Ecclestone's tax affairs
- Thread starter matticus
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Bazzer
Well-Known Member
From HM Government's perspective, Ecclestone's settlement makes a lot of sense.
It saves the costs of a trial. - Although in reality the Government barristers and witnesses would have been pretty much at ready to go stage, in the days leading up to a hearing a lot of time is spent going over papers by all involved. So that would involve the legal team, the criminal investigators and the civil investigators who handled matters before the criminal investigators took over. Time which can now be spent on other enquiries.
Financially HMG benefits. In addition to the tax lost, Ecclestone will be paying a substantial amount in penalties and interest, to a Government hardly flush with money.
Jailing a 90 year old and potentially having him die in prison, when HMG would lose substantial financial penalties, serves little purpose. The publicity surrounding his court case does serve a purpose for HMRC.
Edit: Getting much less publicity is this Ecclestone associate
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/e...l-over-taxability-of-40m-gift/5117420.article
It saves the costs of a trial. - Although in reality the Government barristers and witnesses would have been pretty much at ready to go stage, in the days leading up to a hearing a lot of time is spent going over papers by all involved. So that would involve the legal team, the criminal investigators and the civil investigators who handled matters before the criminal investigators took over. Time which can now be spent on other enquiries.
Financially HMG benefits. In addition to the tax lost, Ecclestone will be paying a substantial amount in penalties and interest, to a Government hardly flush with money.
Jailing a 90 year old and potentially having him die in prison, when HMG would lose substantial financial penalties, serves little purpose. The publicity surrounding his court case does serve a purpose for HMRC.
Edit: Getting much less publicity is this Ecclestone associate
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/e...l-over-taxability-of-40m-gift/5117420.article
Last edited:
OP
OP
matticus
Guru
It's a different universe. £50million in "gifts":
"The judgment noted that Mullens received payments from Slavica Ecclestone, Bernie’s wife, which he contended were gifts. This includes payments of $38m in 2006/07, $19.5m in 2012/13 and £5m in the same year."
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Whatever the “gifts” were for, he must be good at it 😊
ebikeerwidnes
Well-Known Member
Damn - I was a teacher for many years and I got about 3 "gifts"
Should I have declared them to the HMRC??
One was a pair of socks and one, the best, was a small chocolate keyboard (I taught IT)
Maybe I better keep low for a while
(and maybe I was in the wrong job!!!)
Should I have declared them to the HMRC??
One was a pair of socks and one, the best, was a small chocolate keyboard (I taught IT)
Maybe I better keep low for a while
(and maybe I was in the wrong job!!!)
OP
OP
matticus
Guru
Yup - at least until you appear too infirm for the courts to impose any serious sentence!
Ian H
Legendary Member
It's not about age or infirmity, it's about wealth. See for instance Zahawi. If you're rich enough you can bargain with HMRC.
OP
OP
matticus
Guru
I think you're right, but the article I read said the defence pleaded ill health or some such ... "waffle".
Pale Rider
Veteran
It would be unusual to jail a 90-year-old, not least because not many 90-year-olds get nicked.
Ecclestone has not been given special treatment as such, although a man of his age involved in a massive tax fraud is itself unique.
I've seen men in their 70s get locked up for child sex offences, but someone 20 years older is almost bound to be able to play the health card.
Ecclestone has not been given special treatment as such, although a man of his age involved in a massive tax fraud is itself unique.
I've seen men in their 70s get locked up for child sex offences, but someone 20 years older is almost bound to be able to play the health card.
Bazzer
Well-Known Member
Wealth has nothing to do with "bargaining with HMRC". There is a criminal underpin to HMRC fraud enquiries and the published guidance issued when civil fraud enquiries are opened makes this clear. If a civil enquiry is converted to a criminal enquiry, it will have been because one or more of the triggers for a criminal enquiry were met. There will therefore have been considerably more going on in the background than has been made public. - For reasons of taxpayer confidentiality. Some of that would have become public had the case gone to trial, but certainly not all of it.
Probably Ecclestone and his advisors, who would have had specialist knowledge of HMRC fraud enquiries*, would not have expected HMRC's criminal team to get involved, because of Ecclestone's age. Neither for the same reason would they have expected HMRC to actually take the case to trial. Their bluff was called.
*Anyone subject to HMRC fraud enquiries who does not engage a specialist is doing themselves no favour, because of the criminal underpin of civil fraud enquiries.
In his game of poker with HMRC, Ecclestone would have found himself with an unenviable hand. Meanwhile HMRC's hand would have had at least two pairs, or three aces.
Ecclestone would have the stress of a trial. Even if found innocent, he would still have to enter into a civil settlement with HMRC, because the criminal charge would likely have been cheating the public purse and/or false statements/documents. And if found guilty and Ecclestone is genuinely suffering ill health, he may have been looking to end his life in prison, or a prison hospital.
HMRC benefits from the inevitable publicity of the trial which may deter others from tax fraud. It would also be a warning that age was no barrier to a prosecution. And given HMRC had shown it was not bluffing as regards a prosecution, HMRC really had little to lose. As a result the discussions concerning the (likely) very substantial fiscal penalties and interest, would have been "oiled".
HMG benefits all round. Money flows to the treasury coffers and costs of the hearing are saved. There will be many other times where cases settle before hearings and which remain anonymous.
Probably Ecclestone and his advisors, who would have had specialist knowledge of HMRC fraud enquiries*, would not have expected HMRC's criminal team to get involved, because of Ecclestone's age. Neither for the same reason would they have expected HMRC to actually take the case to trial. Their bluff was called.
*Anyone subject to HMRC fraud enquiries who does not engage a specialist is doing themselves no favour, because of the criminal underpin of civil fraud enquiries.
In his game of poker with HMRC, Ecclestone would have found himself with an unenviable hand. Meanwhile HMRC's hand would have had at least two pairs, or three aces.
Ecclestone would have the stress of a trial. Even if found innocent, he would still have to enter into a civil settlement with HMRC, because the criminal charge would likely have been cheating the public purse and/or false statements/documents. And if found guilty and Ecclestone is genuinely suffering ill health, he may have been looking to end his life in prison, or a prison hospital.
HMRC benefits from the inevitable publicity of the trial which may deter others from tax fraud. It would also be a warning that age was no barrier to a prosecution. And given HMRC had shown it was not bluffing as regards a prosecution, HMRC really had little to lose. As a result the discussions concerning the (likely) very substantial fiscal penalties and interest, would have been "oiled".
HMG benefits all round. Money flows to the treasury coffers and costs of the hearing are saved. There will be many other times where cases settle before hearings and which remain anonymous.
stephec
Regular
I'd love to have gone to school with their kids, can you imagine what the games of pass the parcel must've been like at their birthday parties?
All uphill
Active Member
I'm glad not to be paying for a billionaire's food and accommodation.
