That'll be £1bn please

[Derek Smith]

According to reports:

http://www.planetf1.com/driver/3213/50759/Ecclesto...

Ecclestone to be pursued for £1bn in unpaid taxes over the Bambino trust.

It was suggested at the time that HMIC were paying close attention to the Gribkowsky trial but when nothing happened my assumption was that any further action was dead. There were suggestions that some of the evidence given by Ecclestone contradicted earlier statements - as if - and it might appear that what was said has given them hope of getting some more back.

Sums vary. I've seen $1.4 to $1.6 bn but £1bn seems a reasonable compromise.

From the report it would appear that Ecclestone won't be going to many races this season.

[Derek Smith]

belleair302 said:

Looking at the calibre of people working or HMRC from first hand experience Bernie has nothing to worry about. They are on a losing streak and have no real idea of sophisticated tax schemes. The solicitors and accountants will be getting richer, not HMRC.

He's not done too well of late. His Mrs costs him 'around' £100 million pa. He's recently had to pay a lot of money to get away with a prosecution. The last time HMRC had a go at him he gave them £10m.

[Derek Smith]

Can he have it both ways? His defence to the bribery charge was that Gribkovsy knew that he had control of the trust, hence that was why he paid the, as described, bribe, and not for the reasons which were suggested by the prosecution.

HMRC have a very difficult case to pursue, with the law favouring being (deliberately some say) vague when it comes to lots of money. Part of the attraction of the UK to the mega rich is that prosecution is always a long drawn out affair due to the challenges available to those who can afford to pay for them. It's a bit like the 'open the box' scenario except that the banker is the defendant.

The best that HMRC are probably hoping for is an out of court settlement. Another £10?

It is only the small business owner who can be pushed around.

Let me tell you about a demand for nearly £10,000 in 3 weeks despite, as I have on tape, an admission by their chap that the error being theirs and that within 3 months they would repay all the money.

[Derek Smith]

coyft said:

I think his defence was that even though he wasn't in control of the trust, Gribkovsky was going to tell HMRC he was and Bernie didn't want the hassle and aggravation this was likely to cause him.

I seem to remember that a judge, one named, remarkably, Newey, said that Ecclestone was untrustworthy and unbelievable. This was in a civil case, but more or less the same matter. I could not possibly comment of course.

There are reports that part of the new evidence is that the settlement of the case was paid out of the Bambino trust.

[Derek Smith]

rdjohn said:

Are you sure this was not a Nigerian Prince?

His mate sent me a beautifully hand-written letter from SA last week. It cost him a fortune in stamps for me to dispatch to the WPB file.

If only. I had the money but withdrawing it at short notice would have cost me. I went to my (now ex) bank and asked for a short-term loan, explaining that it would be for 10 weeks max, and they were originally obstructive, wanting me to take out a loan for a year. Lots of argument later I got an offer and the cost of interest made it all but the same price as taking out a loan for a year given the interest rate I'd get investing the repayment money.

I should have gone to an accountant but that would have cost about the same without the guarantee of not having to pay it.

I went to another bank and got a year's loan (by then the notice time for getting the money had gone and I would have been fined £100 (if memory serves) for every day it went unpaid) at a slightly better rate (I'd have paid more the mood I was in) and sent it to HM with the guarantee of me getting it all back by 8 weeks probably, maybe 10 if there were any difficulties. When It didn't arrive after 9 weeks I phoned HMRC to be told that they would not discuss the date of repayment. So 12 weeks and 3 days after the time that I was to be repaid within 8 weeks, I got the money back.

This, remember, when I had been told that I did not, in fact, owe the money but that I had passed an unpublished (note that, unpublished) return date for my tax returns. The published one, which I was inside, did not apply to me for a technical reason. When I asked where I could find this date, they were unable to tell me. When I phoned another time and asked the question as to date of return, I was told the wrong date.

But am I bitter?

Guess.

A Nigerian prince would have been easier.