Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
istock_sebboy12

HMRC land late star's estate with £1m tax bill

by
25th Apr 2013
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

HMRC is seeking £1m tax from the estate of the late reality TV star Jade Goody, who died of cervical cancer in 2009.

Goody left her two sons Bobby Jack and Freddie £1m when she died. However, the Revenue has increased her tax bill from £555,000 to £1,035,902 after it concluded a number of the former star’s expenses and losses weren’t eligible for tax relief.

Trustees of Goody’s estate said they will fight this decision, as the tax bill will leave no money for her children or their education.

Trustee Danny Hayward exclusively told The Sun: “Jade was determined to give the boys the education she never had. We’ve paid their private school fees to the end of the year but we can’t after that. Jade would be heartbroken.”

Goody was best known for appearing in popular reality TV show Big Brother in 2002 and later in a celebrity version. She earned £2.2m from 2006 and 2010, most of which she left to her children.

Business expenses and losses on Goody’s beauty salon in Essex are unavailable for tax relief, said HMRC in the last month, in addition to expenses from her wedding to Jack Tweed a month before her death.

Money the star donated to cancer and anti-bullying groups, around £48,000, also doesn’t qualify for relief as it was donated at charity auctions, HMRC said.

In addition, her tax bill includes £119,000 in interest as it has built up over four years.

According to The Sun, trustees say her estate still may be made bankrupt even after selling Goody's three Essex properties.

Tags:

Replies (8)

Comments for this post are now closed.

avatar
By Cloudcounter
25th Apr 2013 21:53

Star

A much devalued term

Thanks (3)
avatar
By User deleted
26th Apr 2013 12:01

Jade Goody

Starbucks sleep well at night, why can't the dead also rest in peace.

Thanks (0)
Replying to D V Fields:
avatar
By User deleted
27th Apr 2013 09:41

What has the price of coffee to do with anything?

Mathswizard wrote:

Starbucks sleep well at night, why can't the dead also rest in peace.

I don't believe that the behaviour of large corporations has anything to do with this particular story. In any event, however morally questionable their activities are, if they are legal then they are legal. GAAR may have some impact, though - we'll need to wait and see.

Such claims are like me being stopped doing 90mph on the motorway and pleading unfairness because the cops should be out there dealing with the real criminals. If you're in the wrong, you're in the wrong - everything and everyone else is irrelevant.

In this case, however unfortunate it may be for the family, if an expense is non-deductible it is non-deductible and HMRC are entitled to make any appropriate adjustment.

Of course, we don't know much about the actual items in question (and bear in mind the publication that reported this story - a paper not unknown for sensationalism). It would appear that there is sufficient doubt such that HMRC are going to be challenged, but that is all we know. If it turns out that the expenses were clearly non-deductible then the question has to be asked as to why they were deducted in the first place. Which leads to the question as to who her tax advisers were. It would be rather ironic if it were one of the Big 4.

Thanks (6)
By Roger.Thornton
26th Apr 2013 23:05

So typical of HMRC

They daren't take on the multi-national crooks like Starbucks with their big4 tax specialists with a foot in each camp, or a certain energy firm that has paid no tax for 3 years, but they can take on someone who is dead and deny 2 children an education.  Yet again HMRC show themselves up to be a cowardly despicable rabble.

Thanks (1)
By ShirleyM
27th Apr 2013 11:28

Pre-planning

It just goes to show the importance of pre-planning.

Money doesn't solve everything, and it is sad that she died so young, but as she knew the seriousness of her illness I would have thought she would take advice over the future well being of her children, and not just in cash terms.

I agree with BKD. It looks like she didn't get very good tax advice.

EDIT: I hardly think the following inflammatory comment was justified ..... "Yet again HMRC show themselves up to be a cowardly despicable rabble.".

They are just doing what they should be doing ... aren't they????

Thanks (4)
avatar
By User deleted
27th Apr 2013 10:40

Agree with BKD

If the tax is due then the tax is due. It makes no difference if others don't pay as much tax as we might like (and as BKD says, if the others aren't breaking the law.....) or whether it would be warmer and fluffier if the sons' school fees were paid.

And I'm not even going to comment on why a wedding could be a business expense!!!!!

Plenty of parents die and don't leave enough to pay for their families (and that's without large tax bills). Why should this case be different just because she was well-known?

Thanks (5)
Replying to Ken Howard:
avatar
By hugh fowler
27th Apr 2013 19:22

So very true

People should remember that prior to 1789  it was perfectly legal for the French aristocracy to pay little or no tax while the peasants and  artisans had to bear the entire burden of the cost of the French state I seem to remember that this arrangement did not end well for those in charge of the system.

Thanks (1)
Replying to tom123:
By Roger.Thornton
28th Apr 2013 00:05

Law or morals

hugh fowler wrote:

French state I seem to remember that this arrangement did not end well for those in charge of the system.

 

Then it was the aristocracy by birth, now it is the aristocracy of business, but the resentment is the same. We saw what happened when the poll tax was defeated, and people are now reaching the same stage with corporate tax evasion. Starbucks have already been targeted, but that, I believe, is just the beginning.

What I find disappointing is that some accountants are so lacking in morals that they actually approve of, or even assist these companies in defrauding the ordinary taxpayer by using tax rules in ways they were never intended to be used.  The way these companies evade tax may be legal, but it is certainly not ethical or moral.

 

Thanks (1)