Such a shocking story – can’t believe his compensation gets carved up by the Treasury and bankruptcy adminstrator, when none of it was his fault!
Just for context, when courts assess damages in these sort of situations they use the Gourley principle. Ie damages are assessed and awarded and then any tax liability is added on top.
The bankruptcy angle is a little more complicated but I don’t see why if it stemmed from the subject matter it shouldn’t also be included.
[deleted]
>In a letter received in October, the 80-year-old was told he owed £71,533 in income tax on his compensation, while £251,359 will be taken under bankruptcy proceedings.
To save anyone else wondering why from having to go onto the Daily Mail. (The bankruptcy was a result of the initial scandal)
Surely if these costs are the result of the fuck up, his payout should get enlarged so that it actually represents compensation.
Where’s the compensation if it barely covers the costs they caused?
5 comments
Such a shocking story – can’t believe his compensation gets carved up by the Treasury and bankruptcy adminstrator, when none of it was his fault!
Just for context, when courts assess damages in these sort of situations they use the Gourley principle. Ie damages are assessed and awarded and then any tax liability is added on top.
The bankruptcy angle is a little more complicated but I don’t see why if it stemmed from the subject matter it shouldn’t also be included.
[deleted]
>In a letter received in October, the 80-year-old was told he owed £71,533 in income tax on his compensation, while £251,359 will be taken under bankruptcy proceedings.
To save anyone else wondering why from having to go onto the Daily Mail. (The bankruptcy was a result of the initial scandal)
Surely if these costs are the result of the fuck up, his payout should get enlarged so that it actually represents compensation.
Where’s the compensation if it barely covers the costs they caused?