Union Sold Out for Tax Ease

Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union

Caswell Franklyn, Head of Unity Workers Union

A court in Germany has sentenced Uli Hoeness, president of European football champions Bayern Munich, to three and a half years in jail for tax evasion. Hoeness turned himself in, hoping to get away from a prison term, when he got a tip off that he was under investigation by the German tax authorities for tax evasion. However, that ploy did not work because prosecutors argued that investigators were already pursuing his case and he was not therefore liable to benefit from turning himself in. It is interesting to note that he received the tip off, on the phone, when he was having lunch with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and that friendship was not sufficient to deter the public servants from doing their jobs.

I am not particularly concerned about who cheated the German taxman: I highlighted that case to contrast the difference Germany and Barbados if a big-up in this country was known to be cheating on his taxes.

I have it on good authority that the Inland Revenue Department is fully aware that the General Secretary of NUPW, Dennis Clarke has not paid the tax amounting to $24,000 per annum for the last four years, which is the tax payable on the value of the vehicle that he drives as part of his remuneration package.

Who can fault public workers if they feel that Clarke is not adequately representing them against the Government because he fears that the authorities would go after him for the $96,000 +interest and penalties that he owes?


97 thoughts on “Union Sold Out for Tax Ease

  1. Caswell, a good piece of whistle-blowing here!
    These bloody tax-dodgers need to be exposed.
    He is probably on those that Sir Frank Alleyne wanted to “out”.

    We wonder when Leroy Greenverbs will come under the radar.
    Those payments channeled through the D T Associates laundry were also intended to avoid the same net as Clarkie’s.

    • Here is what a serious Barbados government needs to do starting with Courts Barbados who owes VAT 25 million.


      Issued by Mattison Public Relations on behalf of Syscap

      HMRC ramps up use of powers to seize-and-sell business assets during recession to pay VAT bills

      • 14-fold increase in numbers of businesses targeted
      • Tough approach runs counter to “Time to Pay” scheme

      The number of businesses who have had assets seized and sold by HMRC to pay overdue VAT bills has soared during the recession as the taxman has ramped up its use of such powers, says Syscap, the leading independent finance provider.

      According to figures obtained by Syscap, 14 times more businesses were targeted last year than five years ago. 3,657 businesses had assets seized by HMRC last year* using its powers of ‘distraint’, compared to just 263 in 2008/9.

      Distraint means that the Revenue can remove goods or assets such as vehicles, machinery or IT equipment from business premises to sell off at public auction in order to settle unpaid tax bills. HMRC guidance states that it will start the process “as soon as possible” once it has written to companies concerned.

      HMRC raised £95.2 million from distraint for VAT last year. However Syscap says that the actual value of the assets sold is likely to dwarf this, because valuable assets such as stock or equipment are often sold at knock-down prices to achieve a quick sale.

      Comments Syscap Chief Executive Philip White, “The fact that there has been such a significant increase in the use of HMRC’s powers to seize-and-sell assets to recover VAT during the recession will be a huge concern to SMEs who have been struggling to cope during the downturn.”

      “When assets are seized and sold at firesale prices, the actual cost to the business far outstrips the original VAT bill. HMRC is only concerned with recovering the tax it is owed, not achieving the best price.”

      Syscap adds that if the sale does not raise enough to cover the tax bill, HMRC will take the business to court to recoup the rest.

      “This could be a real body-blow to SMEs but what’s even worse is that if business-critical assets are targeted, such as vital machinery or IT equipment, businesses may not be able to keep going at all,” says Philip White.

      Tough approach runs counter to “Time to Pay” scheme

      Syscap points out that the dramatic rise in the number of businesses targeted under HMRC’s distraint powers runs counter to the ethos of the “Time to Pay” scheme under which businesses can be granted an extension of their payment deadlines.

      Philip White says, “Businesses whose cashflow has been stuttering throughout the last five years of economic turmoil are finding that, as their financial struggles have increased, HMRC has become less and less lenient over late VAT payments.”

      “HMRC has adopted a far harder-line approach under increasing pressure from the Treasury to ensure it takes as much tax as it can to help fill in the hole in the public finances.”

      He adds, “SMEs have been finding it much harder during the downturn to cover the costs of paying VAT since the bank loans and overdraft facilities which were so readily available before the financial crisis have for many disappeared overnight.”

      “We are seeing more and more businesses looking for alternative ways to bridge critical funding gaps before they appear. They know when the deadlines are and they want to plan for them, they just need the right funding solution in place to smooth out the peaks and troughs in cashflow.”

      Syscap has seen a significant uptake of its Short Term Business Loans product since it was launched in [date]. This gives firms the facility for a flexible repayment plan to enable them to invest in critical projects or provide adequate finance to cover business costs such as tax bills over a 3-12 month repayment period.

      About Syscap Ltd

      Syscap is a provider of smart, cost effective finance and funding solutions. The company partners with many of the UK’s brightest and most ambitious organisations in the commercial, professional services and public sectors.

      Syscap’s specialist range of funding products and sector expertise underpin the company’s ability to meet the finance needs of its customers. Syscap removes the burden and complexity of securing finance and uses its expert knowledge to get the best terms for its customers, giving them the financial freedom to focus on their core activities and the profitable development of their organisations.

  2. Caswell -Yuh Lie ! Oh my golliwog, this story cant be true,

    Barbados cannot have declined to such a situation where Mr.Clarke could have avoided taxes in this manner.

    A lawsuit against Caswell Franklyn is therefore in order.

    I expect to see Clarke going to Court soon and not as a criminal so Caswell watch out my dear man, Clarke is out to get you.. In the fin


    DR. THE HONOURABLE | March 14, 2014 at 6:52 PM | @
    We see you have Jokes, and that is all that they are , Caswell Franklyn has more Honor than those who put that title before their Names.

    Audit Must Be Done, and all this from the top down PM AG, DPP, COP, Sirs, Lawyers,COW and Company and then You will see why we are so slow in Taxes,
    Beatrice Henry name was remove from the tax rolls after living and doing in Business in Barbados as far back as 1926, Violet Beckles Names was also Removed from the tax roll and remove from Land tax in order to defraud Her of Proof of ownership.
    Making money for the top crook pockets at Land Tax Mr . Ford and Inland rev.
    So now Crook ass Forde and Sir Forde can take PLANTATION DEEDS TO COURT also , We be Very proud to stand next to Caswell in a WAR of Truth against these Bitches, We also be nice If Sir Ham take there case in the High Court where Sir Ham is to be renting or leasing the High Court land to the Court ,Where the hell he get Deeds to say his has Power to do such , When Violet Beckles did not give or was part of Any agreement ,
    These crooks tell Big Black and White Business how to avoid the taxes , By telling them to close down the business and reopen under a different name , and lie and said it failed,

  4. Caswell I tune in today in time to hear your comments about civil servants signing agreements with Government that always seem to work to their detriment. Please advise as to your assessment of the quality of Dennis Johnson responses to you … Some gentleman called in afterwards and said that he enjoys taking instructions from both you and Johnson … I think maybe callers recognize the importance of buttering up moderators in this age of such complete deception

  5. Dr. The Honourable

    Which part of the post you suspect is not accurate? I relied on the BBC for the information about Uli Hoeness. LOL! The other part, I can assure you that truth is an absolute defence to a lawsuit for defamation, so I am not worried.

  6. @ DR. THE HONOURABLE | March 14, 2014 at 6:52 PM

    Doesn’t the Inland Revenue Department encourage honest citizens to report those who are suspected of tax evasion?

    Even the new BRA promises to come down hard on tax cheats.
    Caswell has his facts to prove the man to be a tax dodger unless a cheque for the full amount of tax arrears, interest and penalties from either Clarke or the Union is sent to the IRD before 31 March 2014.
    We are sure the amount outstanding could have kept on 4 or 5 low-paid workers from the Drainage Unit.

    BTW, Sir Frank has a long list of Clarkies. But he is a coward, unlike Caswell.

    • Who is paying Denis Depeiza’a jaunt down to Brazil?

      On Friday, 14 March 2014, Barbados Underground wrote:


    • A snippet from Flying Fish & Cou Cou.


      They want to know . . .

      ​PATRONS OF A certain bar are still talking about the conversation they claim took place between two politicos.

      From what Cou Cou was told, the two individuals from the same party seemingly met by chance at the place some weeks ago. One was in their constituency having a quick drink and trying to catch up with some of the happenings in the particular district from their selected people, while the other apparently just popped in.

      After greeting each other they went to a table by themselves and began talking over a drink. The topic those who eavesdropped claim they heard was how the Government managed to outmanoeuvre the trade unions.

      From what we were told, the two politicos were wondering aloud how the unions could wait for a list of those to be retrenched when the timetable for the cuts was such that Government had to move with urgency.

      Apparently, the politicos were both amazed, but at the same time gloating that they managed to get over that hurdle with only a whimper from the unions, some chatter from the Opposition and little to nothing from the media.

      Cou Cou wants those two politicos to know that the people who overheard their conversation are ashamed of what they said, and a couple have vowed to deal with them the only way they can whenever the time comes.


    I can assure you that truth is an absolute defence to a lawsuit for defamation, so I am not worried.@
    Most crooks and friends dont want truth , They want long and longer talk till they are dead, Truth is a cure for Crooks, Liars and Scumbags ,

  8. A certain future coalitional regime of Barbados and of which the PDC will be part SHALL ABOLISH TAXATION in this country and replace it with the right strategies and approaches for the government coming by far, far more of its own revenues than now and for its being able to far, far fairer access than now of the money of the people of Barbados for its own greater uses.


    In Barbados, TAXATION is the willful and dishonest expropriation by the government of Barbados of countless portions of the remuneration properties of the relevant individuals, businesses and other entities in this country, (and) with the intention of the said government of Barbados of permanently depriving the owners of those portions of their own remuneration properties.

    Given this absolute lawlessness by the government, all right thinking rational persons must either on their own or in concert with others continue to or begin to use ALL rational means at their disposal to STOP the government from STEALING and ROBBING them of their own remuneration properties.

    In the case of these persons having their own businesses and other entities, they must either on their own or in concert with other persons continue to or begin to use ALL rational means at their disposal to STOP the government from STEALING and ROBBING their own businesses and other entities of their own remuneration properties.



  9. Inadvertence

    In the first paragraph, fifth line, one word is missing from that line. The word is “have”. Therefore, the line should have been written partly as…..and for its being able to HAVE far, far fairer access than now…..

    Our sincerest apologies.


  10. It stands to reason that Caswell would not have written this piece unless he knew where he stood in terms of legal footing. This is what is wrong with Barbados and we all know this. The connected few are permitted to stifle the many at the bottom. Here comes the BLP talking about taking to the streets as if they intend to make a real difference. Here is a challenge to any sitting member of the BLP. Use the upcoming debate on the estimates to name and shame the selected few with scofflaw status who for so long have flown beneath the radar of publicity. You have used parliamentary privilege as protection against everything else so why not now? Show us all that the government in waiting is a serious one. Show us that someone is finally ready to amalgamate the two very clear and distinct sections of Barbados.

  11. ….so wait…!!!
    Wunna feel that um is a coincidence that Bushie hand picked Caswell for the post of chairman of the National Supervisory Committee?
    Wunna feel that Caswell easy nuh…?
    Boss…even some of wunna who talking will find wunna selves under scrutiny if and when we get BUP off and running….

    Bushie mekking sure all he eyes dotted and he tees crossed and he whacker fully gassed ….before Caswell warm up bozie…..

    …but as man Caswell
    You gotta know the particular civil servant who has failed to pursue this specific matter against Clarkie…. LOL …and maybe even why…! 🙂

  12. @Caswell why did you choose a low income person to accuse?

    How about the those in the Million dollar bracket?

    You are the leader of a Union and you attack a leader of another Union.

    Bushie you sure you picked the right person for the post of chairman of the National Supervisory Committee?

    • @Hants

      Your last comment is obviously meant to be provocative and a good batsman should shoulder arms.

  13. Hants | March 15, 2014 at 8:40 AM |
    You are the leader of a Union and you attack a leader of another Union

    There is ample reason for that Caswell is a serial failed leader of unions. He envies the successful union leaders. Not only that his trade unions attract no membership. Who wants to associate with a bad minded grinch like Casweel. Why doesn’t he attack the minority business elite who raise the sand price by 85% to kill poor black house builders. Caswell never denigrates Jada Paul Lewis, Cow, Bizzy and that ilk who have a vice grip on the economy. He goes after low hanging fruit.

    • Caswell knows this already of course but to those who may want to debate the legal strength of Caswell’s position, In Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd the House of Lords ruled that there exists qualified privilege for the publication of defamatory statements in the public interest. This is a defence where it can be established that the journalist/publication had a duty to publish an allegation even if it turns out to be wrong. Subsequently the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europeconfirmed this.

      There is a wide range of defences that may be pleaded in defamation worldwide, or almost worldwide, but the one that is most associated with the public interest is “qualified privilege”. The requirement of this defence is that the person making a statement had a duty to do so and that the person who hears, or reads, the statement had an interest in doing so and it is not limited to media. In Reynolds, the former Prime Minister of Ireland brought a defamation action in respect of his conduct in office. The defendant argued that the story should automatically attract privilege and the claimant be required to demonstrate malice. The House of Lords ruled that allowing this defence would “swing the pendulum too far away from the protection of reputation”, and set out instead 10 non-exhaustive guidelines for the public interest defence.

      1. The seriousness of the allegation, i.e. if the allegation is not true what will be the level of misinformation to the public and what will be the corresponding harm to the individual.
      2. The nature of the information and the extent to which the subject-matter is a matter of public concern.
      3. The source of the information and whether it is reliable or motivated by malice and/or avarice
      4. Whether suitable steps have been taken to verify the information
      5. Whether the allegation in a story has already been the subject of an investigation which commands respect
      6. Whether it is important that the story be published quickly
      7. Whether comment was sought from the claimant, or whether that was not necessary in the context of the story
      8. If the article includes the gist of the claimant’s version of events
      9. Whether the article is written in such a way as to amount to statements of fact, or whether it raises questions and is suggestive of the need for further investigation
      10. The timing of the publication

      In Galloway v Telegraph Group Ltd ([2006] EWCA Civ 17), the Court of Appeal of England and Wales ruled that the newspaper had not held to the guidelines and instead published “embellished” reports about links to Saddam Hussein.

    • David

      Thanks for the defence. However, I can assure you that I have done a lot of reading on the subject for my own protection, as far as I am aware, I have written the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

      I felt it necessary to publish this information at this time because I felt that it was vital that public workers, who are being adversely affected by the formation of the revenue authority, should have all the facts. Also, that they would be able to draw their own conclusions as to why the NUPW was not vigorously putting their case.


    • @Caswell

      Give us a timeline if you can starting when you made the revelation on the call-in that a list was being prepared to send home 10 thousand public workers, we had vigorous denial rebuttal by Dennis Clarke and the MoF, then there was a statement by Clarke that the NUPW was instrumental in saving several jobs forcing the number down from 6 thousand to 3 thousand.

    • David

      In May last year, I received information about a meeting where they were planning to send home a number of workers, the number, 6,000, was inadvertently revealed by the Minister of Finance when he went on radio to deny what I was saying. I had received very credible information from that source who was reliable in the past and I had no reason to doubt the person but I verified the information with one other person who was in attendance.

      I called Brasstacks and revealed what I had learnt. Immediately, I was pounced upon by no lesser persons than Clarke, Maloney and Sinckler who denied all. The Minister, as is his character, was even abusive.

      After my revelations, a smaller group reconvened and decided that in light of the denial by the Minister they had to take a different approach. As a result, they started terminating small groups of workers monthly which did not generate a lot of publicity. When they got to the Post Office, the workers went to the press and they got their jobs back far a while.

      They used the alternate process to send home over 2,000 persons which when added to the current 3,000 plus would have brought the number up to the 6,000. The numbers are being reduced by 6,000 only that the first group are not being considered as lay-offs.

      To make a long story short: Clarke was just lying plain and simple. No jobs were saved by any union.


  14. Anyway given the apparent state of the Barbados economy this is nothing compared to the loss in revenue from construction workers now being laid off.

    • @Fan aka waiting

      You are another JA. Wasn’t Caswell the first to put in the public domain that Courts has been let off the hook for 20+ million in VAT owed? Why does your government not aggressively collect or move in on tax defaulter who can pay? We will not put on the table tat CEO of Courts is the wife of Patrick Tannis. You yardfowl you.

  15. @ The Fan | March 15, 2014 at 9:08 AM
    ‘Caswell never denigrates Jada Paul Lewis, Cow, Bizzy and that ilk who have a vice grip on the economy. He goes after low hanging fruit.”

    You and the other apologists for Clarke with your personal anti Caswell vendetta are missing the kernel of the thread.
    It is alleged Mr. Clarke is in breach of the law i.e. the Income Tax Act.
    Are you suggesting blatant law breakers should go free in your country which claims to be governed by the rule of law and which recently celebrated 375 years of Parliament the highest court of the land?

    What do you mean by “low hanging fruit”? Is Leroy Greenverbs a low hanging fruitcake or is he ‘highly’ hung and protected by the DLP top brass monkey machinery living in a banana republic?

    If the people you referred to as ‘high-hanging fruit’ are in breach of the law why not “out” them as Caswell has done to his cheating opposite number in the Union movement?

    Here is what your leader promised the electorate of Barbados in February 2013, if returned to power:

    “Why Good governance? Good Governance is characterized by the principles of participation, consensus, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, equity and inclusion, and the rule of law.
    It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making and the allocation of resources.”

    Certainly blatant refusal to pay your fair share of taxes towards the pool of resources for efficient allocation can’t be considered a ‘plank’ of good governance especially when aided and abetted by the man sworn to uphold the rule of law!

  16. To Dr Clyde Mascoll

    In your column piece in the Daily Nation newspaper of Thursday, March 13, 2013, it was reported in that said piece the following: “Since 2011, the Barbados economy has not grown or contracted; it has remained about the same. However, the VAT is a transactional tax and it is obvious that stagnant economic activity will affect the collection of revenue from this source. The notion that VAT should be abandoned and replaced by a sales tax demonstrates a comprehensive level of ignorance”.

    Dr Mascoll, from that statement attributed to your mind, it is becoming more and more absolutely clear why the so-called economics profession – here and elsewhere – and of which you are a part of – shall becoming more and more discredited and disrespected by so many other people in Barbados and elsewhere.

    It is incredible that – out of the whole content of your last column – you only managed to set up one very small but very flawed irrational premiss ( that VAT is a transactional tax) and to set up another very large and twisted premiss (that there is stagnant (??) economic activity in Barbados), still you did not manage to even explain how you came to the very grossly false conclusion that you did come to (that such will (adversely) affect the collection of revenue).

    Anyhow while we will not be getting involved in this inevitable intellectual tussle between you and the Governor of the Central Bank, Dr Worrell, and Senator Marshall, over what is a criminal illegal anti-productive anti-people subsystem of the wider criminal illegal anti-productive anti-people TAXATION system in Barbados, we will just simply state for the benefit of the understanding of many people who come to this BU and who read our many posts, that it is absolutely wrong and erroneous for you to impute that it is the lower levels of political economy and services industry activities that are causing lower VAT THEFT proceeds for the government, when you must know that, in any given year in Barbados, TAXATION, including higher levels of it, and TAXATION, inclusive of VAT and higher levels of it, will bring about – relative to TAXATION and VAT – lower levels of remunerations for the relevant persons, businesses and other entities at the national level – which will bring about lower levels of TAXATION and VAT THEFT proceeds later on.

    And this is fundamentally so, irrespective of what ever amounts of commercial transactions there would be in the country at any specified time, and given that there is, at any given time in Barbados, a relatively fixed amount of money circulating in this country.

    And we are dealing here with just money, and not any false fictitious numbers falsely figuring for remunerations in this political economy eand services industry sectors of Barbados.

    Finally given that money is the best measure of remunerations and TAXATION, and that there is NO relationship between those variables and material production and distribution services in the commercial sectors of Barbados, it must mean it is a combination of the relevant human beings and their services, commercial resources, machines, and other things that determine the levels of real business commercial activities in this country.

    As a Doctorate, too, you must know have reached a level of knowledge that speaks to the reality that, whereas the TAXATION system in Barbados can (and with human beings being virtually the only entities making up this TAXATION system and behaving among themselves in such specific ways as to define TAXATION itself) – in this sense only – help to prevent hinder discontinue greater levels of business activity, it cannot help to initiate continue increase whatever any particular levels of business activity in Barbados.

    So even though you are correct that focus must be put by many people, businesses and others on growing the commercial material and services sectors, you reasonably cannot dismiss the notion that TAXATION is helping to prevent such growth in these sectors.

    And this is what Taxation is doing and not doing in Barbados right now.

    So there you go, Dr Mascoll.


  17. If caswell is so positive on legal grounds why! not publish the same information in his weekly column the nation.i guess BU is where all the sh..t can be unloaded without fear of reprisal would be interesting to hear Balance take on this

    • Jezzebel with two”z”

      I have written several columns that were absolutely true and submitted them to the Nation which did not pass the editors. Subsequently, I submitted the same ones to BU and they were published without any adverse consequences to myself. I have come to learn which pass the editor.

      I choose not to lie and my submissions would not generate lawsuits because as I have already said, truth is an absolute defence to defamation. Mind you, it is always truth that I can prove.

    • @Caswell

      And you neglected to state the obvious, it matter not which medium you post because you use your real name unlike ”jezzebel”.

  18. Plantation………who is sir HAM?? can’t say i know the pimp unless he goes by another name, i understand the land the new supreme court is built on belongs to CLICO…….something stinks.

  19. I just did a calculation and it appears that Clarke now owes $124,320 which represents $96,000 in income tax plus $28,320 in interest and penalties.

  20. @ Caswell Franklyn | March 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM |

    Caswell you might be right in principle (Clarkie does owe the Treasury taxes) but are you sure about the $96,000 figure?
    If that is for a 4 year period it means $24,000 tax payable per annum.
    That would have to be an awfully expensive vehicle to be driven around by a trade unionist. The $24,000 might be the imputed annual taxable value of the benefit arising from the personal use of motor vehicle bought by the NUPW and assigned to the G S.

    The annual benefit is normally calculated at 10% of the cost of the vehicle which would indicate the original cost to be around $240,000. The annual benefit of $24,000 should therefore attract personal income tax at the marginal rate of 35%.

    My observation, however, does not in anyway vitiate your contention that Clarkie is a blatant tax dodger The amount of the tax avoided might be assessed differently but the principle of tax evasion remains in place. He is not the GG or a judge.

    • @Miller

      BU is going to ask you the hard 64 thousand question in the vain of what we posed to Harry Husbands on the other blog, AGAIN. How long is too long before the BLP Opposition led by MAM break rank and stop colluding with government – as governments and Oppositions have done over the years – about how the nastiness of governance in Barbados is covered up? Do you think key players in the Opposition are not aware of how tax offenders are pampered for example as in the case of Clarke? The Estimates Debate gives the Opposition and MAM a chance to build credibility by departing from the old useless and meaningless exchanges which in the final analysis does not make an iota of difference to government policy.

    • Miller

      I was out for a while and I am only now seeing your comment at 2:55 p.m.

      You are correct, the car is valued at approximately $240,000. However, to be fair the NUPW only paid $60,000. The Minister of Finance waived the duty and taxes using the power he has under Duties, Taxes and other Payments (Exemption) Act, Cap 67B. However, I am yet to see the order published in the Official Gazette after more than four years.

      Additional information is now in order. When the car was first purchased, the union’s accounts staff contacted the Inland Revenue Department for guidance. They were told how much money was to be deducted but Clarke ordered them not to make the deduction. This is not hearsay, I was employed at NUPW when this went down and was present to hear Clarke threaten an individual who he claimed was being malicious.


  21. David
    For the cause that lacks assistance, The wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that I [BU] can do.

    Using your moto, above can you please investigate why the Barbados Football Association would be advertising for a general secretary from overseas because no suitable applicant was found in Barbados?

    Why would Randy Harris Lime Football partner Mia Mottley not get him to employ one of the bright Barbadians who were laid off from government? It is said by many that Barbadians are the biggest hypocrites in the world

    Is it only government and unions that must be criticize?

    • @Clone

      The Barbados Football Association is a loss cause which is sheltered by the conniving policies of FIFA. It has been a den of corruption sanctioned under successive administrations. How do you know the decision to recruit outside is not a FIFA directive given the malfeasance which has occurred under the watch of Ronald Jones?

  22. @ David | March 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM |

    There is great merit in your question.
    It seems they all have one another backs in this charade of Tweedledum and Tweedledee Bajan incestuous governance model.

    Even if the BLP were to regain the reins of government this year nothing will be done about Clarkie or Leroy Parris or the other myriad of crooks and scammers backing both parties.

    Bush Tea’s proposed model is beginning to gaining a bit of traction with me (except for the BBE component, of course).

  23. millertheanunnaki | March 15, 2014 at 2:25 PM | “Caswell you might be right in principle (Clarkie does owe the Treasury taxes) but are you sure about the $96,000 figure?”

    Surely you are wrong Miller.

  24. @ Miller
    Bush Tea’s proposed model is beginning to gain a bit of traction with me (except for the BBE component, of course
    So are you saying that you are a bit slow….and that therefore there is a better than even chance that you will eventually ALSO get to recognize that BBE is the KEY part of Bushie’s proposed model…..

    @ David
    What FIFA should really do is send a no-nonsense AUDITOR every year or two with a fine-tooth comb and a sharp tongue….
    Sending foreigners to baby sit us is condescending to say the least….it CERTAINLY is not developmental.

    By the way…..
    Who audits the Sports Lottery?
    Who does the audit?
    How much EXACTLY is spent where, on what… and by whom?

    Anybody ever heard of PROACTIVE problem solving…?
    …or perhaps we will wait until that is broke and recruit a Canadian to run THAT too….

    @ Caswell
    When the donkey will you start to play the role for which you have been prepared bout here though…?

  25. @ Bush Tea | March 15, 2014 at 3:35 PM |

    That version of the B T governance model with the BBE being the main ingredient will never fly with me. I draw a line in the sand where that is concerned.
    But the pragmatic side of your model is worth looking into.

    I will tell you what, Bushie.
    See your model in the same light as the Estwick alternative plan and the Miller as Fumble. I promise you that if Stuartie accepts the Estwick plan and rejects the Sinckler plan the miller will eat humble pie and cross the line to join B T’s parade.

    But remember Bushie, a promise is a comfort to a fool. Ask the CLICO policyholders, Al Barrack, the public sector workers and the UWI undergraduate students who fooled them other than the miller pretending to fumble in climbing onto the B T express bandwagon to paradise.

    • To the other 64 thousand question: what of the local media? We have a social commentator and head of a registered trade union who has gone public on the Internet with a weighty accusation pointed at the general secretary of a leading trade union – so what is the local media going to do? Don’t we all know the answer already? Not one damp thing.

  26. Miller

    It does not matter whether Stuartie accepts the Estwick plan, the reality is that its too late now. The moment devaluation becomes apparent this government WILL be removed from office, willingly or NOT.

    • And the third 64 thousand question: is it not time for retiring senior civil servants who are aware of some of the challenges and malfeasance at play in the bowels of government should speak out?

  27. @ David. ..when making reference to the BFA please understand that malfeasance started long before the Jones era began. As a matter of fact the BFA has always exhibited traits similar to some statutory corporations.There are stories of gate receipts that suddenly disappeared as if Houdini were involved, just like the fare boxes at the transport board back in the early eighties.

    • @Hamilton Hill

      Agree BUT Minister Ronald Jones is the last president who served as minister and we have placed a lot of blame on his head.

    • My understanding is that the post of General Secretary was filled by a Canadian woman who was working for free, but working nonetheless. Under our laws a person who is not a citizen, permanent resident, an immigrant or a Caricom skilled national must first obtain a work permit whether or not payment is involved. The BFA apparently did not know this and accepted the woman to work for free. Immigration got involved and I suppose that they are trying to regularize the appoint before the woman can continue.


  28. @Caswell Franklin “I have it on good authority that the Inland Revenue Department is fully aware that the General Secretary of NUPW, Dennis Clarke has not paid the tax amounting to $24,000 per annum for the last four years, which is the tax payable on the value of the vehicle that he drives as part of his remuneration package.”

    @Miller etc “Caswell you might be right in principle (Clarkie does owe the Treasury taxes) but are you sure about the $96,000 figure?
    If that is for a 4 year period it means $24,000 tax payable per annum.
    That would have to be an awfully expensive vehicle to be driven around by a trade unionist. The $24,000 might be the imputed annual taxable value of the benefit arising from the personal use of motor vehicle bought by the NUPW and assigned to the G S. The annual benefit is normally calculated at 10% of the cost of the vehicle which would indicate the original cost to be around $240,000. The annual benefit of $24,000 should therefore attract personal income tax at the marginal rate of 35%”

    I don’t know whether Caswell is right or wrong about Mr. Clarke’s taxes since I have never seen anybody’s tax return but my own, but if the story is true I think that the calculation is incorrect and that Miller’s calculation is correct that is ” The annual benefit of $24,000 should therefore attract personal income tax at the marginal rate of 35%” or $8,400 per year so therefore $25,200 tax would be due over the three year period.

    And it is not actually illegal not to pay income taxes.

    However it illegal not to file a tax return.

    It is then up to Inland Revenue to use all means possible to actually collect.

    If Inland Revenue does not collect while the taxpayer is alive they can (and do) collect from the taxpayers estate, since an estate cannot be administered without a tax clearance certificate from Inland Revenue.

    Which of course is one of the reasons smallish estates are rarely formally administered in Barbados.

    People pass down estates (bank accounts, houses, family land etc.) from “seed-to-seed” and keep the tax man out of their business.

  29. Question for all thinking Barbadians.After ingesting the load of jobby that sprang from the bowels and straight through the mouth of Minister Kellman about the final disposition of the displaced workers, and the equally idiotic Ramblings of one Blind Clarke, are you not now satisfied that the time to say good riddance to these two bands of thieves is now? Neither one has your best interest at heart.

  30. @Caswell “You are correct, the car is valued at approximately $240,000. However, to be fair the NUPW only paid $60,000. The Minister of Finance waived the duty and taxes using the power he has under Duties, Taxes and other Payments (Exemption) Act, Cap 67B. However, I am yet to see the order published in the Official Gazette after more than four years.”

    So therefore using Miller’s formula of 35% tax being due on 10% of the value of the benefit it would seem to me that the tax due would be $2.100 per year, so therefore $6,300 over the 3 year period.

    If someone at Inland Revenue calculated the tax due as $24,000 per year, rather it is not surprising that the union chief would have ordered the accounting staff not to deduct the money from his pay.

    Because only an idiot would permit Inland Revenue to hold $21,000 for them, then to wait forever for a refund.

  31. @Caswell

    How have u arrived at ur computation. if I assume that the original value of the vehicled was 240 000, are vehicles depreciated annually, accoring to a chosen accounting technique, straight line method or otherwise, wont the book value of the vehicle reflect that value annually? How then are we arriving at the 96 000 for 4 years given an even split of 24 000 yearly.

    please explain

    • Newblodd

      Thanks for your query: it forced me to recheck my calculations. As a result, I must apologise for misleading the BU family. Originally, I said that he owed $124,320. That figure was wrong: it was a little off, it should have been $127,200 instead.

      Depreciation is not figured into the tax on the car. If a taxpayer is given a car as part of his remuneration package, he must pay income tax on the benefit at a rate of 10% of the original value of the car for as long as he has the car.

      In the instant case, the car is valued at $124,000 therefore Clarke is required to pay $24,000 in income tax annually. That means he should have paid $96,000 over the four years. No taxes were paid in year one so that $24,000 would attract interest at one percent per month for 48 months; the $24,000 due for year two is outstanding for 36 months which means that he owes 36 months interest; year three is outstanding for 24 months; and year four is outstanding for 12 months. In all he owes 120 months interest times $24,000 would give a figure of $28,800. In addition there is a penalty of 10% which must also be includes. That is 96,000 + 28,800 + 2,400 = 127,200.

      I profusely apologise for misleading you and I stand corrected; Clarke really owes $127,200 which will go up by $240 every month for as long as the tax remains unpaid.

      The frightening thing is that when he leaves this world and his wife survives him, she would have to settle the amount or lose her house.


  32. You can get away with anything in Barbados as long as you are connected. Dennis Clarke has been compromised and contaminated hence he cannot represent the interests of civil servants with full steam. I am sure that government read these blogs. I just wish that the government officials who are responsible for matters of tax evasion and those who have power to enforce the penalties under the law where not as contaminated either. Dennis Clarke, if this story is true, will get away with this. The car is the bribe and also the bridal. He has to sing the tune that the piper has picked. He can barked as loud as his master bids him too.

  33. @ Caswell
    10% of 124,320 is $12,432.00
    You know that you was never a Maths man too 🙂 …just say the man ain’t pay he taxes on the car and let him or the experts like Simple Simon work out the details…
    In any case, the whole point here is CONFLICT OF INTEREST not tax avoidance..

    Perhaps Clarke is a member of PDC….

    • Bushie

      When I beat you at school, I should have avoided hitting you in the head.


  34. Seems like some one has jumped the gun using speculative information rather than concrete an irrefutable facts. One should tread cautiously when walking down a road which can lead to character assassination

  35. Caswell Franklyn | March 15, 2014 at 9:07 PM |


    I was out for a while and I am only now seeing your comment at 2:55 p.m.

    You are correct, the car is valued at approximately $240,000. However, to be fair the NUPW only paid $60,000. The Minister of Finance waived the duty and taxes using the power he has under Duties, Taxes and other Payments (Exemption) Act, Cap 67B.

    So the NUPW only paid $60,000 for the car but the the person to whom the car is given as a “benefit” must pay 10% tax on $240,000 or $24,000 per year.

    What is the monthly payment if I bought a Camry or Accord in Barbados?

    Which car can I buy for $2000 per month in Barbados?

    David can you give me this information so I can understand why someone would pay $24000 a year to “lease a vehicle” from the government tax collection department.

    I doan have to read an spell fuh wunna.

    • @Bush Tea

      Caswell stated in earlier comments the original value of the Audi is $240,000 and not $124,000.


      Luxury vehicles in Barbados are seen as a source of revenue by government. The truth is there is the prestige and status which comes from driving these vehicles by the wannabee status seekers and the like. For example Sir Roy drives a Mercedes. The Audi Clarke drives not sure of the price tag, have to take Caswell’s word for it.

  36. @ Caswell Franklyn | March 16, 2014 at 8:31 AM |
    “The frightening thing is that when he leaves this world and his wife survives him, she would have to settle the amount or lose her house.”

    In which Barbados are you talking about? It has to be one of the two that Adonijah sang about.
    But certainly not one under a D or B administration. Same thing applies to Leroy Greenverbs.

    But why wait until he dies?
    He is about to get a massive golden goodbye package from his workplace later in the year with a possible ambassadorship posting and possible Knighthood just like Trottie as reward for great “national” service to the DLP.
    How blasted corrupt can this fiscally broke banana republic become by rewarding tax cheats?

    “In the instant case, the car is valued at $124,000 therefore Clarke is required to pay $24,000 in income tax annually.”

    If the car (not the imputed 10% benefit) is valued at $124,000.00 then the associated annual income tax payable cannot be $24,000.00 but ($124,000 X 10% X the taxpayer’s marginal tax rate (say 35%-most like in Clarkie’s case a high earning individual)
    which works out to be $4,340.00 annually.
    Now you can add on your interest and penalties retroactively from this annual base figure of personal income tax due on the vehicle benefit.

  37. Cut the bull stit.

    First it was the man owes $24000 per year in taxes.

    Now Miller calculates that he owes $4,340 per year.

    All I am asking is what is the true tax owed.

  38. Not to get technical David, but 10% of the value of the car is added to your income and thus impacts tax payable by approximately 35% of this 10% value as Simple and Miller are saying….
    Caswell’s point is not really about such technicalities….but about the GOVERNMENT facilitating such benefits and the Union allowing its staff to accept such bribes ……and then expecting that there is no conflict of interest…

    Do you have ANY idea how common such under- the -table deals affect everyday business in this CROOKED place…?

    You know how many sisters get appointed to YOUR ministry IF your outside woman is to get appointed in in MINE?

    …you understand the principle of wuk fuh wuk?

    Man Caswell stick to your substantive point and leave out the lotta drama….

  39. LOL @ Caswell
    ” when you beat Bushie at school” you should not have eaten that pork cutter so late at night…to cause you such vivid dreams….

  40. Caswell’s submission states 96 000 plus interest plus penalty, it did not say 96 000 inclusive of int and taxes, hence two different things.

  41. Bushie wrote “Man Caswell stick to your substantive point and leave out the lotta drama….”

    Absolutely Bushie but I still want to know. Is it $24000 or $ $4340. There is a big difference.

    Substantive points must still be supported by facts.

  42. @ jezzebel | March 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM |

    What do you understand by the phrase “E &OE”.
    We are dealing here with the moral aspects and legal principle of tax evasion. And in any iteration of calculations of the tax due the amount at stake is significant given the current crisis in public finances primarily caused by fiscal mismanagement and political incompetence and incestuous corruption in promoting proper public administration.

    How can the alleged tax cheat feel morally at ease when so many low income workers from the public sector are on the breadline just because big earners like him fail to meet their easily affordable statutory obligations to the Treasury?
    But after all these workers were just ‘temporary’ to be suitably disposed off after being treated as grist for the electoral mill.

    • @Bush Tea

      Point taken that is is the principle i.e. the tax was evaded BUT Hants point is valid, we should know for the record the sum owed.

  43. Talking about penalty and some very recently discovered issues that affects the judiciary in Barbados, if i was Judge in Barbados’ Judiciary at this time i would be feeling more than a little demeaned, belittled and besmirched by the likes of Harris and Bayley of CGI who have managed over the years to make it seem that ALL sitting JUDGES in Barbados are CORRUPT (something i personally found out very recently is just not true), and also that the judiciary is CGI’s personal playground to do to claimants whatever they feel like while continuing to enrich themselves by PAYING NO CLAIMS to people who are injured by the defendants CGI covers.

    These two insurance ‘executives’ even have the slimy audacity to name their yacht Fully Covered and continue to project an image that they are untouchable and invincible in Barbados by using Edward of buckiingham palace to sail Fully Covered, well naturally Edward of buckingham palace is so inherently full of his own shit he never even realized it was all a ruse and he was used by those two parasites to project that image on the island. AND of course said two parasites don’t think anyone noticed their little by-play cause they both are well aware that Bajans are easily fooled by useless titles and false status.

    It is hoped that current Judges of the Judiciary on the island one day realize that they are being used as the fall guys for insurance companies and are all being seen as the bad guys by the Bajan population in this gigantic scheme that has been ongoing for far too long and will come to an end eventually, just like CLICO.

  44. @ Caswell

    Thanks for relooking at your post. Since posting I had made a call to someone who deals with the ird and was informed the cost of the beneift does not change over time and hence depreciation is not a factor.

    I think david needs to understand these issues before he make himself look like some one form mars who dont understand eartly matters.

  45. @ jezzebel | March 16, 2014 at 10:59 AM |

    Well here is a factual account based on the Income tax Act.
    Mr. D C is mandated by law to pay tax on the imputed value of the benefit arising from the car provided to him by his employer.
    If this obligation has not been met it is assessed he now owes an estimated (based on the acquisition cost of the vehicle or some other ‘reasonable’ value assigned by the CIR) annual amounts of $4,340.00 (or some other amount imposed by the CIR) plus interest and penalties retroactive to the income year in which the car was assigned and prorated appropriately.

    The point remains that failure to file an annual tax return in which the car benefit is not declared is a breach of the law and both the employee (tax payer) and the employer (agent of the Crown) can be brought before the court.

    The question is whether Mr. D S and or his employer has broken the law and ought to give an account for their actions just like the boy on the block with a spliff in his pocket.

    Yours truly immoral husband and apostate
    King Ahab the Miller.

  46. Accountants are not economists, they are in the main not even financial analysts.

    Why do Barbadians interchange accountants and economists. They are not one and the same.

  47. Hal…………most people don’t know the difference between an account, an actuary and an economist, you would think they would use google right?

  48. Unfortunately, we experts forget to googlle the definitions and meaning to everything and it’s right at our fingertips…..lol

  49. Dr Clyde Mascoll,

    In the Daily Nation Midweek newspaper of Wednesday, February 19, 2014, it was reported – in a very important bit of news – that Dr. Fred Bergsten, had said, in an interview with the Governor of the Central Bank of Bar bados, Dr. Worrell, that in recent years many long-standing tenets of. economics had been “kind of shaken if not shattered”.

    Furthermore, he had been reported as having said – in the said news piece – that all economists now had to be humbled.

    And more so he had been quoted as saying: “We put forward our best efforts and we make our best analyses but we know……we might not be right and therefore we’d better not only tolerate alternative views, we’d better actually promote the development of alternative views because over time that’s going to make for a much richer agenda, and more likely, sustainable policies”.

    Anyhow, whatever Dr. Bergsten might have meant by “we”, “our”, “best”, “alternative views”, the fact is that more and more people of this world are greater than ever before more capable of and are more exposed to greater levels of imagination, cognition, evaluation, analysis, synthesis, observation, inquiry, investigation, theorization, research, data gathering and assimilating, etc., of so many other people of the countless ways human beings interact and change their environments more than ever before.

    These events are all bound up in the various means of arriving at greater and greater truths/claims in this world – whether or not these means are scientific, empiric, rational, experiential, etc. – or whether or not they have been or are available to many people more than at any other time before in the records, artefacts, remains of world history.

    Therefore, it is on those and other bases that we are making it clear to you that you were absolutely wrong and incorrect to state in your column in last Thursday’s Daily Nation newspaper – that VAT is a transactional tax.

    Added to the fact that it is a cruel myth that there is “value” about TAXES and another cruel myth that “value is being added”, the fact though is that TAXATION at all of the points of it happening in Barbados, it is DOWNRIGHT THEFT.

    So, while it is true that there are processes involving the passing on of money and commercial goods or the use of commercial services in the commercial markets of Barbados – and in so far as, on one hand, there are these various people who are getting money/goods from the relevant others, or there are these various people who are getting the use of commercial services from the relevant others, and in so far as, on the other hand and in respect of the same contracts, there are these other various people who are giving money/goods to the relevant others or there are these various people who are providing the use of such commercial services to the relevant others, it is only these aforementioned items and events that can be used by any reasonable persons in Barbados to define they themselves as transactions and as processes.

    Hence, there is absolutely NOTHING about TAXATION that is on par with such actions movements at any points in time or space.

    Thus, where it is found by any reasonable persons in Barbados that those portions of the remunerations of the relevant individuals, businesses and others are being illegally permanently removed taken by the particular businesses and other entities on the respective and relevant criminal and illegal instructions and sanctions of the government, no such actions or any such portions of remunerations at any such times or in such spaces can ever be described by any reasonable persons as transactional, since there is no crisscrossing of many things (money/goods) by and between the different persons, or there is no giving of use of commercial services to others by the relevant others to get remunerations and vice a versa.

    Not Ever!!

    Indeed, these are facts truths that are unassailable and that have been found by the PDC and some others on the basis of the right means of getting and coming by such facts and truths.

    So there you go, Dr Mascoll.


  50. Please stop trying to kill to messenger
    The ?????? Should be how many of the DLP minister of finance big earners, supporters got the deal that Clarke has

  51. @Caswell Franklyn March 15, 2014 at 9:07 PM “So the NUPW only paid $60,000 for the car ”

    @Caswell Franklin, March 16 at 8:31 am. “In the instant case, the car is valued at $124,000”

    Dear Caswell: You are confusing us. Is it a $60,00 car or a $124,000 car?

    And whether the car is worth $60,000 or $124,000 or $240,00 there is no way that the income tax due on the benefit can be $24,000 per year.

    Taxes in Barbados are high, but not that high.

    That sais Inland Revenue has a lot of smart, hard working and very, very dedicated civil servants.

    But clearly Caswell’s informant is not one of them.

    Caswell’s informant is probably a political pimp looking to scandal Mr. Clarke’s name.

    If someone offered me a $60,000 dollar car as part of my employment package and then and told me I have to pay $24,000 per year income tax on it I would tell them,

    “No please. Let me walk to work first.”

    Caswell you do know a lot about a lot, but clearly you are all out to sea where income tax is concerned.

    And Again.



    That said has Caswell filed all of his income tax returns from the 1970’s to 2013?

  52. Has ever single member of Parliament filed an income tax return from the time they were 16 or 18 or 20 to the time that they died?

    And have they all paid the taxes due?

    Now that is information that I would love to see.

  53. But at present all income tax information is held very confidentially, and neither Caswell or I or anybody else has the right to see anybody else’s tax return.

    A civil servant can be fired for discussing a tax payers information with anybodyelse.

  54. @jezzebel | March 16, 2014 at 9:10 AM |
    ” One should tread cautiously when walking down a road which can lead to character assassination”


  55. Smooth Chocolate; Not disputing that jezzebel is an utterly stupid retard, But what is there about the specific extract that labels him as such?

  56. @ Simple Simon | March 16, 2014 at 3:52 PM |

    S S, are you sure you want to maintain that bold assertion?
    We will not venture into the realm of tax evasion ( including the non-declaration of assessable income) but only at this stage invite you to consider the legal responsibilities of the employer under the PAYE rules and regulation especially in respect of reporting to the IRD at the end year income year.

    You have to take into account the “fact” that Mr. Clarke is an employee of the NUPW and both are not exempt from the legal requirements under the PAYE system.
    Just thought the record ought to be set straight in the same way you are justifiably sorting our Caswell’s technical boo-boo.

    Capiche, Sure-footed Simon?

  57. That’s why i said in a previous blog that all employees who are represented by a union should be made to join said union. It should be mandatory and the union and government should have an agreement whereby before each employee see his/her check dues should be deducted and be forwarded into a union bank account. That way the executive body of the union is paid by the members and the union will not have to be beholden by any one but it’s members. Whether it be the government or an private employer, how can the union represent it’s members properly when they have to depend on other people for their livelihood. It doesn’t make sense whatsoever, the executive members should be fulltime employees of the union not part time.


    millertheanunnaki | March 17, 2014 at 8:31 AM |

    @ Simple Simon | March 16, 2014 at 3:52 PM |
    lets take a look from what little we know

    is it also unlawful to remove Beatrice Henry from the tax Roll History?
    Is it unlawful to remove Violet Beckles from the tax roll ?
    If your name is not on the tax roll then how can they charge you for taxes?
    Oh , for they moved your taxes to other people names to pay the taxes and claim the Land of plantations? Sweet deal
    How would the taxes move to another name? who look to claim to be the owner.?
    If it was unlawful not to pay taxes DBLP would be in jail all now
    Then again how can you pay taxes on some thing you dont really own , but looking to own by way of Fraud ,
    People still think that a tax bill is a deed and give them full rights to trespass and play land lord by way of Mr Forde at land tax , by way of ownership by a water bill being in there name ,more fraud

    UP to 90% of Bajan and business dont own the land nor building they are doing business in , So the law can not take them to court for not paying taxes. As they block the owner of the land from getting their rent .
    So before the DBLP governmEnt look to get taxes owed or due , they must fix the land deeds and then the backing of the court to get the taxes if needed , By law the court is not to support fraud and is not to make fraud lawful.
    So if you are not paying taxes and the tax man does not come for you , then you know you dont own where you are by CLEAR TITLE ,
    Barbados PAY NO taxes and then we will see movement,
    The taxes must end and the fraud must end ,

  59. Caswell on the attack
    Brass Tacks
    DEM scared Caswell
    –all of DEM scared Caswell
    Dennis Clarke frighten as ass for Caswell
    He does tremble when he hear Caswell name
    and start to stutter —wait




  61. “would be interesting to hear Balance take on this”
    My understanding of the issue Bro Cas is that the $24,000. would not be a tax payment due to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in itself but would be added on to his other annual income and form part of his assessable income for tax calculation purposes.

  62. @balance,

    So the conclusion to be drawn if what you wrote is correct is that the facts were misrepresented by this statement……….
    “has not paid the tax amounting to $24,000 per annum for the last four years, which is the tax payable on the value of the vehicle that he drives as part of his remuneration package.”

    BU can be intriguing and entertaining.

    Wha you got to say bout dis Bushie since “you know everything” . lol

Leave a comment, join the discussion.