HMRC msut be fuming that Harry Redknapp is not guilty.
But shame ion them too. The 'gift' defence on the capital going into this account must have been known to them in advance and if both sides agree is hard to beat. They did agree. So they're innocent.
But surely some undeclared income must have arisen on the account? It would be amazing if it had not. If they wanted a case why didn't they prosecute on that? Now they've lost their chance. Harry is innocent. So be it.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I understand that Redknapp had signed a certificate of full disclosure previously but details of the loan were not included.
If this is the case why did HMRC not take action for signing an incorrect statement?
Again, very odd
Even baffling
I was amazed too that the claim wasn’t on the interest income. I am not a UK tax expert at all, but I would have thought that such a claim would have been much easier to prove, albeit the quantum of the alleged evasion in this case would have been smaller.
This is of course a hypothetical question as Mr Redknapp has been found not guilty
But there is no de-minimis on this offence.
Seems like a botch by HMRC to me, unless someone can explain better.
“But surely some undeclared income must have arisen on the account? It would be amazing if it had not.” Mr Murphy, I hope you’re not suggesting that Mr Redknapp, a man found innocent of tax evasion in a court of law, was in fact guilty of tax evasion? Or if you are, I hope you can afford a good libel lawyer.
As for HMRC fuming: yes, must be terribly frustrating for them that the UK is a democratic country where people are innocent of tax evasion unless proved guilty before a jury of their peers. Wouldn’t happen like that if you had your way, eh?
I have said redknapp has been found innocent.
My discussion was of HMRC’s approach
Maybe an account with £189,000 in it did not generate any declarable income – if so then there was no reason for them to prosecute on that basis
I merely said that would be surprising and wondered why they did not take that to court if they were so keen to do so
He was not tried on this point. So we’ll never know. But discussing the basis of prosecution is not a libel – I’m not saying anyone is guilty.
I hope you aren’t either
Indeed I am not, Mr Murphy. I am entirely confident that the right decision has been reached in this case and am pleased that Mr Redknapp has emerged from court without a stain on his character.
From what I read, Redknapp did declare the investment income on the account to HMRC post declaring the account to the footballer investigation (I suppose that he then realised that information might get to HMRC). He supposed also let HMRC that tax may not have been paid on the payments into his account.
How on earth has he been found innocent on this, he recieved income on which he didn’t pay tax, how can a gift be a defense esp when there is an employer employee relationship?
So are you saying Redknapp committed a criminal offence by not declaring offshore interest? Have you seen his Return? Even if he hadn’t declared it the tax on such amounts would be so small it wouldn’t be worth prosecuting. The legal fees would probably have exceeded any tax recovered.
I am saying the Revenue’s approach seems odd
That’s all
It’s probably worth looking at the certificate Redknapp would probably have been asked to sign.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/scigmanual/SCIG30120.htm
Which starts:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that to the best of my knowledge and belief, I have made a complete disclosure to you of:-
1 all banking accounts (whether current or deposit, business or private), all savings and loan accounts, deposit receipts, and Building and Co-operative Society accounts:-
On the reverse it states:
If at some later date it is found that the statements were materially incorrect HM Revenue & Customs will take a serious view of the false completion of the certificate and any loss of tax which may have arisen as a result.
and finally:
False statements can result in prosecution.
As a general principle, prosecutions for criminal offences are not there to “recover” amounts.
They are the to punish for criminal offences.
Redknapp is innocent, we all agree that.
But the motive behind a criminal prosecution is hardly ever recovery of assets.
The same as prosecuting a murder is not to bring the victim back to life
I see that HMRC are cracking-down on serious tax evasion……
“The taxman has launched another crackdown, getting tough on another swathe of people who may well think they are doing nothing wrong – or at least assume that they are getting away with a minor infraction of the rules.
This time there’s bad news for people who sell on eBay and Avon ladies – along with anyone who has paid a builder or electrician in cash to avoid paying additional tax”
http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/02/08/hmrc-on-warpath-ebayers-beware/
Nothing about paying football managers in cash…..
Another little funny:
“Dave Harnett of HMRC was fairly predictable in his outrage. As a taxman, he’s bound to get pretty hot under the collar about tradesmen taking cash in order to avoid paying some or all of the tax on the sum you have paid.
In an interview with the Daily Telegraph he laid it on pretty thick, about how people were denying the cash from public services, and that they had no-one to blame for themselves that the government was having to make more cuts as a result.
He said: “Tax provides the funding to run the country: hospitals, schools and everything else”. “Every time someone pays cash in order not to pay VAT, the nation gets diddled.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9043087/Paying-cash-in-hand-is-diddling-the-country-says-HMRCs-Dave-Hartnett.html
Scary isn’t it?
And perfectly targeted to miss the City
Why not integrate all forms of income into one tax, which would avoid the gift defence anyway?
Because it wouldn’t work?
That’s the best reason
That is a good reason. Would you be able to point me to any literature/provide an explanation as to why?
I realise it would push people towards giving gifts of less detectable types in order to avoid the tax, but is there anything other than this?
OK, but perhaps it was just a test case. Would guess “gifts” are quite common in football.
Maybe
Why?
When did you last give someone a grand?
if only I had it to give!!!
You have to remember that football clubs are run by individuals who typically have immense personal wealth. And not too many clubs are run on a traditional business model.
I suppose you might also consider some of the comments Mr Redknap came out with in court.
After which you might conclude footballers don’t live in the “real world”.
Dear RM
My employer likes me very much, he wants to pay me a nice big gift, can he pay it tax free into my Offshore bank account, in the name of my cat?
Sure
No problem now
Hi RM
Payments into an offshore bank account- I always reckon if it looks like a duck,swims like a duck and quacks like a duck- it is a duck- don’t you?
Unless it’s a gift….
Stephen if only it were that simple. As a keen birder I can confirm that there are many birds that look like ducks, swim like them and even make sounds like them but they are in fact something completely different. Tax can be made even more complicated than identifying birds.
I was aghast when it transpired the only real evidence in this case was a discussion with a newspaper reporter. In my experience matters connected with journalists are the kiss of death with respect to accurate reporting about tax matters.
The Revenue prosecution effort went downhill from the day when Ken Dodd got off some 25 years ago. Surprise surprise the Liverpool EB group leader in charge of the case that day was Dave Hartnett. The man has been the kiss of death to deterring tax abuse ever since and this is a fitting epitaph for him.
Well said