martinmcmahon.bsky.social
@martinmcmahon.bsky.social
1476. Free Sarah McInerney!
The Echo Chamber from Tortoise Shack · Episode
open.spotify.com
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
These RTE appeals to the High Court are 'Vexatious' appeals. RTE is not denying that it hid bogus self employment behind corporate structures, the Scope Section has ruled that RTE did.
RTE is simply looking for a loophole to continue evading tax and PRSI.
RTE is simply looking for a loophole to continue evading tax and PRSI.
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
These RTE appeals to the High Court are 'Vexatious' appeals. RTE is not denying that it hid bogus self employment behind corporate structures, the Scope Section has ruled that RTE did.
RTE is simply looking for a loophole to continue evading tax and PRSI.
RTE is simply looking for a loophole to continue evading tax and PRSI.
Sarah McInerney is one of thousands of workers in hundreds of industries misclassified as self employed in the same kind of corporate structure. This is a 'Gatekeeper Case', it will decide if Revenue remains the gatekeeper on deciding employment status illegally.
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
Sarah McInerney is one of thousands of workers in hundreds of industries misclassified as self employed in the same kind of corporate structure. This is a 'Gatekeeper Case', it will decide if Revenue remains the gatekeeper on deciding employment status illegally.
RTE's Financial Director told the media committee that this is being done by agreement with the Dept SW. It's hard to believe that the Scope Section, the only credible part of the quasi judicial system, is in agreement that it's decisions could be wrong, total nonsense tbh.
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
RTE's Financial Director told the media committee that this is being done by agreement with the Dept SW. It's hard to believe that the Scope Section, the only credible part of the quasi judicial system, is in agreement that it's decisions could be wrong, total nonsense tbh.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Revenue must ask the question:
“Does the contract involve the exchange of wage or other remuneration for work?”
The Supreme Court does not exempt corporate structures. Revenue does.
Revenue is breaking the law and has done for decades
“Does the contract involve the exchange of wage or other remuneration for work?”
The Supreme Court does not exempt corporate structures. Revenue does.
Revenue is breaking the law and has done for decades
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
The Supreme Court has ruled that Revenue must ask the question:
“Does the contract involve the exchange of wage or other remuneration for work?”
The Supreme Court does not exempt corporate structures. Revenue does.
Revenue is breaking the law and has done for decades
“Does the contract involve the exchange of wage or other remuneration for work?”
The Supreme Court does not exempt corporate structures. Revenue does.
Revenue is breaking the law and has done for decades
The Scope Section of the Department of Social Protection does believe it can look through a corporate structure and indeed, the Supreme Court decision in Karshan confirms, that 'lack of look-through' powers is not an issue.
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
The Scope Section of the Department of Social Protection does believe it can look through a corporate structure and indeed, the Supreme Court decision in Karshan confirms, that 'lack of look-through' powers is not an issue.
The Des Cahill/Sarah McInerney cases are not 'Pathfinder' cases nor 'Test Cases' as has been stated in media, it's RTE and Revenue looking for a loophole to rationalize 40+ years of illegal state aid to RTE via an employer's PRSI and Tax exemption.
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
The Des Cahill/Sarah McInerney cases are not 'Pathfinder' cases nor 'Test Cases' as has been stated in media, it's RTE and Revenue looking for a loophole to rationalize 40+ years of illegal state aid to RTE via an employer's PRSI and Tax exemption.
Arthur Cox is now fighting this Revenue position in the High Court on RTE's payroll and is also applying it to both the WRC and the Department of Social Protection.
RTE is acting as a proxy for Revenue in the High Court against its own legal advice from Eversheds Sutherland.
RTE is acting as a proxy for Revenue in the High Court against its own legal advice from Eversheds Sutherland.
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
Arthur Cox is now fighting this Revenue position in the High Court on RTE's payroll and is also applying it to both the WRC and the Department of Social Protection.
RTE is acting as a proxy for Revenue in the High Court against its own legal advice from Eversheds Sutherland.
RTE is acting as a proxy for Revenue in the High Court against its own legal advice from Eversheds Sutherland.
From 1.27 the Revenue Chair contradicts the finding of the Eversheds Summary in stating that Revenue doesn't have look-through powers and ergo bogus self employment hidden behind a corporate structure is beyond the remit of Revenue and everybody else -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSaB...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSaB...
Bogus Self Employment Paul Murphy
YouTube video by Echo Chamber Podcast
www.youtube.com
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
From 1.27 the Revenue Chair contradicts the finding of the Eversheds Summary in stating that Revenue doesn't have look-through powers and ergo bogus self employment hidden behind a corporate structure is beyond the remit of Revenue and everybody else -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSaB...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSaB...
The only official statement on 'Look-Through Powers' was dragged out of the Revenue Chairperson Niall Cody by Paul Murphy in 2019.
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
The only official statement on 'Look-Through Powers' was dragged out of the Revenue Chairperson Niall Cody by Paul Murphy in 2019.
This July 2018 Eversheds' legal advice is that, according to case law, 29 on-air 'talent' are definitely misclassified as self-employed and a further 22 are likely misclassified as self employed.
There is no 'lack of look-through powers' for Eversheds Sutherland.
There is no 'lack of look-through powers' for Eversheds Sutherland.
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
This July 2018 Eversheds' legal advice is that, according to case law, 29 on-air 'talent' are definitely misclassified as self-employed and a further 22 are likely misclassified as self employed.
There is no 'lack of look-through powers' for Eversheds Sutherland.
There is no 'lack of look-through powers' for Eversheds Sutherland.
However, RTE's current legal position contradicts the legal position of Eversheds Sutherland in the Summary of the Eversheds Report given to the PAC in July 2018. Eversheds Sutherland did not cite a lack of look-through powers to examine corporate structures for BSE.
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
However, RTE's current legal position contradicts the legal position of Eversheds Sutherland in the Summary of the Eversheds Report given to the PAC in July 2018. Eversheds Sutherland did not cite a lack of look-through powers to examine corporate structures for BSE.
This was communicated to the Oireachtas Media Committee before the General Election (attached) in 2024.
June 23, 2025 at 12:31 PM
This was communicated to the Oireachtas Media Committee before the General Election (attached) in 2024.
This was an unlawful decision by the Revenue Commissioners in 1997 to make a group/class decision on the employment status of all delivery drivers, unlawful then, and clearly still unlawful now considering the Karshan Supreme Court findings.
October 31, 2023 at 9:12 PM
This was an unlawful decision by the Revenue Commissioners in 1997 to make a group/class decision on the employment status of all delivery drivers, unlawful then, and clearly still unlawful now considering the Karshan Supreme Court findings.
This was an unlawful decision by the Revenue Commissioners in 1997 to make a group/class decision on the employment status of all delivery drivers, unlawful then, and clearly still unlawful now considering the Karshan Supreme Court findings.
October 31, 2023 at 9:12 PM
This was an unlawful decision by the Revenue Commissioners in 1997 to make a group/class decision on the employment status of all delivery drivers, unlawful then, and clearly still unlawful now considering the Karshan Supreme Court findings.
by a Social Welfare Appeals Officer in the Social Welfare Appeals Office (1995). This letter was sent by the Revenue Chairman to the PAC on the 29th of May 2018 and has been confirmed in writing to the PAC several times since.
October 31, 2023 at 9:11 PM
by a Social Welfare Appeals Officer in the Social Welfare Appeals Office (1995). This letter was sent by the Revenue Chairman to the PAC on the 29th of May 2018 and has been confirmed in writing to the PAC several times since.
Minister for Social Welfare in 1998.
In the highlighted line, the Revenue Commissioners state that the Revenue Commissioners accept that all couriers (delivery drivers, van, motorcycle & bicycle) are self-employed by group/class based on a single decision
In the highlighted line, the Revenue Commissioners state that the Revenue Commissioners accept that all couriers (delivery drivers, van, motorcycle & bicycle) are self-employed by group/class based on a single decision
October 31, 2023 at 9:10 PM
Minister for Social Welfare in 1998.
In the highlighted line, the Revenue Commissioners state that the Revenue Commissioners accept that all couriers (delivery drivers, van, motorcycle & bicycle) are self-employed by group/class based on a single decision
In the highlighted line, the Revenue Commissioners state that the Revenue Commissioners accept that all couriers (delivery drivers, van, motorcycle & bicycle) are self-employed by group/class based on a single decision
“Every case depends on the particular facts” is the most important, unshakable, unbreakable, command of employment legislation.
As the SC in Karshan finds, this is not a revelation, this has always been the case. It was the case in the findings of the Supreme Court in In Henry Denny & Sons v
As the SC in Karshan finds, this is not a revelation, this has always been the case. It was the case in the findings of the Supreme Court in In Henry Denny & Sons v
October 31, 2023 at 9:09 PM
“Every case depends on the particular facts” is the most important, unshakable, unbreakable, command of employment legislation.
As the SC in Karshan finds, this is not a revelation, this has always been the case. It was the case in the findings of the Supreme Court in In Henry Denny & Sons v
As the SC in Karshan finds, this is not a revelation, this has always been the case. It was the case in the findings of the Supreme Court in In Henry Denny & Sons v
It is necessary to assess all relevant features of a relationship, identifying those that are, and those that are not, consistent with an employment contract and to determine on the basis of the sum of those parts the correct characterisation.
October 31, 2023 at 9:08 PM
It is necessary to assess all relevant features of a relationship, identifying those that are, and those that are not, consistent with an employment contract and to determine on the basis of the sum of those parts the correct characterisation.
The Supreme Court Decision in the Karshan case, following an extensive review of the various and varied tests which have been formulated around the elements of an employment relationship, found that they all lead to two closely related conclusions:
Every case depends on the particular facts; and
Every case depends on the particular facts; and
October 31, 2023 at 9:06 PM
The Supreme Court Decision in the Karshan case, following an extensive review of the various and varied tests which have been formulated around the elements of an employment relationship, found that they all lead to two closely related conclusions:
Every case depends on the particular facts; and
Every case depends on the particular facts; and