Comparing Sir Ken to the less fortunate Lester Piggott, it just shows how important it still is to be liked.
Replies (9)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
Heh - even Sir Ken had the gumption not to pay an investigation settlement cheque on a bank account that was not listed in the asset list in the full disclosure statement. Or was that an urban myth?
With kind regards
Clint Westwood
No, it's not an urban myth.
I worked for HMRC in the 70's. An Inspector told us about the end of an investigation, where the tax lost had been agreed, the taxpayer offered to pay straight away and passed a cheque to the Inspector.
As the taxpayer stood up to leave the Inspector asked him to sit down again and tell him about the (undeclared) account the cheque related to.
I saw him, in 1982, having lunch at Heathrow airport. I was with my mother and father in law and, father in law kept suggesting that I speak to him. My reaction was that, everyone was entitled lunch in peace and, we left him to it.
I then met him, some years later, at a local BBC radio station and, always the comedian, as we ended our discussion, he remarked - "it's been an education meeting you" - "it's taught me a lesson"!
I gather they've given an award to an HMRC official so, at least all the "comedians" have been rewarded?
An opportune time to mention some lines he used in his act after his run-in with HMRC -
"When Income Tax was first introduced it was at the rate of 2p in the £.... my problem was that I thought it still was that rate"
(paraphrasing slightly)
This thread cropped up on a search today.
I recall Sir Ken making a comment about tax - always be careful what you say in jest .... unless you are a comedy legend, of course!
As it happens I knew the tax inspector responsible for the investigation into his affairs. His career ran into something of a roadblock after that.
He seems to have had the last laugh on the taxman, getting married last Friday presumably to achieve IPDI (with wide powers of appointment) IHT deathbed planning.
[Edit] It seems that this IHT scheme just got a bit simpler per the link below:
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/sexual-relationship-not-necessary-for-a...