Enter Your E-mail

The cases of Messrs. Redknapp & Mandaric have been headline news in the public press for several days now. They have each been found "not guilty" and some of the press relating to the cases has focused on the cost of the case, which John Kelsey-Fry QC, barrister for Mr. Redknapp, has reportedly claimed could be up to £10 million - although others have suggested a mere £8 million. There will be further public sympathy for Mr. Redknapp, who said that the case had dragged on for 5 years and should never have come to court.

This is undoubtedly one of the most public 'tax evasion' cases for several years and will linger in the public memory - particularly if Mr. Redknapp, as forecast by many, becomes manager of the England football team. 

Football clubs and players have 'enjoyed' some particularly close scrutiny from HMRC over their financial affairs for the last year or so - in 2010/11, the issue of the taxation of  'image rights' hit the headlines; more recently, it has been reported that a significant number of clubs have been sent a Football Clubs Employment Issues Questionnaire, which HMRC hopes will reveal many benefits in kind which have hitherto escaped PAYE tax or NIC. This kind of work - and whether or not it has proved successful - will not capture public attention nearly so much as a court case involving a football manager, an overseas financier and a "much loved dog".

Only a few weeks ago, HMRC was strongly criticised for 'cosying up' to big business and for treating wealthy taxpayers more favourably than the rest. Had this trial been successful for HMRC, it might have done much to negate that perception. From the sums reported, the amount of tax and NIC at stake appears to have been broadly in the region of £100,000. From a cost/direct benefit perspective, this case was clearly a non-starter - although of course it could be argued that there is an important principle involved. But HMRC must surely also have realised the consequences if they were to lose. (Although the trial date will presumably have been fixed many months prior). 

The 2011 Comprehensive Spending Review announced/required that there would be a five-fold increase in criminal prosecutions for tax evasion. And it appears that the number of cases is indeed increasing. HMRC must be crossing its fingers that outcomes like this latest case don't become a regular occurrence as the damage to its public reputation could be severe.