|
|
10 Feb 2012
HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS has hit back at claims it spent excessive amounts of government funds in the tax case against Harry Redknapp and Milan Mandaric.
A spokesman said the cost of investigations into former Portsmouth manager Redknapp, owner Mandaric and CEO Peter Storrie, racked up less than £300,000.
"There's been a lot of nonsense talked about the costs of this investigation to HMRC," the spokesman said.
"The fact is it's cost us less then £300,000 and whilst we would rather have won the case the important thing was to get the facts in front of a jury and that's happened.
"We're not interested in whether the person has a high public profile, but we are determined that our investigations are carried out professionally - and we're happy that's the case here."
The £300,000 figure does not include Police, Crown Prosecution Costs, which are estimated to be about £1m, and legal fees.
According to the spokesman HMRC has a "net-buy" service with its legal team. The team works on a retainer basis which essentially means it is paid a yearly or half yearly fee regardless of the number of cases they work on. However, HMRC has numerous court cases running at any one time.
You may also like
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Search thousands of financial jobs:
Careers
Search for jobs
Click to search our database of all the latest accountancy roles
Create a profile
Click to set up your profile and let the best recruiters find you
Jobs by email
Sign up to receive regular updates with the latest roles suitable for you
Briefings
By looking at the reasons supplier statements became unfashionable, and the reasons why it is different today, this paper delves into the many benefits that can be obtained by automating the process.
Having a real and true view of your organisation’s current financial position, and having the right systems and processes in place, will ensure that you can make strong choices and are ready to capitalise on opportunities
AccountancyAgeInsight is a frequently updated resource centre for finance professionals, offering a free and easy-to-use digital library of briefings, white papers and other information resources. 
Visitor comments Add your comment
That's a relief - not!
Unbelievable how HMRC can defend costs of £300,000 as not excessive is beyond me.
Perhaps they need to spend a few days actually working in one of the many small businesses out there that would love to have a fraction of that money available to them and then they'd perhaps better understand!
Posted by: Alan Woods, 10 Feb 2012 | 11:24
Real cost to the taxpayer
Though MNRC say it's only cost less then £300k the real cost on taxpayers is far greater. Surely if clear evidence to secure a conviction was not available then the case should not have been brought and the large costs incurred.
Posted by: Stuart Browne , 10 Feb 2012 | 11:43
Rednapp case costs
The spokesman who has stated the Revenue's costs in this case do not exceed £300,000 is being economical with the truth as the small print adds that the figure does not include police, court and most importantly legal fees.
Yesterdays newspapers report the costs of leading counsel and a junior at over £900,000 so we can sure the real costs are closer to £2m.
I do not mind that the case was taken to court or that HMRC lost it, just be honest about the costs.
Posted by: James Midgley, 10 Feb 2012 | 14:30
They only wasted £300k???
Because it's taxpayers money and not their own they think it's a small amount. If HMRC's spokesman was made to repay it out of his own pocket it might put the amount into proper perspective for him.
Bringing a case on the grounds that this payment was for football dealings and should therefore have been taxed without explaining why (if it was for football dealings) it wasn't a tax deduction for Mandaric was just incompetent. Even if HMRC had won their case without proving the latter point they'd have had to refund the tax they got from Rednapp to Mandaric. How could they possibly think it was worthwhile them spending anything on this case?
Posted by: Ken Fayers, 16 Feb 2012 | 10:49