Didn't find your answer?

Replies (19)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

VAT
By Jason Croke
18th May 2021 17:03

So instead of me raising an invoice for services, if you can just gift me some money out of the goodness of your heart, then that's not income

Para 46 also sets out the view of the Court, but the takeaway here is don't cross rich people, they can afford much better lawyers (even if you are a lawyer yourself).

You'd think it would have been easier to pay the tax and settle rather than have your entire reputation discredited and your washing aired quite openly in this public document.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Jason Croke:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
18th May 2021 17:25

Jason Croke wrote:

So instead of me raising an invoice for services, if you can just gift me some money out of the goodness of your heart, then that's not income


Why should it be income? If it's a genuine gift out of the goodness of one's heart then it is, by definition, not a reward for services. If it is a reward for services then it cannot be, by definition, a genuine gift out the goodness of one's heart. The issue here for the Tribunal was to determine which one it was.

(I'd be interested to know which aspect - if not all of it - Justin finds to be almost unbelievable.)

Thanks (2)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
VAT
By Jason Croke
18th May 2021 19:52

Suspect the unbelievable aspect is almost all the evidence presented which was incredulous, made up, based on hearsay or outright lie - the Court mentions several times how dishonest (but intelligent) the guy is.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Jason Croke:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
18th May 2021 20:03

Possibly. But I consider all of that to be absolutely unbelievable - not almost unbelievable.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By frankfx
18th May 2021 17:00

i wonder if the gifts have appreciated in value, after auction fees and tax that is , to at least satisfy the penalty.Poor lawyer?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Paul Crowley
18th May 2021 17:07

Just read about this on Accountancy daily
Holiday of 217,000 Euros
Was he eating from a Bar B Q that would only accept currency for fuel?

Noted that person 'gifting' chose not to get involved. Now why would that be? Perhaps not a rich Auntie after all.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Paul Crowley:
By Paul D Utherone
19th May 2021 12:25

It was for a family of 8 all travelling business class to Mauritius according to the case, so...

Makes interesting reading for the scorn poured on claims :)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By frankfx
18th May 2021 17:29

Unbelievable or unethical or both.

I expect the SRA to express a view.

Were the gifts outside IHT regime, and did lawyer advise on that?

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
18th May 2021 20:25

Since, from past experience, our views of what is unbelievable has often disagreed, are you willing to expand on your view Justin?

I may actually agree with you, but without knowing your view on the matter it is hard to have a sensible discussion.

Thanks (1)
Replying to stepurhan:
By Duggimon
19th May 2021 09:20

I would not find it unbelievable to learn Justin thinks that Mr Mullens being taxed on these gifts is unbelievable.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
19th May 2021 12:29

You can blame the edit block for not allowing me to expand above, but it's all pretty self-evident to me (I would love to have watched taxpayer's counsel trying to keep a straight face during their submissions and yes; it was hardly surprising there was no supporting witness evidence despite there being c£30m tax, penalties & interest at stake - is that an IT record?). I recall this similar “tax-free gift” scandal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16304765

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/feb/17/david-mills-berlusconi-...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/feb/17/jowell-mills-berlusconi...

Also, this would seem germane: https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/business-income-manual/bim100115

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
19th May 2021 12:48

Justin Bryant wrote:
it's all pretty self-evident to me

That goes without saying. What was not evident to anyone else (myself, at least) is which aspect(s) you find almost unbelievable. The fact that the claimant thought that he could get away with it? The fact that the 'holiday payment' escaped a charge to tax? The fact that the other payments were assessable? Or what?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Wilson Philips:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
19th May 2021 13:11

Re anyone other than BE (or similar) I mean, obviously.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
19th May 2021 13:44

Justin Bryant wrote:

You can blame the edit block for not allowing me to expand above


I could, but since I've already pointed out to you several times that is nonsense, I won't. (Hint. Write outside the site and then copy paste)

Also, as has already been said, you haven't explained "your" view. In the past our views of what is self-evident have differed greatly. Without knowing what your view is in this case I don't know if that is the case here.

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
03rd Oct 2023 12:39

Unsurprisingly he lost his UT appeal: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukut/tcc/2023/244

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
03rd Oct 2023 13:07

Justin Bryant wrote:

Unsurprisingly he lost his UT appeal:


Unsurprisingly you have resurrected one of your own threads again. Equally unsurprisingly, you have failed to answer the repeated requests for clarification on what about the case concerns you.
Thanks (2)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
04th Oct 2023 20:08

What about the VAT?

£40m > £0.085m.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
05th Oct 2023 10:27

I assume the IT, penalties and interest alone will wipe him out (so the VAT would just be superfluous).

Thanks (0)