Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Was the Harry Rednapp trial a waste of money
It cost far more than the amount of money the IR believed had been evaded. That is probaly true of every prosecution, it just seems they wanted to make an example of him and it has backfired.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"I wasn't surprised he got off, (money talks)"
Are you suggesting that the jury was nobbled, Jemisa? If not, how exactly has the money spoken to secure Harry's acquittal?
Where the pity lies is that HMRC would have been far better off (and the taxpayer better served) if they had controlled their chief, Dave Hartnett, and prevented him from making, without the advice of his lawyers and experts, "handshake" arrangements (over an agreeable dinner, natch) with large multi-nationals such as Goldman Sachs and Vodaphone. These two deals alone cost the revenue between £2bn and £6bn (depending who you believe). This makes the tax allegedly due on £100k involved in Rednapp's case somewhat small change.
The arrogance of HMRC following this case knows no bounds. No humility from them. In the words of their spokesman, Chris Martin: "We accept the verdict of the jury [how magnanimous of them] but I would like to remind those who are evading tax by using offshore tax havens that it always makes sense to come and talk to us before we come and talk to you.”
Are you suggesting that the jury was nobbled, Jemisa? If not, how exactly has the money spoken to secure Harry's acquittal?
Where the pity lies is that HMRC would have been far better off (and the taxpayer better served) if they had controlled their chief, Dave Hartnett, and prevented him from making, without the advice of his lawyers and experts, "handshake" arrangements (over an agreeable dinner, natch) with large multi-nationals such as Goldman Sachs and Vodaphone. These two deals alone cost the revenue between £2bn and £6bn (depending who you believe). This makes the tax allegedly due on £100k involved in Rednapp's case somewhat small change.
The arrogance of HMRC following this case knows no bounds. No humility from them. In the words of their spokesman, Chris Martin: "We accept the verdict of the jury [how magnanimous of them] but I would like to remind those who are evading tax by using offshore tax havens that it always makes sense to come and talk to us before we come and talk to you.”
-- answer removed --
Quite, Lord Elpus.
But if I were Mr Rednapp I’d be a bit peeved. He has just been cleared by a jury of tax evasion. Yet, on the steps of the court, the spokesman for the unsuccessful HMRC has to imply that he had evaded tax. Mr Rednapp had no cause to “come and talk to” HMRC. He had been advised by his accountants that no tax was due on the sum in question, a position he had maintained from day one. A failed Crown Court prosecution against him reinforced this contention. But the sulky Mr Martin has to continue as if they were right all along.
No contrition. No apology. No suggestion that they had it wrong. Just a warning to others who may also have acted within the law that they may get a knock on the door in the middle of the night.
But if I were Mr Rednapp I’d be a bit peeved. He has just been cleared by a jury of tax evasion. Yet, on the steps of the court, the spokesman for the unsuccessful HMRC has to imply that he had evaded tax. Mr Rednapp had no cause to “come and talk to” HMRC. He had been advised by his accountants that no tax was due on the sum in question, a position he had maintained from day one. A failed Crown Court prosecution against him reinforced this contention. But the sulky Mr Martin has to continue as if they were right all along.
No contrition. No apology. No suggestion that they had it wrong. Just a warning to others who may also have acted within the law that they may get a knock on the door in the middle of the night.
I agree with New Judge, although if Mr Redknapp's accountants advised him no tax was payable that's because he told them the same story he told the court -:) If he'd told them it was an undeclared part of his income, they wouldn't have.
The motive for prosecuting, rather than charging a tax penalty of, say, twice the tax due, was undoubtedly that the Revenue a) thought that this sort of alleged behaviour was commonplace in football. If they could get Redknapp and Mandaric jailed (and this was their second trial of him), a lot of people in football would be scared into volunteering 'oversights' and would stop this practice and b) generally,the public would think twice about keeping money in accounts abroad. For example, people sell their homes abroad, keep the proceeds, and the capital gain, in a local bank.
The motive for prosecuting, rather than charging a tax penalty of, say, twice the tax due, was undoubtedly that the Revenue a) thought that this sort of alleged behaviour was commonplace in football. If they could get Redknapp and Mandaric jailed (and this was their second trial of him), a lot of people in football would be scared into volunteering 'oversights' and would stop this practice and b) generally,the public would think twice about keeping money in accounts abroad. For example, people sell their homes abroad, keep the proceeds, and the capital gain, in a local bank.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.