“This was never meant to make financial sense. It is all about terror tactics by the HMRC. They try to frighten others in this way, but not mates of the cabinet of course. Vodafone will not be quaking in thier boots, nor will Lehmans etc etc.
HMRC would rather pursue individusals than corporations in my opinion at whatever the cost. This just shows that luckily the jury saw through the case which leaked like a sieve. Still it keeps the lawyers of the HMRC in fine wine and good cars , I bet.”

“The first thing to be said in response to this question is that it is vital that any respondents do not fall into the trap of using the hindsight afforded by the outcome of the Redknapp and Mandaric case. The question tries to avoid this, just, but you can bet plenty of the responses will not. The fact that Redknapp and Mandaric have been cleared of all charges is absolutely not relevant to the question.

So the question is, if HMRC had reason to believe that tax had been evaded on an amount of £200,000 is it worth incurring total costs of £8m to try to prove it. It is true that the potential tax at stake here is relatively modest, compared, for example, to other high profile cases in the past such as Lester Piggott and Ken Dodd (the latter was cleared of criminal wrong doing). However, it not uncommon for HMRC to take criminal proceedings in such cases; after all the tax at stake, in this case, would have been well in excess of 50% because of the national insurance element.

I also suspect that the £8m figure is grossly overestimated. I do not imagine, even for a single moment, that this is the true marginal cost of the case. This cost, if it is right at all, will include all kinds of costs that are incurred whether the Court had been occupied with this particular case or some other case. People can argue this still has a cost – because for example other cases have to wait – but I would not consider this to be a true cost. Delays are a normal part of Court life. Also, high profile personalities will employ the top lawyers who charge extortionate fees and this inevitably raises the cost. HMRC will have a budget for these matters and so the cost to the tax-payer has probably not changed at all. Instead it could mean that HMRC have less resources to take criminal proceedings in other cases; this again has potential downsides, but one of them is not that the tax-payer is picking up a bigger bill.

In my view the Government in particular as well as society at large is far, far too soft on tax evasion. Evasion probably costs the exchequer about £15 billion per annum, compared to only about £1.1billion through benefit fraud – yet the latter attracts far more adverse comment, especially from the right. Tax avoidance (which is legal) probably cost nearly £70bn but that's a whole different issue.

My view is that if HMRC were confident of their ground then it was definitely worth them taking action. Tax evasion has a true and massive cost to hospitals, schools, social welfare and other vital services paid for by Government and hence the tax-payer. More resources should be addressed to reducing tax evasion not less.

Of course one can question HMRC's action given the outcome and what we now know about the earlier case involving Mandaric and Peter Storrie. It would seem HMRC's confidence was wholly misplaced. But, as I said, that is hindsight and whilst the question can be addressed with reference to this case it cannot be answered in terms of the outcome.

Oldhenry is being cynical but actually there is some truth I think in some of what he says. It is easier for HMRC to take on individuals than corporations. However this is not the case with celebrity cases because they need to get them right. This is not the first time HMRC have had egg on their faces with celebrity cases and I would have expected that they would have been pretty sure of their ground. On the face if it they had no reason to be and this was their error.

Oldhenry is also right, to some extent, about frightening others. By taking high profile cases HMRC can make people think twice before evading tax. This is a positive thing not the negative that oldhenry clearly implies. In my view they do far too little frightening and that is why tax evasion is so rife.

Also, I would take a very large bet that the HMRC lawyers would be a great deal less well paid than those of Mr Redknapp and Mr Mandaric.”

“graydjames:
While agreeing with the last sentence of your post, personally I would take a very large bet that all of the lawyers involved in this case, came away from it with more money than I get for a whole year with my state and private pension combined.

During the past three weeks I have received unsolicited calls from a number of lawyers asking if I had been miss-sold PPI , as if so they would like to help me claim back premiums paid. The most recent of these calls happened this morning.

As I told the caller (who failed to tell me what company he was from), he and his company were in my estimation more interested in by how much they could enrich themselves, than they were in how much they might recover for myself. Just as it happens, I have no need of such a service in any case.

Without doubt there is a need for lawyers, but it is a profession which has never served me well. I have in my opinion been 'fleeced' on each of the two occasions I have had need to use the services of a solicitor.To date I've generally made my own way in the world and will carry on
doing so without the expensive use of solicitors.”

“@greydjames has said it much better than I could. Just to add - most court cases cost money, lots of money. To investigate, catch and imprison a burglar (for example) would cost a lot more than it would cost to just let them go on their merry way. I think it's a cost well worth paying.”

“they were high profile targets to get publicity . only the police and the taxman would see the cost didn't count . from the kicking in of redknapps front door (he wasn't in at the time !!!!!!!!!! ,police were amatuerish from the very start)to the trial itself just shows how amatuerish this whole country is now !”

“The fact of the matter is HMRC are "playing" with taxpayers money. If they were a group of individuals paying their own costs would they have taken this action? An the answer is abundantly clear - NO!!

It has been an appalling waste of cash from the public purse.”

“It would have been even cheaper if HMRC had just sent a Tax Demand to 'arry, because by his own admission he is a 'fantastic manager' but cr*p at business, in fact "I nearly wiped my Son out, having given him advice on Shares", he also said he would rather GIVE somwbody £100k than try to 'do' them. If he is as honest as he has now been found to be, at vast expense, he would have PAID the bl**dy bill. You don't always have to shift an Empire to save sixpence, and HMRC have proved they didn't even save that! Eastonian, I'm with you,it's easy when some other b*gger is footing the Bill”

“Its all about jobs for the boys, Law is about making money for the rich, always has been, always will be.”

“Greed and power x

Anyone else would have been sent down but they have the best people and their fame to help them. x”

“@Rachel_Leics and @ruweller this is about whether the HMRC should have spent our tax on prosecuting a case. My personal view is that it was a waste of taxpayers money but that there was a political (small p) agenda which was driving this prosecution.

Regardless of whether the prosecution should or should not have taken place, a NOT GUILTY verdict was returned. This means the presumption of innocence was correct. Fame does not get you an acquittal although I accept, it may help you to afford better lawyers. But believe me, people who are represented by lawyers paid by legal aid are much more likely to be found guilty simply because they don't get the best lawyers. In other words, they lawyers may not be up to the job.

You should pray you never find yourself on the wrong side of our criminal justice system and because you can't afford a decent lawyer, find yourself pronounced GUILTY of a crime you did not commit.

All your kisses Rachel do not hide the fact that you have made a highly prejudicial comment. Ruweller, I wish you would expand on your comment. Which boys? and who is making the money for the rich?”