Comments on: The John O’Donoghue files (Part 5 – Hat at Ascot)

By: fareler

fareler — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 12:21:09 +0000

I couldn't understand this. How come?

By: OrrjdlkLauren

OrrjdlkLauren — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 12:39:28 +0000

Woow This is best blog i have read on the tpoic

regards
gibs
______________________________________________
Aion Powerleveling | Aion Powerleveling

By: mcollins

mcollins — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:58:45 +0000

The Revenue Commissioners say that benefit-in-kind tax could apply to flight costs etc of the accompanying spouse of a business person under some circumstances. It apparently depends on whether the spouse was taking part in business activities — such as attending a conference.

So where does this leave John O’Donoghue, whose wife seems to have been paid for (by you and me) to accompany him on most of his overseas junkets, even though he had his personal assistant along as well? I have no doubt the Revenue Commissioners are onto this already….. (not)

http://puckstownlane.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/m...

By: wdf

wdf — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:34:03 +0000

Why did she need 3 hats? And again, and this applies to Johnny, the Missus and O'Connor – they all get “subs” for travelling, but also get everything re-imbursed. Its a tax evasion scam. If a company gave employees their legitimate expenses and then a dollop of money on top, it would be taxed. And if it wasnt returned on a tax form it is a criminal offence.

But not for Johnny, the Missus and O'Connor.

But then they have a crowd of gobshites like us to cough up

By: Aislinn O'Connor

Aislinn O'Connor — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:11:51 +0000

You mean, after all that money he didn't even get to KEEP the hat??

Seems like a perfect metaphor for the whole sorry mess… plenty of expense, and not a worthwhile thing to show for it.