Business

Harry Potter star ordered to pay £1.8M after losing HMRC tax battle

https://insurancehubex.online/wp-admin/options-general.php?page=ad-inserter.php#tab-6

HARRY Potter star Rupert Grint has been ordered to pay further £1.8million in tax.

The Harry Potter star has been locked in a bitter legal battle with HMRC over his tax return from the 2011-12 tax year.

2

Rupert Grint has been ordered to pay further £1.8million in taxCredit: Getty

The actor, known for portraying Ron Weasley, previously lost his fight with HM Revenue and Customs in 2019.

He was ordered to pay the sum following an investigation into his tax return from the 2011-12 tax year.

It came after the star was given £4.5million from a company which managed his business affairs as “consideration for rights, records and goodwill” from his work.

He claimed this was a “capital asset” and should be the subject of capital gains tax.

But HMRC argued the money should have been registered as income.

And, their investigation concluded Rupert needed to pay a further £1,801,060 in tax.

The actor’s lawyers appealed against HMRC’s decision at a hearing in London in November and December 2022.

But in a ruling Tribunal Judge Harriet Morgan dismissed the appeal and found the sum “is taxable as income”.

Rupert starred in the first Harry Potter film in 2001 as a teen, and is calculated to have earned around £24 million from playing Ron Weasley.

It comes after the Harry Potter star recently won a two-year battle with neighbours to turn a £5.4million Hertfordshire estate into his very own Hogsmeade.

Trailer for Harry Potter 20th Anniversary Return to Hogwarts with Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson

The actor sparked uproar over plans for an eco village of 15 homes at his historic 18th Century former vicarage.

He wants to convert the main house into six luxury apartments and demolish a huge 100 x 47ft barn and greenhouse to make way for five detached houses.

More than a dozen locals objected to the proposed scheme, saying it was inappropriate development on green belt land and in a conservation area.

They also cited loss of trees, an increase in traffic and fears for wildlife including badgers, bats, birds, squirrels and muntjac deer.

Rupert, 36, was also accused of offering a “cynical” sweetener by offering neighbours and the local parish council free land for bigger gardens and a public open space.

But planners at the local council have now finally given the development the green light after the actor also vowed to build four affordable homes.

They said: “The development would result in harm to the visual openness of the green belt by reason of the introduction of development to parts of the site which currently has none.

“The harm identified is however considered to be limited and therefore compliant, given the contribution to affordable housing proposes as part of the development.

“The provision of four affordable housing units as part of the scheme is attached significant weight.”

He will have to pay almost £100,000 towards local schools, library and youth services including an annual £10,000 for maintenance of the gifted land.

RUPERT GRINT COURT BATTLE

By Chloe Mayer

Rupert Grint’s bid to clawback £1million from the taxman failed in August 2016.

The actor, 27, is believed to have built a £24 million fortune playing Ron Weasley in the films.

In the 20 months to 5 April 2010 he was said to have built up a turnover of £28 million and £15 million in profits.

Accountants tried to shift eight months of income from a 50 per cent top tax rate in 2010/11 to the 40 per cent rate in 2009/10.

They wanted to bring his accounts date back from July 31 to April 5.

Tax chiefs agreed but denied Rupert had actually gone ahead.

A London tax tribunal ruled he would not get the rebate.

Judge Barbara Mosedale ruled the conditions necessary to make a valid accounting date change had not been met.

She said: “It was no part of HMRC’s case that Mr Grint was involved in tax avoidance.

“HMRC accepted that he had the right to change his accounting date.

“The dispute solely concerned whether he had done so within the meaning of the legislation.”

A ruling Tribunal Judge Harriet Morgan dismissed the appeal and found the sum 'is taxable as income'

2

A ruling Tribunal Judge Harriet Morgan dismissed the appeal and found the sum ‘is taxable as income’Credit: Getty

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button