PL charge City for alleged breaches of financial rules

[spacecadet]

Fuck me if we were paying any we've been had.

Spot on Blue.

 

[KS55]

Not if the services were provided outside the country, unless you have a world-wide income tax regime in the UK these days. You may have for all I know, I left over 40 years ago

As I understand it, the taxman has got very uppity about these types of payment recently and starts from a position that, if the income is associated with UK employment or derives from UK employment, he will ask for uk tax. He wont necessarily win a challenge but his policies have got quite aggressive.

 

[KS55]

Yes ,I hope somebody writes a book about this whole charade in years to come.Fifa and their fatcat cronies with Blatter thought they were fireproof and were ultimately despatched of. Come on Pep it would be a best seller !

Calling @Gary James and Martin Samuel. David Conn can forget it.

 

[terraloon]

Why is everyone having the biggest problem understanding the Mancini stuff

Sorry but I think it’s your good self that isn’t seeing the issue.

It’s nothing to do with paying tax in the UAE or indeed in Italy. It’s not in the PLs to rule on tax matters nor are they making comment or charging City with any IT issues it’s quite simply was the money paid to Mancini or his company really for work in the UAE or was it a way of paying him for work at City but not paid by City.

 

[terraloon]

As I understand it, the taxman has got very uppity about these types of payment recently and starts from a position that, if the income is associated with UK employment or derives from UK employment, he will ask for uk tax. He wont necessarily win a challenge but his policies have got quite aggressive.

There is a long standing double taxation agreement between the UK and Italy So he won’t be charged IT by both so if it’s accounted for in Italy I very much doubt that HMRC will get involved
The problem is the opinion of the tribunal may well not be thought to be defendable in a court of law or even at a tax commission again because the burden of proof isn’t necessarily to the same level.
Balance of probability at the PL Commission beyond reasonable doubt elsewhere

 

[KS55]

But in the case of Etihad, for example, and in your view, would it affect the true and fair view given by the signed, audited annual accounts?

Probably not but the OP was not clear. As I replied, Etihad sponsorship funded originally by our owner and passed on to us might draw the attention of ffp hawks, (the hawks would lose) but is probably ok from an accounting perspective, whereas direct investment by the owner disguised in our accounts as anything else would be the crime of false accounting.

 

[KS55]

Sorry but I think it’s your good self that isn’t seeing the issue.

It’s nothing to do with paying tax in the UAE or indeed in Italy. It’s not in the PLs to rule on tax matters nor are they making comment or charging City with any IT issues it’s quite simply was the money paid to Mancini or his company really for work in the UAE or was it a way of paying him for work at City but not paid by City.

I am expecting the good sheik’s rep to give evidence of major work by Mancini for Al Jazira. “He even cut the grass for us.”
In any case Mancini’s contract with Al Jazira pre dated his appointment at City and overlapped with the introduction of ffp only in the last year. Prior to that, there would be no reason to pay him by the back door, Mansour was shelling out loads for us.

 

[Matt Diablo]

5live just reported barca getting done for some dodgy 7m deal paying someone on the side

 

[halfcenturyup]

Probably not but the OP was not clear. As I replied, Etihad sponsorship funded originally by our owner and passed on to us might draw the attention of ffp hawks, (the hawks would lose) but is probably ok from an accounting perspective, whereas direct investment by the owner disguised in our accounts as anything else would be the crime of false accounting.

Yes, I guess it's pretty clear that showing a direct investment in the club as income would be false accounting.

But I think we should be more clear for people on here that aren't so up-to-speed that, with the fundamentals of the Etihad deal as we understand them and as they were described and accepted at CAS, there is nothing in the Etihad sponsorship that suggests false accounting or that the accounting treatment in the signed, audited annual accounts leads to them not giving a true and fair view.

No matter what the PL alleges.

 

[Bandofblues]

Did you? Well, it didn't...and it wasn't.

but you have never been able to provide any actual details because.......?