Ryanair tax scam exposed.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Hangar 69
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a BRK pilot based in Ireland.I pay my taxes with a firm that is not Mcnamara.I don't want to join Mcnamara!!!
Do you guys think they will force all brookfield european pilots join this Mcnamara thing?
I am ready to buy a famous newspaper page and say the whole story with all the names.
Which news paper would do the job in UK? and in Ireland?
Thanks
Do you guys think they will force all brookfield european pilots join this Mcnamara thing?
I am ready to buy a famous newspaper page and say the whole story with all the names.
Which news paper would do the job in UK? and in Ireland?
Thanks
MOL won't care, the IR won't care, BRK won't care, the flying public won't care and neither will your fellow colleagues...
Perhaps MOL's alter ego, Leo Hairy Camel, will come to your rescue and post some more union bashing videos?
Speaking of the devil, where is she anyways...?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: China
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roumour has it that Rayanair cut BRK's commission last year. In an attempt to recover the lost revenue they have hatched this little scam, trying to hide behind revenue and make all of the pilots use one tax agent who would pay BRK hamsomely for the pleasure of all those extra cleints.
A taxpayer is entitled to walk in to his tax office pull his tax return out of his arse, dust off the non applicabe sh#te and file it. It is then the decsion of the Inpspector of taxes to decide if they want to audit that tax return or not. The taxpayer is not obliged to use an accountant or tax advisor to prepare his taxes. Dispite what BRK and McNamara say this remains case with Revenue and the pilots. The Irish tax office and the UK tax office don't particularly care what sort of arrnagement you have with an accountant so long as you are declaring and filing your tax return.
By denying the pilot his rights the relationship between the pilot and BRK becomes a lot closer and therefore the pilot becomes even more of an employee and less of a self employed tax payer.
Having said that the obligation to use Mcnamara is a condition of the contract and like every other conditon of a contract if you are not happy with it, you either change it, romove it or walk away form the contract.
A taxpayer is entitled to walk in to his tax office pull his tax return out of his arse, dust off the non applicabe sh#te and file it. It is then the decsion of the Inpspector of taxes to decide if they want to audit that tax return or not. The taxpayer is not obliged to use an accountant or tax advisor to prepare his taxes. Dispite what BRK and McNamara say this remains case with Revenue and the pilots. The Irish tax office and the UK tax office don't particularly care what sort of arrnagement you have with an accountant so long as you are declaring and filing your tax return.
By denying the pilot his rights the relationship between the pilot and BRK becomes a lot closer and therefore the pilot becomes even more of an employee and less of a self employed tax payer.
Having said that the obligation to use Mcnamara is a condition of the contract and like every other conditon of a contract if you are not happy with it, you either change it, romove it or walk away form the contract.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: varies..a lot
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Problem is........to be truly self employed you MUST be able to prove that you invoice MORE THAN 1 CLIENT! the fact that as a BRK contractor you can ONLY invoice BRK/FR....means you do not have self employed status! I would imagine that this is ONE of the reasons why this company scheme is being forced upon the pilots, or else BRK pilots need to be able to fly elsewhere, teach groundschool or work in some other capacity for OTHER clients.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: On the Camel's back
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McNamara has made a fine career thus far screwing up the finances of Aer Lingus pilots. You should talk to your mates in AL, they have plenty of dastardly tales of ruined pensions, failed investments and bogus bill demands. Brookies should try a little solidarity or else they may well find themselves adding to the repository of mcnamara sob stories.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What nobody seems to have noticed here is that under European Competition Law it is in fact illegal for Brookfield to insist on using named financial advisors / accountants. It is illegal to restrict choice in an open market which is what they are trying to do.
Now I wonder what the competition authority will have to say about that?
Now I wonder what the competition authority will have to say about that?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought the point made by Powdermonkey is the most relevant one. If you have only 1 client, and they restrict how & when you work, then you can not be self employed. That is quite simple and I would have expected it to be the noose around the neck of this whole scam. I'm told there is no 'directorship' connection between RYR & BRK. That can be easily checked at Company's House. I'm curious why BRK, as a UK company, is forcing pilots, based in UK, to use Irish accountants for this construction. This makes it very smelly from the outset.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: China
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The argument could be made that it is not BRK/Ryanair who place the restrictions in terms of amount of hours you can work on the pilot but it is a regulation imposed on them. The terms of the contract are not restricting you to only one contract but that you agree to supply up to your maximum allowed hours to them.
This is why the whole thing is so slimey. If the tax office move on them they will try to put up a fight which will cost the taxpayer money.
By having one employer in the UK, Ryaniar can send the Irish tax office there. Likewise if the Uk tax office prove that BRK is the employer, BRK will argue that Ryaniar is in fact the employer. There is no point in the UK tax office wasting money on a case that will only raise money for the Irish tax office.
The two tax offices have effectively been nutralised. Unless they come together in a joint effort on this then there is wiggle room for BRK/FR.
The competition authority would have to be interested given that not only are the pilots restrcited form using the adviser of their choice the 4 approved firms are all charging the exact same fee.
I reckon you could pick up the yellow pages and call a hundred accountants in it and if you found one that charged fees based on your income you would be doing well. It is one hell of a coincidence that BRK managed to find 4 and that all 4 charge exactly the same amount.
Stinks like a fishmonger's wife's four day old knickers
This is why the whole thing is so slimey. If the tax office move on them they will try to put up a fight which will cost the taxpayer money.
By having one employer in the UK, Ryaniar can send the Irish tax office there. Likewise if the Uk tax office prove that BRK is the employer, BRK will argue that Ryaniar is in fact the employer. There is no point in the UK tax office wasting money on a case that will only raise money for the Irish tax office.
The two tax offices have effectively been nutralised. Unless they come together in a joint effort on this then there is wiggle room for BRK/FR.
The competition authority would have to be interested given that not only are the pilots restrcited form using the adviser of their choice the 4 approved firms are all charging the exact same fee.
I reckon you could pick up the yellow pages and call a hundred accountants in it and if you found one that charged fees based on your income you would be doing well. It is one hell of a coincidence that BRK managed to find 4 and that all 4 charge exactly the same amount.
Stinks like a fishmonger's wife's four day old knickers
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heres the lowdown guys.
There is no exclusive agreement between the Large Cases Division of the Irish Revenue/BRK and an accountancy firm concerning an exclusive solution to tax compliance and the contractual status of pilots. As said here before, the Revenue would never enter such a relationship or make such a statement. They may have agreed it to be acceptable, however they have also suggested that other methods are acceptable. BRK prefer to ignore the later and stick to the 'exclusivity' tactic. Why? Self explanitory, isn't it? Plus, because they can.
If the Revenue had their way, pilots would be employed by either Ryanair or BRK, but that's expensive (employers national insurance costs for one) and it also identifies that a contractual relationship exists between the employee/employer. Not great when you want to hand out leave willy-nilly, move people from base to base, remove people from roster patterns and if it all goes a bit wrong, get rid of them completely.
And people harp on about competition law, about making a stand, about empowering a union. In an ideal world these are ideal solutions. However you try mobilising a 1000 odd 'contract workers' accross 30+ bases on varied rostered patterns (5/4,5/5,5/3) from a variety of nationalities and cultural backgrounds. For the moment, this is a localized problem (Ireland) however similar issues exist, even within the Irish bases. 'Divide and Conquer' - Ryanair/BRK/whoever have been at it for years.
And the crux of the story - don't comply and you're out on your arse. Why? 'No longer subject to requirements - capactiy cuts at bases, bla bla, etc etc.'
True enough, and why it does we all know. You just try and get the powers that be to admit to it. Those that want to fight may find themselves up
sh1t creek without a paddle on this one!
There is no exclusive agreement between the Large Cases Division of the Irish Revenue/BRK and an accountancy firm concerning an exclusive solution to tax compliance and the contractual status of pilots. As said here before, the Revenue would never enter such a relationship or make such a statement. They may have agreed it to be acceptable, however they have also suggested that other methods are acceptable. BRK prefer to ignore the later and stick to the 'exclusivity' tactic. Why? Self explanitory, isn't it? Plus, because they can.
If the Revenue had their way, pilots would be employed by either Ryanair or BRK, but that's expensive (employers national insurance costs for one) and it also identifies that a contractual relationship exists between the employee/employer. Not great when you want to hand out leave willy-nilly, move people from base to base, remove people from roster patterns and if it all goes a bit wrong, get rid of them completely.
And people harp on about competition law, about making a stand, about empowering a union. In an ideal world these are ideal solutions. However you try mobilising a 1000 odd 'contract workers' accross 30+ bases on varied rostered patterns (5/4,5/5,5/3) from a variety of nationalities and cultural backgrounds. For the moment, this is a localized problem (Ireland) however similar issues exist, even within the Irish bases. 'Divide and Conquer' - Ryanair/BRK/whoever have been at it for years.
And the crux of the story - don't comply and you're out on your arse. Why? 'No longer subject to requirements - capactiy cuts at bases, bla bla, etc etc.'
Stinks like a fishmonger's wife's four day old knickers
sh1t creek without a paddle on this one!
