The judgment of HMRC officials and the City of London Police was questioned and Harry Redknapp’s barrister was reported to be demanding an investigation after the Tottenham manager and Milan Mandaric, the former Portsmouth chairman, were acquitted of cheating the public revenue.
The judgment of HMRC officials and the City of London Police was questioned and Harry Redknapp’s barrister was reported to be demanding an investigation after the Tottenham manager and Milan Mandaric, the former Portsmouth chairman, were acquitted of cheating the public revenue.
‘John Kelsey-Fry QC has called for an investigation into the huge wasted cost of bringing the tax evasion case to court, which he estimates could amount to as much as £10m,’ the Daily Mail reported.
The paper quoted Kelsey-Fry as saying: ‘If you look at the logic of the case none of it made sense. It’s one of those things where if you sit down and think about it, you know there is something not right there.’
An HMRC spokeswoman told Tax Journal this morning that the figure of £10m was ‘not one that we recognise’. Estimating the total costs would be difficult, she said, because the City of London Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were also involved and HMRC investigators were running other investigations in parallel with this case.
The Guardian
Chris Martin, HMRC’s Assistant Director, Criminal Investigations, said yesterday that he had ‘no regrets’ about pursuing the case. It was, he said, ‘vitally important’ that the facts were put before a jury for their consideration’.
But a leading article in The Times noted that ‘as the poverty of the case mounted by HMRC slowly unfolded, one was left to wonder why, if it was seeking to open up the murky finances of football, HMRC had chosen to start here’.
It was ‘not stupid’ for HMRC to investigate football’s finance, The Times argued, especially when large sums were involved. ‘But to open that inquiry with such a poor case against a very popular target shows questionable judgment at HMRC.’
High profile prosecutions for alleged tax evasion are rare, and HMRC now offers a ‘contractual disclosure facility’ for taxpayers who want to own up to committing tax fraud. In return for a full disclosure, HMRC undertakes ‘not to criminally investigate and prosecute you’.
Commentators have questioned why HMRC chose to pursue a prosecution, rather than a civil investigation in which HMRC collects unpaid tax, interest and penalties.
Lord Sugar, the former Tottenham chairman, told BBC Radio 5 live that an attempt by the authorities to make an example out of a high profile person had ‘backfired’. In the end, he said, ‘they’ve got egg on their face’.
The case had cost ‘a lot of public money’. HMRC had to apply the law to everyone equally, he said. ‘But normally, if someone is accused of tax evasion, the Revenue tends not to want to go this far. They like to do a deal and get the money.’
City of London Police
‘The City of London Police and HMRC will be red-faced at their failure to make a charge of relatively small-scale evasion stick,’ said an editorial in The Guardian.
The force’s ‘determination’ to pursue an inquiry for so long was ‘troubling’, it said. ‘But it is not the most troubling aspect of the whole affair. The fundamental question is: why these prosecutions, and not others? Why football and racing, and why not the bankers and the traders, some suspected of criminal negligence, some whose activities have impoverished the nation?’
The City of London Police said in a statement that it was in the public interest to investigate allegations that impacted on the reputation of the business of football. The case was ‘typical of tax-related cases’ on which it worked with HMRC.
The trial ‘followed an HMRC investigation, which began after an earlier City of London Police inquiry identified possible tax related offences and referred the matter to the HMRC.’
The force added: ‘HMRC’s investigations prompted the Crown Prosecution Service to recommend in January 2010 that Harry Redknapp and Milan Mandaric be charged with cheating the public revenue. Protracted legal proceedings meant the pair did not stand trial until January 2012.’
Detective Superintendent Bob Wishart said: ‘City of London Police respects the verdicts of the jury. Officers will sometimes uncover evidence of potential tax offences, which we will pass on to the HMRC. We have supported HMRC throughout this investigation and will continue to work closely with them in the future.’
HMRC’s Chris Martin added: ‘We accept the verdict of the jury but I would like to remind those who are evading tax by using offshore tax havens that it always makes sense to come forward and talk to us before we come to talk to you.
‘Tax evasion is not a victimless crime because every penny of tax evaded reduces the UK’s ability to pay down the deficit and support our public services. That is why we relentlessly pursue those we believe are evading tax.’
The judgment of HMRC officials and the City of London Police was questioned and Harry Redknapp’s barrister was reported to be demanding an investigation after the Tottenham manager and Milan Mandaric, the former Portsmouth chairman, were acquitted of cheating the public revenue.
The judgment of HMRC officials and the City of London Police was questioned and Harry Redknapp’s barrister was reported to be demanding an investigation after the Tottenham manager and Milan Mandaric, the former Portsmouth chairman, were acquitted of cheating the public revenue.
‘John Kelsey-Fry QC has called for an investigation into the huge wasted cost of bringing the tax evasion case to court, which he estimates could amount to as much as £10m,’ the Daily Mail reported.
The paper quoted Kelsey-Fry as saying: ‘If you look at the logic of the case none of it made sense. It’s one of those things where if you sit down and think about it, you know there is something not right there.’
An HMRC spokeswoman told Tax Journal this morning that the figure of £10m was ‘not one that we recognise’. Estimating the total costs would be difficult, she said, because the City of London Police and the Crown Prosecution Service were also involved and HMRC investigators were running other investigations in parallel with this case.
The Guardian
Chris Martin, HMRC’s Assistant Director, Criminal Investigations, said yesterday that he had ‘no regrets’ about pursuing the case. It was, he said, ‘vitally important’ that the facts were put before a jury for their consideration’.
But a leading article in The Times noted that ‘as the poverty of the case mounted by HMRC slowly unfolded, one was left to wonder why, if it was seeking to open up the murky finances of football, HMRC had chosen to start here’.
It was ‘not stupid’ for HMRC to investigate football’s finance, The Times argued, especially when large sums were involved. ‘But to open that inquiry with such a poor case against a very popular target shows questionable judgment at HMRC.’
High profile prosecutions for alleged tax evasion are rare, and HMRC now offers a ‘contractual disclosure facility’ for taxpayers who want to own up to committing tax fraud. In return for a full disclosure, HMRC undertakes ‘not to criminally investigate and prosecute you’.
Commentators have questioned why HMRC chose to pursue a prosecution, rather than a civil investigation in which HMRC collects unpaid tax, interest and penalties.
Lord Sugar, the former Tottenham chairman, told BBC Radio 5 live that an attempt by the authorities to make an example out of a high profile person had ‘backfired’. In the end, he said, ‘they’ve got egg on their face’.
The case had cost ‘a lot of public money’. HMRC had to apply the law to everyone equally, he said. ‘But normally, if someone is accused of tax evasion, the Revenue tends not to want to go this far. They like to do a deal and get the money.’
City of London Police
‘The City of London Police and HMRC will be red-faced at their failure to make a charge of relatively small-scale evasion stick,’ said an editorial in The Guardian.
The force’s ‘determination’ to pursue an inquiry for so long was ‘troubling’, it said. ‘But it is not the most troubling aspect of the whole affair. The fundamental question is: why these prosecutions, and not others? Why football and racing, and why not the bankers and the traders, some suspected of criminal negligence, some whose activities have impoverished the nation?’
The City of London Police said in a statement that it was in the public interest to investigate allegations that impacted on the reputation of the business of football. The case was ‘typical of tax-related cases’ on which it worked with HMRC.
The trial ‘followed an HMRC investigation, which began after an earlier City of London Police inquiry identified possible tax related offences and referred the matter to the HMRC.’
The force added: ‘HMRC’s investigations prompted the Crown Prosecution Service to recommend in January 2010 that Harry Redknapp and Milan Mandaric be charged with cheating the public revenue. Protracted legal proceedings meant the pair did not stand trial until January 2012.’
Detective Superintendent Bob Wishart said: ‘City of London Police respects the verdicts of the jury. Officers will sometimes uncover evidence of potential tax offences, which we will pass on to the HMRC. We have supported HMRC throughout this investigation and will continue to work closely with them in the future.’
HMRC’s Chris Martin added: ‘We accept the verdict of the jury but I would like to remind those who are evading tax by using offshore tax havens that it always makes sense to come forward and talk to us before we come to talk to you.
‘Tax evasion is not a victimless crime because every penny of tax evaded reduces the UK’s ability to pay down the deficit and support our public services. That is why we relentlessly pursue those we believe are evading tax.’
