999tigger Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I am absolutely amazed at this verdict. They took the p*ss massively and got away with it because the guy has more money than sense. Still theft. Its not theft if they had consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Its not theft if they had consent. I'd be interested in some of the details of the trial. Apart the drug taking allegations and the sideshow it appears Saatchi accused the sisters, they claimed Nigella had okayed their spending but he said she only did it because she was stoned/or to keep them quiet. I've heard much about her direct evidence ie "Miss Lawson,did you say Miss X could go to hotel Y in Venice? Yes or No. Did you say she could buy the pink fur coat? Yes or no?" etc It's difficult to separate the apparent facts about the "crime" and the public carcrash of the marriage being played out in the glare of the media and with both sides using the court case as a personal battleground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted December 20, 2013 Author Share Posted December 20, 2013 congrats to the grillo sisters!! beat the rap & left saatchi with a reputation for psychopathy and left fragrant, perfect nigella looking like a skanky, out of control crack bitch. this trial has been great fun. the grillos are talking to the red tops as we speak, so expect more sleazy revelations soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pritt Stick Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I'd be interested in some of the details of the trial. Apart the drug taking allegations and the sideshow it appears Saatchi accused the sisters, they claimed Nigella had okayed their spending but he said she only did it because she was stoned/or to keep them quiet. I've heard much about her direct evidence ie "Miss Lawson,did you say Miss X could go to hotel Y in Venice? Yes or No. Did you say she could buy the pink fur coat? Yes or no?" etc It's difficult to separate the apparent facts about the "crime" and the public carcrash of the marriage being played out in the glare of the media and with both sides using the court case as a personal battleground. Dear Taxman The Grillos seem to have been vindicated re having permission to use the cards (well, they're not guilty of theft anyway). I believe they were on salaries of 26 and 28k. If they've spent in excess of half a million is this classified as a taxable perk / part of their salary. And as such will you and your colleagues be chasing them for backdated tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Dear Taxman The Grillos seem to have been vindicated re having permission to use the cards (well, they're not guilty of theft anyway). I believe they were on salaries of 26 and 28k. If they've spent in excess of half a million is this classified as a taxable perk / part of their salary. And as such will you and your colleagues be chasing them for backdated tax? Not sure its as easy as being vindicated, but more like they werent convinced they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Its an extraodinary call to be spending 2-3 times your annual salary each month in perks because you had a tacit understanding you werent going to blab. they could be syed in the civil court where it would have to be on the balance of probabilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pritt Stick Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Not sure its as easy as being vindicated, but more like they werent convinced they were guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Its an extraodinary call to be spending 2-3 times your annual salary each month in perks because you had a tacit understanding you werent going to blab. they could be syed in the civil court where it would have to be on the balance of probabilities. If they are hit for backdated tax I wonder if they might have preferred being found guilty? I guess they can claim bankruptcy. But thanks for responding (I thought I was making an absolutely killer point and expected dozens of responses). The best laid plans, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 If they are hit for backdated tax I wonder if they might have preferred being found guilty? I guess they can claim bankruptcy. But thanks for responding (I thought I was making an absolutely killer point and expected dozens of responses). The best laid plans, eh? The tax people are probably onto it as we post, tax employees may not be able to comment on ongoing investigations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pritt Stick Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 The tax people are probably onto it as we post, tax employees may not be able to comment on ongoing investigations. So, Mafya, I'm no expert in this area...... do you think they might be liable for tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Looks like the trial was just a set up for Saatchi & his team to have a go at trashing Nigella, but it backfired a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 So, Mafya, I'm no expert in this area...... do you think they might be liable for tax? The Inland Revenue IMO should investigate this case a little more closely, If the expenditure was authorized (which is the judgement of the trial) then it formed part of their salary and should have been subject to Tax and National insurance (and Employers National Insurance payments). I think their defense opens up a whole new can of worms for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.