of the child and the birth mother. And it was Haughey who introduced the Succession Bill in 1964 before becoming minister for agriculture later that year. His successor as minister for justice, Brian Lenihan snr, saw the Bill through the Oireachtas in 1965. READ MORE The resulting Succession Act entitles a surviving spouse to a portion of the estate of the deceased spouse, whether or not a will exists. If there is no will, the surviving spouse is entitled to the whole estate if there are no children or two-thirds of the estate if there are children while the children receive one-third. Even if there is a will, the surviving spouse is entitled to half the estate if there are no children and one-third if there are children. The Act marked a giant leap forward in family life and law. Before the Succession Act, it was possible for one spouse to exclude the other from benefiting from his estate. For example, a man could leave his farm to a male relative without making any provision for his widow. The old days of cutting the wife off without a shilling or threatening that if she remarried she would have to give up her life tenancy ... that kind of thing is all gone — Pat Lindsay, former TD in his book Memories In seeking a solution to this problem, Haughey was assisted by outstanding civil servants including Roger Hayes and Paddy Terry. They provided invaluable help, which he acknowledged. Another factor that prompted Haughey to introduce the Succession Bill was the large amount of money, sometimes even a farm, being left to the church while widows were neglected. Patrick Hillery, later president of Ireland, had encountered this phenomenon in the course of his medical practice in Co Clare. Pat Lindsay, a lawyer and a Fine Gael Dáil deputy at the time the Act was passed, observed in his book Memories how since the passing of the Act 'the old days of cutting the wife off without a shilling or threatening that if she remarried she would have to give up her life tenancy ... that kind of thing is all gone'. But opposition came from Fine Gael in the Dáil and the Seanad and in its document The Just Society, published in the same year as the Succession Act was passed. In that document, a section dealing with a proposed law reform programme stated that 'such follies as Fianna Fáil's Succession Bill will find no place in such a programme', although it did say that the rights of widows and dependent children would be protected. In Dáil debates, former taoiseach John A Costello , father of Declan Costello, originator of The Just Society document, praised many aspects of the Bill. He pointed to situations where, under prevailing conditions, wives were 'badly treated'. However, future taoiseach Garret FitzGerald opposed the Bill in the Seanad. Haughey had personal insight into the possible plight of widows. He was 22 in 1947 when his father died, aged 49, leaving a widow and seven children. Haughey's sister, Ethna, recalled how Cathal, as he was known in the family, phoned their mother regularly when she returned from early-morning Mass. The Succession Act came late for many, not only widows. In 1936, Osmond Esmonde contested his father's will in which his father, Thomas, had left his entire estate to his second wife. Following a lengthy court hearing, the court opted in favour of Osmond's stepmother. Not a shilling for the only surviving son. In 2023, the Law Reform Commission published a review of the Succession Act. A number of changes had taken place since 1965, including the Status of Children Act, 1987, which abolished the concept of illegitimacy. This was of major importance. But the Succession Act, 1965, remains Haughey's legislative innovation. Dr Finola Kennedy was lecturer in economics at UCD when appointed to the Second Commission on the Status of Women set up by Charles Haughey
Irish Times
12-06-2025
- Business
- Irish Times
Nama chief makes good on Lenihan order not to ‘mess it up'
The late minister for finance Brian Lenihan, who set up the National Asset Management Agency (Nama) in 2009, left five words ringing in the ears of agency chief executive Brendan McDonagh shortly before he passed away 14 years ago this week. 'Brendan, don't mess this up,' Lenihan told McDonagh in their last meeting before he died, the Nama chief recalled to reporters on Wednesday. When Nama took over €72 billion of mainly toxic commercial property loans from five banks for a discounted price of €32 billion, the fear was that it would lose billions. Even when Ireland was at the end of an international bailout programme in 2013, members of the rescue team told Department of Finance officials that Nama would likely end up with a €10 billion shortfall. READ MORE It wasn't helped by Nama overpaying to the tune of €5.4 billion for the loans in the first place – adhering to a long-term economic value method forced upon it by legislation to lessen the holes that Nama transfers would trigger in the domestic banks' balance sheets. Many objectives have been projected on to Nama over the years, such as fixing the housing crisis , by virtue of the swathes of land it controlled; contributing more to the common good; and providing more homes for social housing, even though local authorities ended up accepting only about 2,400 of the almost 7,000 units offered over the years. Nama's remit widened about 13 years ago to deliver thousands of homes and develop land in the Dublin docklands . But Nama's core objective, enshrined in the very Act that set it up, was to obtain the best achievable financial return for the State. It made enemies along the way. Try finding a developer that has much good to say about dealing with Nama officials over the years – even ones that it agreed to work with, while enforcing against others. It's not difficult to find critics, too, in the halls of Leinster House. But it is now on track to deliver a lifetime surplus of €5.05 billion – having upgraded its forecast on Wednesday by €250 million – by the time it is wound down at the end of this year. Adding the €5.4 billion it first needed to recoup to break even on the original overpayment actually brings the total financial gains for the State to more than €11 billion. Lenihan would surely have approved of that outcome.
Irish Independent
17-05-2025
- Business
- Irish Independent
Revealed: Only 15 ‘super-rich' tax exiles paying domicile levy
The levy was introduced after the financial crash, as a way of ensuring that wealthy individuals whose permanent home is in Ireland but who live overseas for tax reasons make some contribution to the Exchequer. A flat charge of €200,000 a year, it applies to those whose worldwide income exceeds €1m, whose assets in Ireland are valued at more than €5m, and who paid less than €200,000 in income tax. However the numbers paying the levy have been dwindling, and it raised less than €2.5m in 2023. In reply to a Dail question, the finance minister Paschal Donohoe said the total raised from the levy since 2019 was just €11.5m. At the time the levy was introduced by the late Brian Lenihan as finance minister, about 5,000 Irish people were declaring themselves non-resident for tax purposes each year. In 2009 the chairwoman of the Revenue Commissioners, Josephine Feehily, said 440 of these were 'very wealthy'. If all of these paid the levy, it was noted, this would raise €88m. Tax 'exiles' are allowed to spend 183 days a year in the State, or 280 days over two years. Some political parties had suggested that instead of introducing a domicile levy, it would make more sense to reduce that number of days instead. In his response, Mr Donohoe said that based on data available from the income tax returns for 2022 for self-employed people, 27,500 reported that they were non-resident. One of the few people known to have paid the levy is the horse-racing tycoon JP McManus, who did so in 2012. The fact that he was tax resident outside the State emerged in court papers in America, after he attempted to recover about $5m in tax that was with-held after he won a backgammon game. A letter from Revenue to the American authorities in 2015 said that Mr McManus had not been registered for income tax in Ireland since 1995, but confirmed that he paid the €200,000 domicile levy in 2012. Four years ago an unnamed Irish businessman failed in a legal challenge against the validity of the levy. The Tax Appeals Commission ruled that it is not a 'tax', and that it does not interfere with the free movement of capital.
