collapse collapse
Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

July 23, 2022, 07:04:34 PM by algy | Views: 80377 | Comments: 3

Notice this ... should it be t...
August 10, 2021, 03:37:52 PM by dave.woodhall | Views: 104043 | Comments: 6

It will soon be three years si...
August 09, 2021, 02:47:33 PM by dave.woodhall | Views: 104678 | Comments: 40

The Jack Grealish transfer mad...
August 08, 2021, 11:32:36 PM by dave.woodhall | Views: 99887 | Comments: 9

So he chose success after all....
August 07, 2021, 01:22:40 AM by dave.woodhall | Views: 98867 | Comments: 3

I well remember the day in Feb...

Follow us on...

Author Topic: John Carew  (Read 23375 times)

Offline paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 28659
  • Age: 42
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: John Carew
« Reply #120 on: November 22, 2022, 04:05:23 PM »
Don't these footballers with all this money have accountants to do there tax returns.

Carew's problem isn't really about paying tax but rather about residency. There are very strict rules on tax in Norway whereby if you spend more than a certain numbers of days in the country you have to pay tax as a resident, him, or someone working for him, miscaculated the number of days so incorrectly believed he didn't need to pay tax.

It seems ridiculously extreme to send him to prison for what seems like a case of negligence rather than a concerted effort at lillegal evasion. I'm not saying the UK system is perfect, but over here it goes something like:

Do your best to illegally hide your income and assets and don't fess up when found out - criminal charges and possible prison
As above, but hold your hands up and pay up when told to do so - pay the tax, plus big penalty (sometimes 2 x the tax evaded) plus interest. Probably no prison.
Use of a clever avoidance scheme found not to work at a tribunal - penalties and interest, HMRC publishing your name and them watching your every step for the rest of your days
Careless mistake/negligence - depending on the severity, maybe penalties, maybe not, but definitely interest on the tax outstanding.


https://www.euronews.com/2022/11/16/john-carew-ex-footballer-given-jail-term-for-tax-fraud-in-norway

So about as I said but not as simple as miscounting one year.

Where it gets messy is that Norway have a wealth tax so a prolonged perriod of misreporting on residency adds up to a major bill when you have his sort of money. I agree though it does seem a bit excessive. I find myself wondering if him and his team went out of their way to avoid doing the bold bit which made the problems a lot bigger than it could've been.

Offline Risso

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 73824
  • Location: Leics
  • GM : 01.03.2023
Re: John Carew
« Reply #121 on: November 22, 2022, 04:08:37 PM »
Yes, without knowing the detail it's hard to know the full story. Again though, over here it's not the amount that's as important, as the intention.

Offline CT Villan

  • Member
  • Posts: 1717
Re: John Carew
« Reply #122 on: November 22, 2022, 05:09:17 PM »
Yes I know, 21% which compared to most countries is low. Each state then adds on their own percentage, which I think vary between something like 2% and 12%. Something like that, I don't do much US work.

For my CT LLC I pay 15% for Medicare and Soc Sec before even entertaining Federal and State Income taxes. Then add Business entity tax / Annual reports, etc...

Offline N'ZMAV

  • Member
  • Posts: 8789
  • Location: Peckham
Re: John Carew
« Reply #123 on: November 22, 2022, 07:50:28 PM »
all that money and no-one to hide it, move it, launder it, whatever these rich people usually do to not declare it - you'd think he'd have more brains than that.

Offline paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 28659
  • Age: 42
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: John Carew
« Reply #124 on: November 23, 2022, 09:40:49 AM »
all that money and no-one to hide it, move it, launder it, whatever these rich people usually do to not declare it - you'd think he'd have more brains than that.

Again this isn't really about tax avoidance (in any form), it's about a misunderstanding of Norwegian residency laws. The money/tax aspect is secondary, which is why the case found him guilty of negligence rather than fraud. The complicated part is how that translates into a fairly significant prison stretch, I haven't found anything to explain why he was given such a heavy punishment.

Offline ChicagoLion

  • Member
  • Posts: 18052
  • Location: Chicago
  • Literally
Re: John Carew
« Reply #125 on: November 23, 2022, 04:57:32 PM »
all that money and no-one to hide it, move it, launder it, whatever these rich people usually do to not declare it - you'd think he'd have more brains than that.

Again this isn't really about tax avoidance (in any form), it's about a misunderstanding of Norwegian residency laws. The money/tax aspect is secondary, which is why the case found him guilty of negligence rather than fraud. The complicated part is how that translates into a fairly significant prison stretch, I haven't found anything to explain why he was given such a heavy punishment.
1. They probably did not believe he did not know the residency laws.
2. He maybe did not co-operate when he was found out.
Thats how it is with the IRS and HMRC.

Offline paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 28659
  • Age: 42
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: John Carew
« Reply #126 on: November 23, 2022, 05:03:01 PM »
all that money and no-one to hide it, move it, launder it, whatever these rich people usually do to not declare it - you'd think he'd have more brains than that.

Again this isn't really about tax avoidance (in any form), it's about a misunderstanding of Norwegian residency laws. The money/tax aspect is secondary, which is why the case found him guilty of negligence rather than fraud. The complicated part is how that translates into a fairly significant prison stretch, I haven't found anything to explain why he was given such a heavy punishment.
1. They probably did not believe he did not know the residency laws.
2. He maybe did not co-operate when he was found out.
Thats how it is with the IRS and HMRC.

The judgement suggests they do believe it was in error so I'm not sure about 1. Point 2 seems pretty clearly the problem.

Offline Edvard Remberg

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 7129
  • Location: Tórshavn, Faroe Islands
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/69507054@N00/
  • GM : 16.10.2023
Re: John Carew
« Reply #127 on: November 24, 2022, 01:01:36 PM »
They (prosecutor) didn't believe he didn't know - this is due to prior warning in 2006 (or thereabouts) that he needed to be careful with the 183 days, so it wasn't something he had no idea bout. Also he hasn't missed by a few days, but has been 200+ days.

If done by intent, I think they said it could be up to 7 years in prison.

Offline Drummond

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 24542
  • Age: 51
  • Location: My own little world.
  • GM : 10.10.2023
Re: John Carew
« Reply #128 on: November 24, 2022, 02:35:41 PM »
My guess is that they couldn't prove intentionality, but could prove he'd done it.

Offline paul_e

  • Member
  • Posts: 28659
  • Age: 42
  • GM : July, 2013
Re: John Carew
« Reply #129 on: November 24, 2022, 04:22:48 PM »
They (prosecutor) didn't believe he didn't know - this is due to prior warning in 2006 (or thereabouts) that he needed to be careful with the 183 days, so it wasn't something he had no idea bout. Also he hasn't missed by a few days, but has been 200+ days.

If done by intent, I think they said it could be up to 7 years in prison.

Ah, interesting, I didn't see that he'd been warned before.

My guess is that they couldn't prove intentionality, but could prove he'd done it.

That seems a fair guess.

Offline ChicagoLion

  • Member
  • Posts: 18052
  • Location: Chicago
  • Literally
Re: John Carew
« Reply #130 on: November 24, 2022, 08:27:29 PM »
They (prosecutor) didn't believe he didn't know - this is due to prior warning in 2006 (or thereabouts) that he needed to be careful with the 183 days, so it wasn't something he had no idea bout. Also he hasn't missed by a few days, but has been 200+ days.

If done by intent, I think they said it could be up to 7 years in prison.

Ah, interesting, I didn't see that he'd been warned before.

My guess is that they couldn't prove intentionality, but could prove he'd done it.

That seems a fair guess.
yes.

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal