Pizza delivery firm bosses jailed for £600,000 fraud

Bournemouth Echo: Pizza delivery firm bosses jailed for £600,000 fraud Pizza delivery firm bosses jailed for £600,000 fraud

TWO men have been jailed for carrying out £600,000 VAT fraud at four south coast restaurants.

Harish Desai and Mukesh Patel were sentenced to 18 months behind bars by a judge in Southampton this morning.

The pair were franchisees of Pizza Hut, trading under the name Pizza Delivery Services Ltd, and ran four takeaway restaurants in Southampton, Bournemouth and Poole.

Southampton Crown Court heard the men had failed to pay almost £200,000 in VAT for their Poole restaurant between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2010.

The pair then failed to supply VAT returns for any of their restaurants between July 2010 and September 2011, resulting in debts of more than £400,000 to Her Majesty Revenue and Custom.

The court heard that they used the money to keep their failing business afloat, as they had large outstanding debts and their company would have been declared insolvent otherwise.

Their business has since folded, with all of the restaurants now under new management.

Desai, 61, and Patel, 55, were each sentenced to 18 months imprisonment today after pleading guilty to cheating the public revenue.

They will serve half of their sentence before being allowed out on license.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:04pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Tango Charlie says...

Small fry when compared to the big firms getting away with it. They will have to try harder to compete with the likes of many multinationals.
They should have contributed more to party political funds, they could have an OBE by now.
Small fry when compared to the big firms getting away with it. They will have to try harder to compete with the likes of many multinationals. They should have contributed more to party political funds, they could have an OBE by now. Tango Charlie

2:25pm Fri 20 Dec 13

dribydal says...

£600,000 collected from customers and not paid over to HMRC?
Out in 9 months?
That's over 60 grand a month, not bad !
If they had been squirreling it away and not 'using the money to keep the business afloat' they've got all that to come out to.
£600,000 collected from customers and not paid over to HMRC? Out in 9 months? That's over 60 grand a month, not bad ! If they had been squirreling it away and not 'using the money to keep the business afloat' they've got all that to come out to. dribydal

2:35pm Fri 20 Dec 13

BIGTONE says...

Where is the court order to seize assets seeing as a major criminal offence has taken place.
Surely the debt isn't wiped clean is it?
It isn't when benefit fraud happens.
Where is the court order to seize assets seeing as a major criminal offence has taken place. Surely the debt isn't wiped clean is it? It isn't when benefit fraud happens. BIGTONE

2:59pm Fri 20 Dec 13

Lucy Lastick says...

Tango Charlie wrote:
Small fry when compared to the big firms getting away with it. They will have to try harder to compete with the likes of many multinationals.
They should have contributed more to party political funds, they could have an OBE by now.
Our MPs were getting away with fiddling (aka stealing) over ninety million pounds a year, every year.
[quote][p][bold]Tango Charlie[/bold] wrote: Small fry when compared to the big firms getting away with it. They will have to try harder to compete with the likes of many multinationals. They should have contributed more to party political funds, they could have an OBE by now.[/p][/quote]Our MPs were getting away with fiddling (aka stealing) over ninety million pounds a year, every year. Lucy Lastick

3:01pm Fri 20 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

Tango Charlie wrote:
Small fry when compared to the big firms getting away with it. They will have to try harder to compete with the likes of many multinationals.
They should have contributed more to party political funds, they could have an OBE by now.
My thoughts exactly, it seems all they needed was a better accountant who could have found a few loopholes to convert this sum into perfectly legal tax avoidance - then they could have resolved this just like the big firms over a friendly lunch or two with HMRC managers.

I am not condoning what they have done, but as usual the little man in the street is pursued and the very big boys just carry on 'legally' avoiding massive UK tax sums with the apparent (if tacit) blessing of our politicians.
[quote][p][bold]Tango Charlie[/bold] wrote: Small fry when compared to the big firms getting away with it. They will have to try harder to compete with the likes of many multinationals. They should have contributed more to party political funds, they could have an OBE by now.[/p][/quote]My thoughts exactly, it seems all they needed was a better accountant who could have found a few loopholes to convert this sum into perfectly legal tax avoidance - then they could have resolved this just like the big firms over a friendly lunch or two with HMRC managers. I am not condoning what they have done, but as usual the little man in the street is pursued and the very big boys just carry on 'legally' avoiding massive UK tax sums with the apparent (if tacit) blessing of our politicians. muscliffman

4:14pm Fri 20 Dec 13

John T says...

muscliffman
So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?!
I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this.
Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.
muscliffman So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?! I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this. Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft. John T

5:21pm Fri 20 Dec 13

roguetrader666 says...

It's commonplace for foreign nationals to play the system. Their mistake was to shortchange the vatman . I have known several Indian restaurants that get refurbished then put the business in a relatives name to renege on their debt. Ever wondered how Indian restaurants survive when you read on several occasions that they have been fined £10k a head for as many as 4 illegals a time? Answer... They don't pay, they put the business in another name. I often wonder if the hoards of foreign takeaways pay any tax at all.
It's commonplace for foreign nationals to play the system. Their mistake was to shortchange the vatman . I have known several Indian restaurants that get refurbished then put the business in a relatives name to renege on their debt. Ever wondered how Indian restaurants survive when you read on several occasions that they have been fined £10k a head for as many as 4 illegals a time? Answer... They don't pay, they put the business in another name. I often wonder if the hoards of foreign takeaways pay any tax at all. roguetrader666

6:39pm Fri 20 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

John T wrote:
muscliffman
So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?!
I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this.
Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.
What part of 'I don't condone...' are you having a problem with? A £million pound turnover is not exactly big business either nowadays.

I would like to see the tax laws changed (if needs be internationally) to prevent the big multi-nationals avoiding £million/billions in morally due UK taxation whilst the smaller and presumably far easier domestic targets appear to be the only ones HMRC bring to justice..
[quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: muscliffman So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?! I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this. Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.[/p][/quote]What part of 'I don't condone...' are you having a problem with? A £million pound turnover is not exactly big business either nowadays. I would like to see the tax laws changed (if needs be internationally) to prevent the big multi-nationals avoiding £million/billions in morally due UK taxation whilst the smaller and presumably far easier domestic targets appear to be the only ones HMRC bring to justice.. muscliffman

7:38pm Fri 20 Dec 13

John T says...

muscliffman wrote:
John T wrote:
muscliffman
So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?!
I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this.
Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.
What part of 'I don't condone...' are you having a problem with? A £million pound turnover is not exactly big business either nowadays.

I would like to see the tax laws changed (if needs be internationally) to prevent the big multi-nationals avoiding £million/billions in morally due UK taxation whilst the smaller and presumably far easier domestic targets appear to be the only ones HMRC bring to justice..
The part of your comment that I am having a problem with is your arrogant style, especially the normal 'I' that always comes first.
You probably don't consider the theft of £600000 as big money nowadays,either, but it equals about 10000 times the weekly job support allowance. This £600000 is VAT that the public have paid expecting it to be handed over to HMRC, not trousered by a bunch of Indians.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: muscliffman So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?! I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this. Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.[/p][/quote]What part of 'I don't condone...' are you having a problem with? A £million pound turnover is not exactly big business either nowadays. I would like to see the tax laws changed (if needs be internationally) to prevent the big multi-nationals avoiding £million/billions in morally due UK taxation whilst the smaller and presumably far easier domestic targets appear to be the only ones HMRC bring to justice..[/p][/quote]The part of your comment that I am having a problem with is your arrogant style, especially the normal 'I' that always comes first. You probably don't consider the theft of £600000 as big money nowadays,either, but it equals about 10000 times the weekly job support allowance. This £600000 is VAT that the public have paid expecting it to be handed over to HMRC, not trousered by a bunch of Indians. John T

10:58pm Fri 20 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

John T wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
John T wrote:
muscliffman
So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?!
I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this.
Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.
What part of 'I don't condone...' are you having a problem with? A £million pound turnover is not exactly big business either nowadays.

I would like to see the tax laws changed (if needs be internationally) to prevent the big multi-nationals avoiding £million/billions in morally due UK taxation whilst the smaller and presumably far easier domestic targets appear to be the only ones HMRC bring to justice..
The part of your comment that I am having a problem with is your arrogant style, especially the normal 'I' that always comes first.
You probably don't consider the theft of £600000 as big money nowadays,either, but it equals about 10000 times the weekly job support allowance. This £600000 is VAT that the public have paid expecting it to be handed over to HMRC, not trousered by a bunch of Indians.
Oh dear! Put 'we' and be accused of being arrogantly presumptive of other people's opinions, put 'I' then be accused of personal arrogance - quite obviously people just can't win!

If a comment on here is a poster's own view (as intended I think - oops!) what word do you suggest is used which won't convey to you an arrogant attitude?

Oh, and do review your comment please - " I am having a problem with is your arrogant style, especially the normal 'I' that always comes first." couldn't make it up........ :)
[quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: muscliffman So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?! I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this. Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.[/p][/quote]What part of 'I don't condone...' are you having a problem with? A £million pound turnover is not exactly big business either nowadays. I would like to see the tax laws changed (if needs be internationally) to prevent the big multi-nationals avoiding £million/billions in morally due UK taxation whilst the smaller and presumably far easier domestic targets appear to be the only ones HMRC bring to justice..[/p][/quote]The part of your comment that I am having a problem with is your arrogant style, especially the normal 'I' that always comes first. You probably don't consider the theft of £600000 as big money nowadays,either, but it equals about 10000 times the weekly job support allowance. This £600000 is VAT that the public have paid expecting it to be handed over to HMRC, not trousered by a bunch of Indians.[/p][/quote]Oh dear! Put 'we' and be accused of being arrogantly presumptive of other people's opinions, put 'I' then be accused of personal arrogance - quite obviously people just can't win! If a comment on here is a poster's own view (as intended I think - oops!) what word do you suggest is used which won't convey to you an arrogant attitude? Oh, and do review your comment please - " I am having a problem with is your arrogant style, especially the normal 'I' that always comes first." couldn't make it up........ :) muscliffman

11:50pm Fri 20 Dec 13

simcal says...

Nothing compared to Amazon or Starbucks. Never mind......
Nothing compared to Amazon or Starbucks. Never mind...... simcal

12:32am Sat 21 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

simcal wrote:
Nothing compared to Amazon or Starbucks. Never mind......
Careful, that was my view and look at the trouble it got me into for 'arrogantly' daring to have one!
[quote][p][bold]simcal[/bold] wrote: Nothing compared to Amazon or Starbucks. Never mind......[/p][/quote]Careful, that was my view and look at the trouble it got me into for 'arrogantly' daring to have one! muscliffman

1:27am Sat 21 Dec 13

Gordon Clifton says...

I wish the Echo could get their spelling right. The cons will eventually be allowed out on licence, not license. This is an English language newspaper in an English town, not American.
I wish the Echo could get their spelling right. The cons will eventually be allowed out on licence, not license. This is an English language newspaper in an English town, not American. Gordon Clifton

9:43am Sat 21 Dec 13

John T says...

musccliffman
I, I, Cap'n.
I have reviewed my earlier comment, as instructed by you, and now realise that you need only add a dot to your two '['s and you get what you are...a complete idiot. :)
musccliffman I, I, Cap'n. I have reviewed my earlier comment, as instructed by you, and now realise that you need only add a dot to your two '['s and you get what you are...a complete idiot. :) John T

10:42am Sat 21 Dec 13

lisa401 says...

John T wrote:
muscliffman
So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?!
I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this.
Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.
The operative word here being 'turnover' - that is not profit! Huge overheads would have been incurred - staff, business rates, rent etc. but the biggest of all would have been the franchise fees. Franchisees have to pay a fixed amount per month plus a percentage of their takings to the franchisor, just for using their brand name, and everything has to be purchased f from them too, usually at ten times the price they would pay on the open market. I don't condone their actions but anyone defrauding HMRC must have been desperate as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught.
[quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: muscliffman So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?! I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this. Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.[/p][/quote]The operative word here being 'turnover' - that is not profit! Huge overheads would have been incurred - staff, business rates, rent etc. but the biggest of all would have been the franchise fees. Franchisees have to pay a fixed amount per month plus a percentage of their takings to the franchisor, just for using their brand name, and everything has to be purchased f from them too, usually at ten times the price they would pay on the open market. I don't condone their actions but anyone defrauding HMRC must have been desperate as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught. lisa401

11:48am Sat 21 Dec 13

John T says...

lisa401 wrote:
John T wrote:
muscliffman
So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?!
I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this.
Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.
The operative word here being 'turnover' - that is not profit! Huge overheads would have been incurred - staff, business rates, rent etc. but the biggest of all would have been the franchise fees. Franchisees have to pay a fixed amount per month plus a percentage of their takings to the franchisor, just for using their brand name, and everything has to be purchased f from them too, usually at ten times the price they would pay on the open market. I don't condone their actions but anyone defrauding HMRC must have been desperate as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught.
No,love, the operative word is profit, because that is what VAT is paid on....the clue is in the words 'value added'.
As to your use of the word ,desperate' to justify these crooks' actions 'as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught defrauding HMRC', I don't consider 9 months in prison a harsh penalty for stealing £600000 of the public's money. And, by the way, not many of these 'little men in the street', as the erudite muscliffman refers to them, ever gets a custodial sentence at all for VAT fraud..
VAT fraud is not a victimless crime.If people have a problem with their franchise, they should take should seek redress from the franchisor, Pizza Sh*t in this case, not steal the public's money.
[quote][p][bold]lisa401[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: muscliffman So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?! I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this. Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.[/p][/quote]The operative word here being 'turnover' - that is not profit! Huge overheads would have been incurred - staff, business rates, rent etc. but the biggest of all would have been the franchise fees. Franchisees have to pay a fixed amount per month plus a percentage of their takings to the franchisor, just for using their brand name, and everything has to be purchased f from them too, usually at ten times the price they would pay on the open market. I don't condone their actions but anyone defrauding HMRC must have been desperate as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught.[/p][/quote]No,love, the operative word is profit, because that is what VAT is paid on....the clue is in the words 'value added'. As to your use of the word ,desperate' to justify these crooks' actions 'as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught defrauding HMRC', I don't consider 9 months in prison a harsh penalty for stealing £600000 of the public's money. And, by the way, not many of these 'little men in the street', as the erudite muscliffman refers to them, ever gets a custodial sentence at all for VAT fraud.. VAT fraud is not a victimless crime.If people have a problem with their franchise, they should take should seek redress from the franchisor, Pizza Sh*t in this case, not steal the public's money. John T

1:03pm Sat 21 Dec 13

anigel says...

John T wrote:
lisa401 wrote:
John T wrote:
muscliffman
So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?!
I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this.
Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.
The operative word here being 'turnover' - that is not profit! Huge overheads would have been incurred - staff, business rates, rent etc. but the biggest of all would have been the franchise fees. Franchisees have to pay a fixed amount per month plus a percentage of their takings to the franchisor, just for using their brand name, and everything has to be purchased f from them too, usually at ten times the price they would pay on the open market. I don't condone their actions but anyone defrauding HMRC must have been desperate as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught.
No,love, the operative word is profit, because that is what VAT is paid on....the clue is in the words 'value added'.
As to your use of the word ,desperate' to justify these crooks' actions 'as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught defrauding HMRC', I don't consider 9 months in prison a harsh penalty for stealing £600000 of the public's money. And, by the way, not many of these 'little men in the street', as the erudite muscliffman refers to them, ever gets a custodial sentence at all for VAT fraud..
VAT fraud is not a victimless crime.If people have a problem with their franchise, they should take should seek redress from the franchisor, Pizza Sh*t in this case, not steal the public's money.
No darling, it is you that has totally misunderstood VAT. Every vatable product that is sold has the retailer charge the VAT to the customer and that VAT minus the VAT that the retailer paid out to produce the goods or services has to be passed onto the HMRC it doesn't matter if you are selling products at a loss, you still have to pass on that VAT to the revenue.
[quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa401[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: muscliffman So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?! I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this. Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.[/p][/quote]The operative word here being 'turnover' - that is not profit! Huge overheads would have been incurred - staff, business rates, rent etc. but the biggest of all would have been the franchise fees. Franchisees have to pay a fixed amount per month plus a percentage of their takings to the franchisor, just for using their brand name, and everything has to be purchased f from them too, usually at ten times the price they would pay on the open market. I don't condone their actions but anyone defrauding HMRC must have been desperate as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught.[/p][/quote]No,love, the operative word is profit, because that is what VAT is paid on....the clue is in the words 'value added'. As to your use of the word ,desperate' to justify these crooks' actions 'as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught defrauding HMRC', I don't consider 9 months in prison a harsh penalty for stealing £600000 of the public's money. And, by the way, not many of these 'little men in the street', as the erudite muscliffman refers to them, ever gets a custodial sentence at all for VAT fraud.. VAT fraud is not a victimless crime.If people have a problem with their franchise, they should take should seek redress from the franchisor, Pizza Sh*t in this case, not steal the public's money.[/p][/quote]No darling, it is you that has totally misunderstood VAT. Every vatable product that is sold has the retailer charge the VAT to the customer and that VAT minus the VAT that the retailer paid out to produce the goods or services has to be passed onto the HMRC it doesn't matter if you are selling products at a loss, you still have to pass on that VAT to the revenue. anigel

2:06pm Sat 21 Dec 13

muscliffman says...

John T wrote:
musccliffman
I, I, Cap'n.
I have reviewed my earlier comment, as instructed by you, and now realise that you need only add a dot to your two '
Personal abuse! Confirmation as if it were even needed of a direct hit.
[quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: musccliffman I, I, Cap'n. I have reviewed my earlier comment, as instructed by you, and now realise that you need only add a dot to your two '['s and you get what you are...a complete idiot. :)[/p][/quote]Personal abuse! Confirmation as if it were even needed of a direct hit. muscliffman

3:00pm Sat 21 Dec 13

Telscombe Cliffy says...

John T wrote:
lisa401 wrote:
John T wrote:
muscliffman
So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?!
I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this.
Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.
The operative word here being 'turnover' - that is not profit! Huge overheads would have been incurred - staff, business rates, rent etc. but the biggest of all would have been the franchise fees. Franchisees have to pay a fixed amount per month plus a percentage of their takings to the franchisor, just for using their brand name, and everything has to be purchased f from them too, usually at ten times the price they would pay on the open market. I don't condone their actions but anyone defrauding HMRC must have been desperate as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught.
No,love, the operative word is profit, because that is what VAT is paid on....the clue is in the words 'value added'.
As to your use of the word ,desperate' to justify these crooks' actions 'as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught defrauding HMRC', I don't consider 9 months in prison a harsh penalty for stealing £600000 of the public's money. And, by the way, not many of these 'little men in the street', as the erudite muscliffman refers to them, ever gets a custodial sentence at all for VAT fraud..
VAT fraud is not a victimless crime.If people have a problem with their franchise, they should take should seek redress from the franchisor, Pizza Sh*t in this case, not steal the public's money.
Yes, if they've spirited away this money abroad for when they come out it is a tiny sentence. It works out at about £2250 a day while being looked after in prison. Quite a lucrative scam. This is where it's all wrong. Nice work if you can get it. I could retire on £600,000.
[quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa401[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: muscliffman So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?! I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this. Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.[/p][/quote]The operative word here being 'turnover' - that is not profit! Huge overheads would have been incurred - staff, business rates, rent etc. but the biggest of all would have been the franchise fees. Franchisees have to pay a fixed amount per month plus a percentage of their takings to the franchisor, just for using their brand name, and everything has to be purchased f from them too, usually at ten times the price they would pay on the open market. I don't condone their actions but anyone defrauding HMRC must have been desperate as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught.[/p][/quote]No,love, the operative word is profit, because that is what VAT is paid on....the clue is in the words 'value added'. As to your use of the word ,desperate' to justify these crooks' actions 'as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught defrauding HMRC', I don't consider 9 months in prison a harsh penalty for stealing £600000 of the public's money. And, by the way, not many of these 'little men in the street', as the erudite muscliffman refers to them, ever gets a custodial sentence at all for VAT fraud.. VAT fraud is not a victimless crime.If people have a problem with their franchise, they should take should seek redress from the franchisor, Pizza Sh*t in this case, not steal the public's money.[/p][/quote]Yes, if they've spirited away this money abroad for when they come out it is a tiny sentence. It works out at about £2250 a day while being looked after in prison. Quite a lucrative scam. This is where it's all wrong. Nice work if you can get it. I could retire on £600,000. Telscombe Cliffy

5:01pm Sat 21 Dec 13

BournemouthMum says...

anigel wrote:
John T wrote:
lisa401 wrote:
John T wrote:
muscliffman
So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?!
I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this.
Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.
The operative word here being 'turnover' - that is not profit! Huge overheads would have been incurred - staff, business rates, rent etc. but the biggest of all would have been the franchise fees. Franchisees have to pay a fixed amount per month plus a percentage of their takings to the franchisor, just for using their brand name, and everything has to be purchased f from them too, usually at ten times the price they would pay on the open market. I don't condone their actions but anyone defrauding HMRC must have been desperate as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught.
No,love, the operative word is profit, because that is what VAT is paid on....the clue is in the words 'value added'.
As to your use of the word ,desperate' to justify these crooks' actions 'as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught defrauding HMRC', I don't consider 9 months in prison a harsh penalty for stealing £600000 of the public's money. And, by the way, not many of these 'little men in the street', as the erudite muscliffman refers to them, ever gets a custodial sentence at all for VAT fraud..
VAT fraud is not a victimless crime.If people have a problem with their franchise, they should take should seek redress from the franchisor, Pizza Sh*t in this case, not steal the public's money.
No darling, it is you that has totally misunderstood VAT. Every vatable product that is sold has the retailer charge the VAT to the customer and that VAT minus the VAT that the retailer paid out to produce the goods or services has to be passed onto the HMRC it doesn't matter if you are selling products at a loss, you still have to pass on that VAT to the revenue.
Correct. VAT is based on turnover and has to be paid whether the business is in profit or not.
[quote][p][bold]anigel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lisa401[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: muscliffman So you regard these crooks as 'the little man in the street' do you, with their turnover in excess of a million pound a year?! I am sure you will be happy to know that HMRC are having their budget cut again by 20%, so will in future have even less resources to persecute'little men' like this. Well, even if these poor little Indians have had to suffer a nine month sentence behind bars for stealing £600000 from the likes of you and me, at least, you can rest assured the cowboys are continuing to get away with similar theft.[/p][/quote]The operative word here being 'turnover' - that is not profit! Huge overheads would have been incurred - staff, business rates, rent etc. but the biggest of all would have been the franchise fees. Franchisees have to pay a fixed amount per month plus a percentage of their takings to the franchisor, just for using their brand name, and everything has to be purchased f from them too, usually at ten times the price they would pay on the open market. I don't condone their actions but anyone defrauding HMRC must have been desperate as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught.[/p][/quote]No,love, the operative word is profit, because that is what VAT is paid on....the clue is in the words 'value added'. As to your use of the word ,desperate' to justify these crooks' actions 'as most people know there are harsh penalties when caught defrauding HMRC', I don't consider 9 months in prison a harsh penalty for stealing £600000 of the public's money. And, by the way, not many of these 'little men in the street', as the erudite muscliffman refers to them, ever gets a custodial sentence at all for VAT fraud.. VAT fraud is not a victimless crime.If people have a problem with their franchise, they should take should seek redress from the franchisor, Pizza Sh*t in this case, not steal the public's money.[/p][/quote]No darling, it is you that has totally misunderstood VAT. Every vatable product that is sold has the retailer charge the VAT to the customer and that VAT minus the VAT that the retailer paid out to produce the goods or services has to be passed onto the HMRC it doesn't matter if you are selling products at a loss, you still have to pass on that VAT to the revenue.[/p][/quote]Correct. VAT is based on turnover and has to be paid whether the business is in profit or not. BournemouthMum

5:18pm Sat 21 Dec 13

John T says...

muscliffman wrote:
John T wrote:
musccliffman
I, I, Cap'n.
I have reviewed my earlier comment, as instructed by you, and now realise that you need only add a dot to your two '
Personal abuse! Confirmation as if it were even needed of a direct hit.
Thanks for your magnanimous confirmation that my comment was right on the mark.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]John T[/bold] wrote: musccliffman I, I, Cap'n. I have reviewed my earlier comment, as instructed by you, and now realise that you need only add a dot to your two '['s and you get what you are...a complete idiot. :)[/p][/quote]Personal abuse! Confirmation as if it were even needed of a direct hit.[/p][/quote]Thanks for your magnanimous confirmation that my comment was right on the mark. John T

4:27am Sun 22 Dec 13

ASM says...

these guys must be loaded to open 4 pizza huts, so i'm sure they could afford to pay the tax if they wanted to, wisely they fiddled and decided a 9 month stint in a soft jail cell was worth 600k. Also I don't think pizza hut can run at a loss, No way! these guys were fiddling, they must have a good lawyer and a good accountant.
well played boys! you played the system well and made a mockery of our soft touch policies and lax laws.
these guys must be loaded to open 4 pizza huts, so i'm sure they could afford to pay the tax if they wanted to, wisely they fiddled and decided a 9 month stint in a soft jail cell was worth 600k. Also I don't think pizza hut can run at a loss, No way! these guys were fiddling, they must have a good lawyer and a good accountant. well played boys! you played the system well and made a mockery of our soft touch policies and lax laws. ASM

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree