they didn't need to prove it was investment capital - hmrc needed to prove it wasn't.
the burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the accused.
frankly the fact this ever got to court is a total joke - they blew £8m of taxpayers money on this failed attempt to prove a point over about £40k.
To use a poker analogy - if the pot is £40k and the bet is £8m then unless you have the absolute stone cold nuts and cannot possibly lose - you fold.
hmrc should have folded on this case years ago.
As far as i'm concerned the bosses at hmrc that allowed this farce to happen should now be sacked.
Simple - They DID evade tax, but HMRC ballsed the trial up so much they got away with it.
"they blew £8m of taxpayers money on this failed attempt to prove a point over about £40k."
-----
Wrong. Check your facts mate. £1.3m is alot different to £8m.
to clarify - yes, i think they evaded the tax - but hmrc failed spectacularly to prove that - and blew a shedload of taxpayers money in the process.
"they blew £8m of taxpayers money on this failed attempt to prove a point over about £40k."
-----
Wrong. Check your facts mate. £1.3m is alot different to £8m.
--------------------------------
I haven't bothered reading any more about it since the other day, but everywhere was reporting 8m the other day....
Yeah, a lot of poor newspapers were reporting that figure, but they were incorrect. My 'check your facts' was perhaps a little ott.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16973481
VG - yeah I saw the case cost £8m, I wonder whether they were including the Peter Storrie and other related cases in football that didn't come to trial in that number?
Time to move on boys, a jury of 12 decided it was a business venture that went wrong and that how it will stay. Both of them will have paid more tax than most people will earn in a life time.
If you want to hound people go after the benefit cheats.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Well, if they are saying it's 1.3m, and the papers are saying 8m, i'd guess it is actually somwhere in the middle, which is still ludicrous....
If they weren't certain of winning, then it shouldn't have made it to court when they were even spending the same money they were trying to recover, let alone vast amounts more.
"If you want to hound people go after the benefit cheats."
-----
Rather go after big business who avoid paying billions in tax tbh. So should HMRC.
They didn't evade tax, otherwise they would of most certainly gone down.
Basically they were able to prove that the money mandaric paid Harry was not football related and simply a gesture of friendship.
And that's £8million well wasted. Nice one
"And that's £8million well wasted. Nice one"
-----
No. It wasn't.
OP! MONEY TALKS!!! THATS HOW THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT!
MonDieu - Maybe I'm the Dragonborn and I just don't know it yet. Michael Gove is a . (U9200)
Why not?
£8million is a lot of money just because someone might of avoided tax. It never should of gone to court as they said.
£8million for nothing. Explain to me why it was worth it then?
They didn't evade tax, otherwise they would of most certainly gone down.
--------------------------------------
no, they weren't PROVED to have evaded tax.
Basically they were able to prove that the money mandaric paid Harry was not football related and simply a gesture of friendship.
-------------------------------------------
no, the hmrc failed to prove it wasn't. do you understand the law in the slightest?
And that's £8million well wasted. Nice one
-----------------------
idiot.
"£8million is a lot of money just because someone might of avoided tax."
-----
It wasn't £8m.
The City of London spent over £8 million in an exhaustive investigation which failed to yield a single conviction after five years.
Tell me that's not a waste of money.
I believe the £1.3m figure is being quoted as the cost of the trial, whilst £8m was reported as the. Cost of the investigation.
None of us know what the true costs were, but that is what I've read. Either way, £1.3m to £40k is a pretty shoddy ROI, which has now actually backfired, if this was meant to set an example.
King arry - It was closer to £1.3m. It really was.
whatever way you look at it spending even £1m to try and claim back 40k is not value for money. No one would take odds like that at the bookies.
VictorGooner™ (U2027)
So you just believe they did avoid tax, but just because they couldn't prove it, that must mean they did?
Ok, don't have to sound bitter, like everyone is saying, it never should of gone to court.
MonDieu
My second paragraph still holds.
Decspur,
You're right, it's done now, and there are better targets (not benefits cheats though, fraud in benefits is something like 0.5% of the total spend, which is actually a very low proportion.) I just wanted to know whether I had understood correctly - this has been a whitewash, and the papers are making out like it never should have been brought to trial, but surely if they were guilty of at least dodgy accounting it did need to be investigated?
It's more their lame prosecution rather than the fact that they attempted to prosecute that should be criticised right?
It wasn't a lot of money, and it does feel like they were going after the more high profile targets rather than the most guilty ones, but you still want to see all cases of fraud/tax evasion followed up.
"My second paragraph still holds."
-----
Indeed it does. Waste of money by HMRC, but hey, they're good at wasting other peoples money.
Sign in if you want to comment
Can someone explain to me...
Page 1 of 3
posted on 10/2/12
they didn't need to prove it was investment capital - hmrc needed to prove it wasn't.
the burden of proof is always on the accuser, not the accused.
frankly the fact this ever got to court is a total joke - they blew £8m of taxpayers money on this failed attempt to prove a point over about £40k.
To use a poker analogy - if the pot is £40k and the bet is £8m then unless you have the absolute stone cold nuts and cannot possibly lose - you fold.
hmrc should have folded on this case years ago.
As far as i'm concerned the bosses at hmrc that allowed this farce to happen should now be sacked.
posted on 10/2/12
Simple - They DID evade tax, but HMRC ballsed the trial up so much they got away with it.
posted on 10/2/12
"they blew £8m of taxpayers money on this failed attempt to prove a point over about £40k."
-----
Wrong. Check your facts mate. £1.3m is alot different to £8m.
posted on 10/2/12
to clarify - yes, i think they evaded the tax - but hmrc failed spectacularly to prove that - and blew a shedload of taxpayers money in the process.
posted on 10/2/12
"they blew £8m of taxpayers money on this failed attempt to prove a point over about £40k."
-----
Wrong. Check your facts mate. £1.3m is alot different to £8m.
--------------------------------
I haven't bothered reading any more about it since the other day, but everywhere was reporting 8m the other day....
posted on 10/2/12
Yeah, a lot of poor newspapers were reporting that figure, but they were incorrect. My 'check your facts' was perhaps a little ott.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16973481
posted on 10/2/12
VG - yeah I saw the case cost £8m, I wonder whether they were including the Peter Storrie and other related cases in football that didn't come to trial in that number?
posted on 10/2/12
Time to move on boys, a jury of 12 decided it was a business venture that went wrong and that how it will stay. Both of them will have paid more tax than most people will earn in a life time.
If you want to hound people go after the benefit cheats.
posted on 10/2/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/2/12
Well, if they are saying it's 1.3m, and the papers are saying 8m, i'd guess it is actually somwhere in the middle, which is still ludicrous....
If they weren't certain of winning, then it shouldn't have made it to court when they were even spending the same money they were trying to recover, let alone vast amounts more.
posted on 10/2/12
"If you want to hound people go after the benefit cheats."
-----
Rather go after big business who avoid paying billions in tax tbh. So should HMRC.
posted on 10/2/12
They didn't evade tax, otherwise they would of most certainly gone down.
Basically they were able to prove that the money mandaric paid Harry was not football related and simply a gesture of friendship.
And that's £8million well wasted. Nice one
posted on 10/2/12
"And that's £8million well wasted. Nice one"
-----
No. It wasn't.
posted on 10/2/12
OP! MONEY TALKS!!! THATS HOW THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT!
posted on 10/2/12
MonDieu - Maybe I'm the Dragonborn and I just don't know it yet. Michael Gove is a . (U9200)
Why not?
£8million is a lot of money just because someone might of avoided tax. It never should of gone to court as they said.
£8million for nothing. Explain to me why it was worth it then?
posted on 10/2/12
They didn't evade tax, otherwise they would of most certainly gone down.
--------------------------------------
no, they weren't PROVED to have evaded tax.
Basically they were able to prove that the money mandaric paid Harry was not football related and simply a gesture of friendship.
-------------------------------------------
no, the hmrc failed to prove it wasn't. do you understand the law in the slightest?
And that's £8million well wasted. Nice one
-----------------------
idiot.
posted on 10/2/12
"£8million is a lot of money just because someone might of avoided tax."
-----
It wasn't £8m.
posted on 10/2/12
The City of London spent over £8 million in an exhaustive investigation which failed to yield a single conviction after five years.
Tell me that's not a waste of money.
posted on 10/2/12
I believe the £1.3m figure is being quoted as the cost of the trial, whilst £8m was reported as the. Cost of the investigation.
None of us know what the true costs were, but that is what I've read. Either way, £1.3m to £40k is a pretty shoddy ROI, which has now actually backfired, if this was meant to set an example.
posted on 10/2/12
King arry - It was closer to £1.3m. It really was.
posted on 10/2/12
whatever way you look at it spending even £1m to try and claim back 40k is not value for money. No one would take odds like that at the bookies.
posted on 10/2/12
VictorGooner™ (U2027)
So you just believe they did avoid tax, but just because they couldn't prove it, that must mean they did?
Ok, don't have to sound bitter, like everyone is saying, it never should of gone to court.
posted on 10/2/12
MonDieu
My second paragraph still holds.
posted on 10/2/12
Decspur,
You're right, it's done now, and there are better targets (not benefits cheats though, fraud in benefits is something like 0.5% of the total spend, which is actually a very low proportion.) I just wanted to know whether I had understood correctly - this has been a whitewash, and the papers are making out like it never should have been brought to trial, but surely if they were guilty of at least dodgy accounting it did need to be investigated?
It's more their lame prosecution rather than the fact that they attempted to prosecute that should be criticised right?
It wasn't a lot of money, and it does feel like they were going after the more high profile targets rather than the most guilty ones, but you still want to see all cases of fraud/tax evasion followed up.
posted on 10/2/12
"My second paragraph still holds."
-----
Indeed it does. Waste of money by HMRC, but hey, they're good at wasting other peoples money.
Page 1 of 3