Football » English » Open Discussion

Harry Redknapp

By heddo - 27-01-2012 01:50

Does anybody think he could get jail, he is saying he is illiterate, how is that going to look on his CV for the England job,I looked at the Lester Piggott case, he got 3 years jail and served a year, he channeled money into secret accounts abroad and lied on claim forms, and kept his accountant in the dark about it, although the amount of money is smaller with Redknapp, it seems that he has done a similar stunt to Piggott, I cant believe he could be so foolish, but he does seem to have a bit of front to his character, the outcome will be interesting, i would not be surprised in this day and age, if he bounces out of court, lands on his feet, walks out smelling of roses,gets the England job and makes a killing from a book deal.. here is a snippett from the piggott case.. Piggott, whose personal fortune is estimated at £20m, is said to have used different names to channel his earnings in secret bank accounts in Switzerland, the Bahamas, Singapore and the Cayman Islands they are saying that Redknapp used the name of his dog to open an offshore account.. woof woof..Does anybody think he could get jail, he is saying he is illiterate, how is that going to look on his CV for the England job,I looked at the Lester Piggott case, he got 3 years jail and served a year, he channeled money into secret accounts abroad and lied on claim forms, and kept his accountant in the dark about it, although the amount of money is smaller with Redknapp, it seems that he has done a similar stunt to Piggott, I cant believe he could be so foolish, but he does seem to have a bit of front to his character, the outcome will be interesting, i would not be surprised in this day and age, if he bounces out of court, lands on his feet, walks out smelling of roses,gets the England job and makes a killing from a book deal..

here is a snippett from the piggott case..



Piggott, whose personal fortune is estimated at £20m, is said to have used different names to channel his earnings in secret bank accounts in Switzerland, the Bahamas, Singapore and the Cayman Islands

they are saying that Redknapp used the name of his dog to open an offshore account.. woof woof..

 

Page 1

 

Reply

Last Message

Re: Harry Redknapp

By matttombstone - 27-01-2012 22:50

[BotP]

On a similar note. Did anyone see Mancini wave imaginary tax return forms at him during the City V Spurs match?On a similar note.

Did anyone see Mancini wave imaginary tax return forms at him during the City V Spurs match?

Re: Harry Redknapp

By madmonk - 28-01-2012 02:13

[BotP]

Of course Matt that's just a customary Italian gesture, similar to Greece where nobody pays any tax. The FA will not touch 'Arry with a bargepole, they hated that side of things with Venables.Of course Matt that's just a customary Italian gesture, similar to Greece where nobody pays any tax.

The FA will not touch 'Arry with a bargepole, they hated that side of things with Venables.

Re: Harry Redknapp

By nomercyurz - 28-01-2012 19:09

[BotP]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/20/hmrc-tax-avoidance-industry I like 'Arry and I think it stinks that HMRC are going after him for £200,000 in a Monaco bank account, if I had 200K I would get it abroad, shame I only have about £2, what interest on savings do you get in the uk 1% rubbish. And yet HMRC can waive a £25 billion, yes billion, tax bill for big business and banking fat cats and the rich who can influence, wine and dine politicians and the top HMRC officials. Makes me think it is HMRC that is corrupt and needs to be investigated, leave the 'Arry alone and take your cronies to court HMRC. The public accounts committee report on the operations of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is a damning indictment of the Treasury and tax officials. Some £25.5bn remains uncollected from disputes with 2,700 companies. The amounts are bigger than the budget for the secondary education or transport. HMRC has entered into sweetheart deals that let multinational corporations off the hook, but there is little public accountability. Two deals have made newspaper headlines. The tax dispute with Vodafone was rumoured to be for around £6bn. HMRC and Vodafone denied this amount, but the committee noted that the company's accounts set aside around £2.2bn to meet its liability. It eventually settled for about £1.25bn. The second deal with Goldman Sachs related to unpaid tax on complex transactions and the company was not required to pay interest which had been expected to amount between £8m and £20m. A major problem is that all deals are shrouded in secrecy, and therefore it is difficult to judge the efficiency and effectiveness of HMRC. The committee draws attention to numerous potential conflicts of interests and lunch/dinner meetings between the HMRC officials and corporate advisers to agree deals. Many of these meetings were not minuted, and where the minutes existed they were often not available. In the face of persistent questions from the committee, HMRC officials often sought refuge in confidentiality. The committee concluded that "there is a question about whether HMRC acted within the law and within its protocols" and that the government procedures lack the independence and transparency needed to provide sufficient assurance to parliament. Despite, this the National Audit Office has generally given a good write-up to HMRC. The committee's report raises three broad questions. First, in common with other parliamentary hearings, the public accounts committee hearings made good theatre, but were not really effective. Leading witnesses, often briefed by lawyers, declined to provide the requisite information. This should be countered by forcing witnesses to provide evidence on oath. Rather than relying on goodwill the committee should insist on the evidence. Second, the committee's report is short on meaningful reforms. Instead of the so-called independent review of sweetheart deals, or bureaucrats reviewing the work of other bureaucrats, it should have empowered the people. Thus the tax returns of all companies and related correspondence should be made publicly available. The disclosures will enable the people to make their judgment on complex avoidance schemes and secret deals reached with tax officials. Norway, Sweden and Finland already publish corporate tax returns in various forms and the same should be adopted by the UK too. Third, the committee laments HMRC's cosy relationship with large companies, but is silent on the cosiness with the tax avoidance industry. It notes that HMRC officials attended numerous lunches, dinners and receptions organised by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst & Young. The lavish hospitality is organised to promote private interests rather than enhance HMRC accountability. Many former ministers act as advisers to big accounting firms. For example, Labour grandee Lord Peter Mandelson has been an adviser to Ernst & Young. Former ministers Lord Digby Jones and Lord Norman Warner of Brockley have been advisers to Deloitte. Former Labour home secretary Jacqui Smith is a consultant for KPMG. Former Conservative minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind has been an adviser to PwC. Do such political links skew the relationship between government departments and the private sector? The links between the big accountancy firms and the Treasury attract no comments from the committee. For example, former PwC staffer Mark Hoban is the current financial secretary to the Treasury. Sir Nicholas Montagu, one-time chief of the Inland Revenue, joined PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2004 before moving on to other lucrative commercial appointments. PwC partner Richard Abadie has been the head of private finance initiative policy at the Treasury. In June 2009, former PwC partner Amyas Morse was appointed UK comptroller and auditor general and became responsible for directing the National Audit Office. Former PwC tax partner John Whiting is the director of the newly established Office of Tax Simplification, advising the government on simplification of tax laws. Chris Tailby, one-time tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers became head (until 2009) of anti-avoidance at HMRC. In July 2010, partners from KPMG, Ernst & Young, Grant Thornton and BDO became members of the government appointed Tax Professionals Forum and help shape the UK tax laws. Unsurprisingly, little progress is made on curtailing tax avoidance. The revolving doors must raise questions about the cosiness with the tax avoidance industry and HMRC's willingness to do secretive deals. Yet the committee raises no questions.http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/20/hmrc-tax-avoidance-industry

I like 'Arry and I think it stinks that HMRC are going after him for £200,000 in a Monaco bank account, if I had 200K I would get it abroad, shame I only have about £2, what interest on savings do you get in the uk 1% rubbish. And yet HMRC can waive a £25 billion, yes billion, tax bill for big business and banking fat cats and the rich who can influence, wine and dine politicians and the top HMRC officials. Makes me think it is HMRC that is corrupt and needs to be investigated, leave the 'Arry alone and take your cronies to court HMRC.

The public accounts committee report on the operations of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is a damning indictment of the Treasury and tax officials. Some £25.5bn remains uncollected from disputes with 2,700 companies. The amounts are bigger than the budget for the secondary education or transport.

HMRC has entered into sweetheart deals that let multinational corporations off the hook, but there is little public accountability. Two deals have made newspaper headlines. The tax dispute with Vodafone was rumoured to be for around £6bn. HMRC and Vodafone denied this amount, but the committee noted that the company's accounts set aside around £2.2bn to meet its liability. It eventually settled for about £1.25bn. The second deal with Goldman Sachs related to unpaid tax on complex transactions and the company was not required to pay interest which had been expected to amount between £8m and £20m.

A major problem is that all deals are shrouded in secrecy, and therefore it is difficult to judge the efficiency and effectiveness of HMRC. The committee draws attention to numerous potential conflicts of interests and lunch/dinner meetings between the HMRC officials and corporate advisers to agree deals. Many of these meetings were not minuted, and where the minutes existed they were often not available. In the face of persistent questions from the committee, HMRC officials often sought refuge in confidentiality. The committee concluded that "there is a question about whether HMRC acted within the law and within its protocols" and that the government procedures lack the independence and transparency needed to provide sufficient assurance to parliament. Despite, this the National Audit Office has generally given a good write-up to HMRC.

The committee's report raises three broad questions. First, in common with other parliamentary hearings, the public accounts committee hearings made good theatre, but were not really effective. Leading witnesses, often briefed by lawyers, declined to provide the requisite information. This should be countered by forcing witnesses to provide evidence on oath. Rather than relying on goodwill the committee should insist on the evidence.

Second, the committee's report is short on meaningful reforms. Instead of the so-called independent review of sweetheart deals, or bureaucrats reviewing the work of other bureaucrats, it should have empowered the people. Thus the tax returns of all companies and related correspondence should be made publicly available. The disclosures will enable the people to make their judgment on complex avoidance schemes and secret deals reached with tax officials. Norway, Sweden and Finland already publish corporate tax returns in various forms and the same should be adopted by the UK too.

Third, the committee laments HMRC's cosy relationship with large companies, but is silent on the cosiness with the tax avoidance industry. It notes that HMRC officials attended numerous lunches, dinners and receptions organised by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), KPMG, Deloitte and Ernst & Young. The lavish hospitality is organised to promote private interests rather than enhance HMRC accountability.

Many former ministers act as advisers to big accounting firms. For example, Labour grandee Lord Peter Mandelson has been an adviser to Ernst & Young. Former ministers Lord Digby Jones and Lord Norman Warner of Brockley have been advisers to Deloitte. Former Labour home secretary Jacqui Smith is a consultant for KPMG. Former Conservative minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind has been an adviser to PwC. Do such political links skew the relationship between government departments and the private sector?

The links between the big accountancy firms and the Treasury attract no comments from the committee. For example, former PwC staffer Mark Hoban is the current financial secretary to the Treasury. Sir Nicholas Montagu, one-time chief of the Inland Revenue, joined PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2004 before moving on to other lucrative commercial appointments. PwC partner Richard Abadie has been the head of private finance initiative policy at the Treasury. In June 2009, former PwC partner Amyas Morse was appointed UK comptroller and auditor general and became responsible for directing the National Audit Office. Former PwC tax partner John Whiting is the director of the newly established Office of Tax Simplification, advising the government on simplification of tax laws. Chris Tailby, one-time tax partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers became head (until 2009) of anti-avoidance at HMRC. In July 2010, partners from KPMG, Ernst & Young, Grant Thornton and BDO became members of the government appointed Tax Professionals Forum and help shape the UK tax laws.

Unsurprisingly, little progress is made on curtailing tax avoidance. The revolving doors must raise questions about the cosiness with the tax avoidance industry and HMRC's willingness to do secretive deals. Yet the committee raises no questions.

Re: Harry Redknapp

By emirates06 - 03-02-2012 06:04

He should if he's convicted. I mean, just because he is some football manager, a famous celebrity, doesn't mean he's above the law.He should if he's convicted. I mean, just because he is some football manager, a famous celebrity, doesn't mean he's above the law.

Re: Harry Redknapp

By jamie1976 - 03-02-2012 11:22

[ENG]

Of course the HMRC and politicians are corrupt, they only do the job for the kick backs. I doubt Harry will go to nick, however I would like to dig up one corpse. "Who is the last man to ride a 3 time Grand National Winner" "Lestor Piggott's cell mate" I thank you! I am here every Friday, try the fish :-)Of course the HMRC and politicians are corrupt, they only do the job for the kick backs.

I doubt Harry will go to nick, however I would like to dig up one corpse.

"Who is the last man to ride a 3 time Grand National Winner"

"Lestor Piggott's cell mate"

I thank you! I am here every Friday, try the fish :-)

Re: Harry Redknapp

By nomercyurz - 03-02-2012 12:39

[BotP]

cue tumble-weed and echoey whistling windcue tumble-weed and echoey whistling wind

Re: Harry Redknapp

By heddo - 08-02-2012 20:15

they both walked free from court today ,they both walked free from court today ,

Re: Harry Redknapp

By apwall21 - 08-02-2012 22:20

So, the concern on the ballot is; What happened was "tax loophole" or "tax evasion?" There is nothing wrong with having multiple accounts for yourself in multiple nations, and under different names. Anyone who tells you that someone else should be able to easily track your individual wealth, without your permission and assistance, should probably have their noggin checked, as they seem to believe this is a wholly honest world. There is only something "wrong" when you don't pay taxes you owe.So, the concern on the ballot is; What happened was "tax loophole" or "tax evasion?"

There is nothing wrong with having multiple accounts for yourself in multiple nations, and under different names. Anyone who tells you that someone else should be able to easily track your individual wealth, without your permission and assistance, should probably have their noggin checked, as they seem to believe this is a wholly honest world.

There is only something "wrong" when you don't pay taxes you owe.

 

Page 1