Stupid Heather

[AtW]

I read in the beeb that the bulk of her cash is a 600k per year income, given in one lump sum. Is there any tax to pay on that?

Probably no tax because they are splitting up "their" money. I doubt Paul paid much tax himself either.

[TheFaQQer]

I read in the beeb that the bulk of her cash is a 600k per year income, given in one lump sum. Is there any tax to pay on that?

Yes - it's income, so there will be income tax to pay. Unless that's the net figure and it's already been deducted.

Either way, someone will be paying tax on it.

It's only fair.

[BoredBloke]

I read in the beeb that the bulk of her cash is a 600k per year income, given in one lump sum. Is there any tax to pay on that?

[AtW]

I have not read it all in detail (can't be arsed) but it seems that the bulk of the sum is in form of the houses she already has, so actual cash won't be that huge - it seems that she really screwed up, which is good - I guess the judge had to give her a fair chunk of money because otherwise she would have grounds for appeal - that Fiona lawyer of Paul can now easily double her fees and still get lots of work - I never liked Paul and don't like him now, but heck, that Heather witch made me on his side

[SueEllen]

I agree.

It would be nice if she was only allowed a house and money until her daughter was 18, or until her daughter's custody needs changed.

[AtW]

Her earnings:

""However her tax returns for the years ending 5 April 1999 and thereafter to 2006 are in the papers. Her gross turnover and net profit declared for “acting, modelling and public speaking” for the tax years 1999 to 2002 are, respectively (to the nearest £500) £62,000 and £11,500; £42,000 and £6000; £112,000 and £58,000; and £78,000 and £49,500."

Claims:

"Heather Mills budgeted £499,000 for holidays - including £35,000 for helicopter flights, £242,000 for accommodation, £72,000 for commercial flights and £150,000 for private flights.

The extraordinary figures make up part of her demands for her divorce settlement and were partially based on the fact that she has always flown first class since she was 25 and believed that she and her daughter Beatrice should continue doing so.

Sir Paul had accepted this in his evidence but the judge said that the amounts were "much, much too high in every respect."

"In the absence of any sensible proposal by the wife as to her income needs I must do the best I can on the material I have," he continued.

"If the wife feels aggrieved about what I propose to do, she only has herself to blame.

"If, as she has done, a litigant flagrantly overeggs the pudding and thus deprives the court of any sensible assistance, then he or she is likely to find that the court takes a robust view and drastically prunes the proposed budget."

Mr Justice Bennett awarded her £150,000 for holidays which included money for dining out, entertaining and other interests while in the UK. "

--

"The judge said all Ms Mills' evidence indicated she felt she had a right to live as luxoriously as her husband but that he could not see why she should continue to do so after their separation."

He says: "In my judgment the wife's attitude in her Form E, her open offers, her oral and written evidence, and her submissions is that she is entitled for the indefinite future, if not for the whole of her life, to live at the same “rate” as the husband and to be kept in the style to which she perceives she was accustomed during the marriage.

"Although she strongly denied it her case boils down to the syndrome of “me, too” or “if he has it, I want it too”...

"It must have been absolutely plain to the wife after separation that it was wholly unrealistic to expect to go on living at the rate at which she perceived she was living.

This could be a nice precedent actually. It would have been better though if she got £2-3 mln only for her daugher - she can't spent any on herself.

More hillariou stuff here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...e_id=1770&ct=5