how Harry Redknapp and Milan Mandaric were not guilty of tax evasion?
First I'd like to say I'm a big fan of Harry Redknapp, I think he should be next England manager, and I really like what he did with Bournemouth (my dad's team). But I don't understand how you can set up an offshore account, accept payments that aren't declared for tax, and then when it goes to court simply turn around and say, "no that was for investment purposes, it was seed capital and is exempt from tax", without providing documentation to show this.
At the very least the taxpayer should expect tax to now be paid on that amount, and the court costs to be covered, because it was their non-declaration that made this a trial-worthy case. I'm fed up with the rich and famous not having to pay their taxes just because they can get an expensive lawyer and some character witnesses to testify what nice people they are. If you don't pay your taxes, then you should be punished. If I set up a Swiss account and tried to circumvent my tax, HMRC would not accept my argument that I was "investing in myself" and my mate's testimony that "I'm a great guy".
If I have got this wrong, please put me straight, because I haven't seen any evidence that they didn't evade tax.
Can someone explain to me...
posted on 10/2/12
Well yours get deleted by the mods as they are worthless
posted on 10/2/12
Erm, more likely they got deleted because they suggested Mr Redknapp is of less than honest pedigree.
Given his history, someone could argue this point, although they would need some decent proof to avoid libelling themselves and/or giving a mod any real reason to remove their post.
You, on the other hand, appear to just rely on calling people names and writing nosensical posts while ignoring anyting in the real world based purely on the football team you support. A curious position to take.
"I would bet lot of money that your past and present are a lot more murky than harrys"
I mean that's just ludicrous, and if I was so inclined I'd report it to the mods. Oh, and you'd almost certainly lose 'a lot of money'.
posted on 10/2/12
Report to the mods all you like you muppet
Your like a bad smell hanging around on our board
posted on 10/2/12
They're not guilty because they were within the law.
However, the account was obviously opened up to save money on tax, just not from bungs. So basically, 'arry is still paying less tax just on bonuses instead of bungs, which somehow makes everything OK.
I don't understand why it is that the richer you are, the more you try to get out of paying tax. Now 'arry is a hero and everyone want's him as manager. It baffles me quite frankly, but it is the way of the world.
posted on 10/2/12
Jeez, it's it kid's hour? It's on Arsenal and Spurs board you infantile buffoon.
And besides, I showered this morning.
posted on 10/2/12
I think we all know if the facts were exactly the same but the man on trial was a banker, the verdict wouldn't have been the same.
posted on 10/2/12
Well you still smell from here ,
Bitter little gooooner
Mind the gap
posted on 10/2/12
Well, at least the point in my first post (now removed) is well and truly proven, you really have absolutely nothing to say. I'm sure Spurs fans are cringing reading your wonderful posts, a real poster boy for the WHL faithful.
posted on 10/2/12
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/12
Harry was not guilty, yes, but the fact remains that he has a bank account in monaco, in his dog's name, to prevent himself having to pay as much tax as he otherwise would. If that money came from bungs or bonuses matters to the law, but it still means that 'arry thinks that the country that has set him up so well for life doesn't deserve to be paid back money in tax for his bonuses. The rich get richer...