Harry Redknapp to stand trial for tax evasion

Tottenham Hotspur manager Harry Redknapp will stand trial in January for allegedly evading tax on £180,000 of his earnings.

Redknapp is accused of two counts of cheating the public revenue between 2002 and 2007 when he was at Portsmouth Football Club.

He will stand trial alongside former Portsmouth chairman Milan Mandaric, both of whom have always denied the charges. 

Upon his arrest last year Redknapp released the following statement though his solicitor: “Harry has co-operated fully with investigators during the course of this inquiry and is confident of a successful outcome to these court proceedings”.

The Crown alleges that the payments were made “with intent to defraud and to the prejudice of HM Revenue and Customs as a result of or in connection with Henry James Redknapp’s employment and as a reward for services.”

Continued...

» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.

Comments
JCresswellTax's picture

Removed for legal reasons

JCresswellTax | | Permalink

Previous comment removed on advice.

samelkin's picture

Innocent till proven guilty..

samelkin | | Permalink

Innocent till proven guilty...

(and no, I'm not a Spurs fan!)

carnmores's picture

well you removed one for the right reasons at last

carnmores | | Permalink

its probabaly sub judice but the court has important matters to decide - it will be interesting to see how the judge directs the jury on matters of law. is it possible that non contractual  payments from a company participator to an employee fall outside the remit of income (or possibly ) other taxes - the fact that they went to an offshore account may or may not be material 

Kent accountant's picture

Small potatoes

Kent accountant | | Permalink

A drop in the Ocean compared to how much he earns, I wonder what the real issue is...?

listerramjet's picture

shame on you

listerramjet | | Permalink

"Redknapp will need to be totally exonerated in the trial to have any chance of becoming the next England manager".  What on earth does "totally exonerated" mean.  The court will find him either guilty or not guilty.  And what on earth does this case have to do with him becoming or not becoming the next England Manager, or even the one after, or the one after the one after.   Talk about sensationalist nonsense.

johnjenkins's picture

What a waste

johnjenkins | | Permalink

of public money. Ken Dodd all over again. (not Lester Piggot). Perhaps it's just a frightener to others. I still prefer brown envelopes in motorway service stations!

Why

The Black Knight | | Permalink

 Why do these cases take so long to get to court ? There are only two transactions ? are there not ?

Great statement

NBWNBW | | Permalink

“Harry has co-operated fully with investigators during the course of this inquiry and is confident of a successful outcome to these court proceedings”. 

I'm confident there will be a successful outcome too - successful for which side though, that is the question!

 

However it's phrased, I agree that this case has the potential to thawrt Harry's ambitions to be England manager.  Why was Terry Venables not given a second chance?

Time to get into court...

Trevor Scott | | Permalink

... HMRC often take a long time to get into court. I don't think there is one reason, it could be an inability to find a barrister who will take a case on, a wish that time will permit an inspector a method to "persuade" the taxpayer to withdraw or give way, waiting for evidence to be "created",  or it can just be that the file is delayed in the system (between umpteen officers/desks).