Harry Redknapp the Portsmouth football manager has been found not guilty of tax evasion.
I am very dubious as to whether twelve jurors have the ability to assimilate the complex evidence in a complicated tax case. Should such cases be heard by a panel of judges?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16931829 (link to the Beeb).
Last edited by: Duncan on Wed 8 Feb 12 at 17:45
|
|
It wasn't particularly complicated, it hinged on whether the money paid into his account was in the form of a work related bonus or funds for investment. Personally, I thought the prosecution case was rather weak and on the basis of what was reported in the press I would have gone for a not guilty had I been a juror.
|
It was an easy case. The money was a bung and he stashed it away in an offshore account to avoid tax.
The jury got it wrong, oh so very wrong.
|
|
Wot 'arry dodgy? Diamond geezer.
|
|
e's as bent as a 9 bob note.
|
|
Another CPS waste of money. It was revealed after today's verdict that another Portsmouth official had been acquitted of tax evasion in a trial last year
|
Harry Redknapp was found not guilty and therefore we must say that according to the law of the land he is not guilty.
If I had been on the jury, then I would have returned a guilty verdict.
|
I'm inclined to agree with RR that it really was not that complicated.
The jury heard all the evidence.
Unless we were in the public gallery throughout we've only heard those bits dramatic enough for the media to report them.
The jury were not convinced beyond reasonable doubt and that's good enough for me. And on a general principle I tend to think that even if a jury don't get every last nuance of expert accounting evidence they can still smell rats & rotten fish.
|
|
The bloke is a born actor, and the jury bought it "ook line 'n sinkah"
|
|
Now he`s back on track for the next England Manager! - lets see if we can get our rightfull Captain back!!
|
|
He'll end up fiddling the expenses
|
|
If Reknapp got off because he is a good actor how did Mandaric do it? Are we looking at a poorly handled prosecution, a poor summing up? Did the judge make any comments about the jury's verdict and will HMRC appeal the verdict?
|
I suspect Henry Redknapp Esq is not guilty in the same way Kenneth Dodd Esq was all those years ago.
I worked with the Tax Inspector who took Doddy to court. His career did not progress much after the defeat.
Edit: In answer to Meldrew, HMRC have already stated they will not appeal - at least they know when to stop throwing our good money after bad.
Last edited by: Alastairw on Wed 8 Feb 12 at 19:18
|
The case - as finally presented to the jury - was what we call 'fish and chippy'.
It was nothing like the multi-million pound footie fraud we were all hoping for.
On the evidence I heard reported, the prosecution was nowhere near proving to the high standard required the money was salted away to avoid tax.
|
Capello's resigned!!!!
Chuffin' hell.
|
Whatevr happens it is still a good result for HMRC - pushes the message to those stashing their bungs that they'll happily waste millions chasing them.
When eventually they do convict one you can be sure they add the cost of the prosecution to whatever punitive tax is collected.
|
Two questions:
1. Why does anyone put money offshore in an account named "Rosie 47"?
2. If a man like Mandaric wants to invest, why does he give money to a man who works for him to keep in such an account, rather than keeping it in an account of his own pending investment?
Of course, a nonsense defence doesn't prove guilt. And I might win a gold medal in the 2012 Olympics.
|
And be next England manager?
|
Does it mean HMRC can still claim tax on the alleged sum?
Perhaps the tax paid by his lawyers on their fee is more than Harry allegedly evaded?
|
|
Dugong re your 1. Perhaps he could not spell Redknapp?
|
As Lygonos suggests above, the Inland Robbers (sorry, HMRC) wanted a big-name conviction to ram home the message that tax evasion is fraud and needs to be combated.
I often lecture on fraud prevention, and until a few months ago I used to say that a frightening £30 billion of fraud is committed in the UK every year. The National Fraud Authority now estimates it at £38 billion (yes, Billion). A good growth area, it has to be said.
So it was a pity that HMRC picked on a case where there was genuine doubt as to whether the payment from Milan Mandaric to Harry Redknapp was a bonus (taxable) or a gift (non-taxable). As it couldn't be proved to be taxable 'beyond reasonable doubt' I think the jury were right to acquit.
And if anyone can make the England players work together as a team, it's Harry. As an extra bonus, that view disagrees with Zero's.
|
As an extra bonus? what does that mean?
|
>> As an extra bonus? what does that mean?
>>
>>
>>
We must all try to stop saying "bonus" - the correct expression is "gift (not taxable)".
|
>> So it was a pity that HMRC picked on a case where there was genuine
>> doubt as to whether the payment from Milan Mandaric to Harry Redknapp was a bonus
>> (taxable) or a gift (non-taxable). As it couldn't be proved to be taxable 'beyond reasonable
>> doubt' I think the jury were right to acquit.
Where on earth was the 'genuine doubt'? How many shrewd businessmen give their employees large gifts of tens of thousands of pounds?
Now a bonus would be understandable, that keeps people motivated and productive...trouble is you have to pay tax on that...unless you hide it in a Monaco bank account opened specifically to put your 'gift' in, despite the fact a gift would be acceptable to put in to a British bank account. Now of course if you knew it was really a bonus not a gift...and had said that to a journalist...then in those circs it might be necessary to hide it abroad.
Just goes to show how gullible juries are...and why we should have professional juries.
Harry Redknapp said he didn't have a clue how much was in that account. Yeah right.
|
How many shrewd businessmen give their employees large gifts of tens of thousands of pounds?
HSBC, Network Rail, Lloyds et al
|
|
They are paid as taxable bonuses.
|
I don't know the first thing about football but I can make two observations.
1) If he is as thick as he said he is, then he would have had someone to advise him to keep the books straight
2) Beckham for the the England managers job...then he can stop playing and do a bit more posing in those sexy undercrackers he designs.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Thu 9 Feb 12 at 17:47
|
|
A nice story was told on Radio 2 this afternoon, from someone who had asked him in person for a written autograph. The autograph was provided on the spot ,complete with a suitable 'welcome' message. Not bad for somebody who had declared under oath that he the writng/reading skills of a 2 yea rold. :)
|
|
The jury believed him.>:)
|
No, the jury found him not guilty. Not quite the same thing
|
Makes me laugh when you see people piously quote 'you're innocent until proven guilty'.
You're guilty when you do something wrong. A court may or may not find you out and legally state you are guilty, but even if you get off at court, if you've done wrong, you're wrong..and therefore guilty.
Similarly, if you're found guilty at court, but didn't do it...then you're not guilty in reality.
The legal system has many holes in it and is not perfect, it's just the only way we have of going some way of proving someone's guilt or otherwise... but going some way towards it is different from being absolutely definitive.
|
|
tinyurl.com/84u8n3x
Last edited by: Meldrew on Thu 9 Feb 12 at 19:31
|
>> A nice story was told on Radio 2 this afternoon, from someone who had asked
>> him in person for a written autograph. The autograph was provided on the spot ,complete
>> with a suitable 'welcome' message. Not bad for somebody who had declared under oath that
>> he the writng/reading skills of a 2 yea rold. :)
FFS his literacy was not a contested issue in the case, it was mentioned by him in context of whether he was sufficiently 'informed' to pull off a tax fiddle.
Even in court and under oath there's a certain scope for joshing between Counsel and witnesses.
One of Harry's strengths is said to be his ability to communicate and to make people feel special even at casual acquaintance. The autograph is a demonstration of that.
|
(relates to Zero's post "They are paid as taxable bonuses.")
...except when paid into offshore accounts to avoid tax liability...sample www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/8821083/Goldman-Sachs-escaped-paying-20m-National-Insurance-bill-in-HMRC-deal.html (Goldman Sachs, one of the most bust of the banks which is back into making staggering profits and not a jot of remorse they are contiuning to avoid tax liability. But that's another thread...
Another Goldman story...articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-27/wall_street/30007871_1_aig-bailout-goldman-sachs-execs-fcic
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 9 Feb 12 at 21:34
|
|
and if you read the story they are illegal tax avoidance schemes.
|
Tax avoidance is not illegal; tax evasion is.
"Tax avoidance is the legal utilization of the tax regime to one's own advantage, to reduce the amount of tax that is payable by means that are within the law. The term tax mitigation is a synonym for tax avoidance. Its original use was by tax advisors as an alternative to the pejorative term tax avoidance. The term has also been used in the tax regulations of some jurisdictions to distinguish tax avoidance foreseen by the legislators from tax avoidance which exploits loopholes in the law"
|
illegal tax avoidance = tax evasion.
|
|
There is no such thing as illegal tax avoidance! Tax avoidance is LEGAL! I agree that tax evasion is illegal.
|
Avoid
verb (used with object)
1.
to keep away from; keep clear of; shun: to avoid a person; to avoid taxes; to avoid danger.
2.
to prevent from happening: to avoid falling.
3.
Law . to make void or of no effect; invalidate.
Evade
verb (used with object)
1.
to escape from by trickery or cleverness: to evade one's pursuers.
2.
to get around by trickery: to evade rules.
3.
to avoid doing or fulfilling: to evade an obligation.
4.
to avoid answering directly: to evade a question.
5.
to elude; escape: The solution evaded him.
There: Note - 3 to avoid
|
Tax avoidance
The process whereby an individual plans his or her finances so as to apply all exemptions and deductions provided by tax laws to reduce taxable income.
Tax avoidance must be distinguished from Tax Evasion, which is the employment of unlawful methods to circumvent the payment of taxes. Tax evasion is a crime; tax avoidance is not.
END OF!
|
>> Tax avoidance must be distinguished from Tax Evasion, which is the employment of unlawful methods
>> to circumvent the payment of taxes. Tax evasion is a crime; tax avoidance is not.
>>
>> END OF!
That's the generally accepted version. Still perfectly possible (a) to avoid tax by illegal means such as knowing misuse of easements (b) for legitimate avoidance to be re-classified as evasion folowing a court decision.
|
so not quite so cut and dried as you think there Melders.
Enjoy your toast and muesli old boy, avoid (evade?) the stress I say.
|
|
No stress, no pain. I can read a dictionary as well as anybody and quote extracts from one to prove my point(s). You don't have a 100% monopoly on information,and neither do I!
|
Avoidance/evasion. You both have a case.
It used to be straightforward, and as Melllers says, "avoidance" was conventionally used to mean legally organising your affairs so as to minimise tax.
Not so clear cut now. A while back Gordon Broon decided that "avoiding" tax by "wheezes", i.e. doing otherwise legal things solely for the reason of avoiding tax unfairly (I paraphrase a lot) would not be ignored by HMRC.
An example of a wheeze would be where retailers designated 2%-3% of their sales revenue on card transactions as an admin fee (non-VATable). HMRC overturned it. That was "avoidance" but it was disallowed and the retailers had to hand over large amounts of "avoided" VAT retrospectively.
So "avoiding" tax no longer means they won't go after you.
|
>> There is no such thing as illegal tax avoidance!
Of course there is illegal tax avoidance, just as there is legal tax avoidance.
If a perfectly legitimate tax avoidance scheme oversteps an accepted boundary, it then becomes illegal...(and gets called evasion).
Just because the tax system has used the words 'avoidance' and 'evasion' in the way they have to differentiate between the two, it doesn't change the normal meanings of the words.
|
>>
>> Just because the tax system has used the words 'avoidance' and 'evasion' in the way
>> they have to differentiate between the two, it doesn't change the normal meanings of the
>> words.
>>
Quite so. And just because a legal avoidance loophole is closed, it doesn't suddenly mean that someone using it turns into a crook and is automatically guilty of evasion. It just means he has to pay tax in future, or perhaps retrospectively.
|
|
Private Eye points out that whilst 'arry claims "I write like a two-year old and I can't spell", it doesn't stop him being a columnist for the Sun.
|
>> Private Eye points out that whilst 'arry claims "I write like a two-year old and
>> I can't spell", it doesn't stop him being a columnist for the Sun.
>>
Proof that he writes like a two year old, then.
|
>> Proof that he writes like a two year old, then.
It's the 2 year olds that read it. Some of the journalists have a brain, they just pretend they don't.
|
Harry Redknapp Found Not Guilty - Robin O'Reliant
