The monk who sold his Ferrari

[Mariyam]

Will this view be upheld in a court of law?

I didn't follow your question. Which view? There isn't any case registered against SRT!!! There are no grounds for that.

[nballa]

lol shastri got an audi 100, he might as well received a bullock-cart instead.

[Mariyam]

@ Lurker and Debachat: You guys raise good and valid points. One must remember that Sachin has his own team of CAs and legal representatives who would have done their homework and influenced his decision. He probably applied for an exemption taking their advice in due consideration. Think of the whole situation from SRT's pov. He didn't really want the car.It was a publicity stunt by Ferrari. The car is pretty unusable on Indian roads. If we're talking about morality, keeping the ^^ points in mind,Ferrari should be the ones who offer to pay the duty upfront ( which they eventually did).

[bulbul]

@ Lurker and Debachat: You guys raise good and valid points. One must remember that Sachin has his own team of CAs and legal representatives who would have done their homework and influenced his decision. He probably applied for an exemption taking their advice in due consideration. Think of the whole situation from SRT's pov. He didn't really want the car.It was a publicity stunt by Ferrari. The car is pretty unusable on Indian roads. If we're talking about morality, keeping the ^^ points in mind,Ferrari should be the ones who offer to pay the duty upfront ( which they eventually did).

he should have asked a Premier Padmini then

[Mariyam]

lol shastri got an audi 100' date=' he might as well received a bullock-cart instead.[/quote'] ??? Did I get it wrong? Always get confused between Gavaskar and Shastri. The all rounder got the car, not the wicket keeper batsman. Thats Shastri right? Edit: Walter wiki says its Shastri.

[seedhi]

One must remember that Sachin has his own team of CAs and legal representatives who would have done their homework and influenced his decision. He probably applied for an exemption taking their advice in due consideration. Think of the whole situation from SRT's pov. He didn't really want the car.It was a publicity stunt by Ferrari. The car is pretty unusable on Indian roads.

Well, then he must have had lousy advisers. The Customs Duty is payable by the importer, and the logical thing would have been for Fiat to import the Ferrari into India -- a routine operation for a car company -- and then gift it to SRT. The very fact that SRT decided to import the car himself raises a strong suspicion that it was to enable him to apply for the exemption and thus save Fiat some money, knowing very well that the govt may refuse Fiat but will not turn down a request for exemption from SRT himself.

[Mariyam]

The Customs Duty is payable by the importer' date=' and the logical thing would have been for Fiat to import the Ferrari into India -- a routine operation for a car company -- and then gift it to SRT. [/quote'] Could be that SRT was caught unawares when the car was gifted. He didn't see it coming. All the more reason to question Ferrari(Fiat)'s intentions.

[seedhi]

Could be that SRT was caught unawares when the car was gifted. He didn't see it coming. All the more reason to question Ferrari(Fiat)'s intentions. Wasn't that a given? He received the car in the UK. I don't think he has any permanent residence there. What else could he have done, apart from selling it?

You be naive if you choose to, but I find it impossible to believe that SRTs friends, advisers, managers etc couldnt foresee the problem of importing the car into India, especially for someone who travels so much. There is no way he could have been caught "unawares". The whole plan must have been to let SRT be the official importer himself and then apply for an exemption which no govt would refuse, and SRT was in on it of course. Instead of the logical process of Fiat importing the Ferrari, paying the duty and then gifting, SRT played along and tried to use his name and influence to save Fiat money. Shame.

[Mariyam]

You be naive if you choose to' date=' but I find it impossible to believe that SRTs friends, advisers, managers etc couldnt foresee the problem of importing the car into India, especially for someone who travels so much. There is no way he could have been caught "unawares". The whole plan must have been to let SRT be the official importer himself and then apply for an exemption which no govt would refuse, and SRT was in on it of course. Instead of the logical process of Fiat importing the Ferrari, paying the duty and then gifting, SRT played along and tried to use his name and influence to save Fiat money. Shame.[/quote'] Come on Seedhi, this is SRT you're talking about. Not some dalbadlu safed topi. You misunderstood me when I said that he may have been 'caught unawares'. I meant that SRT possibly couldn't have known in advance that he was due a 'gift' from Ferrari. And it came as a pleasant surprise to him. Of course, after that his coterie of advisers and friends could foresee the problems involved with importing the car to India and he acted accordingly. And that begs the question: Why would SRT try and save Fiat the import duty? What you are hinting at is plausible, but very outlandish. Would SRT scheme to this extent to save an amount that would just be pocket change for him or Ferrari/Fiat? In the end Ferrari paid the duty.

[seedhi]

Come on Seedhi, this is SRT you're talking about. Not some dalbadlu safed topi. You misunderstood me when I said that he may have been 'caught unawares'. I meant that SRT possibly couldn't have known in advance that he was due a 'gift' from Ferrari. And it came as a pleasant surprise to him. Of course, after that his coterie of advisers and friends could foresee the problems involved with importing the car to India and he acted accordingly. And that begs the question: Why would SRT try and save Fiat the import duty? What you are hinting at is plausible, but very outlandish. Would SRT scheme to this extent to save an amount that would just be pocket change for him or Ferrari/Fiat? In the end Ferrari paid the duty.

For a company like Fiat this was such an obvious way to evade duty that the question of the magnitude (which is not unsubstantial) of amount probably did not even arise. I can only guess that SRT wanted to impress his sponsors. Moreover, there was not much he would have had to do besides signing a few documents. Obviously, the shipping and clearing was handled by Fiat or its agents. The only thing needed was his name as the official importer and the application for exemption of duty. This was duly provided by SRT to whom it would have seemed a favor to his sponsor. What he and Fiat did not anticipate was the public outcry over what was (to them) a routine and acceptable misuse of name and fame to evade duty/tax.

[Mariyam]

^^ If I'm not mistaken, the public outcry( more of media outcry actually) and the PIL was re: the amendment in the Customs Act, according to which even gifted automobiles would be exempt from Import Duty. It wasn't necessarily directed against SRT per se. This amendment however, was brought about, after SRT's import duty was waivered off. The arguement was that people would just start 'gifting' cars on the premise of an achievement, imaginary or real to evade import duty. And furthermore, its very debatable what exact occasions call for such a 'gift' etc. And all these are fair points, IMO.

[seedhi]

^^ If I'm not mistaken, the public outcry( more of media outcry actually) and the PIL was re: the amendment in the Customs Act, according to which even gifted automobiles would be exempt from Import Duty. It wasn't necessarily directed against SRT per se. This amendment however, was brought about, after SRT's import duty was waivered off. The arguement was that people would just start 'gifting' cars on the premise of an achievement, imaginary or real to evade import duty. And furthermore, its very debatable what exact occasions call for such a 'gift' etc. And all these are fair points, IMO.

The major focus was on the fact that SRT applied for the waiver for a gifted vehicle, something not covered by the existing rules and definitely not expected from a model citizen, and this did generate bad publicity for him. My contention is that the negative reaction was not undeserved, for I am sure that he misused his name to save an MNC money which was due to the govt.

[Mariyam]

I haven't had a look at tax codes since Uni but your quoted bit is suspect. You cannot apply for a waiver unless the rules allow you to - it's an adhoc process. What MoF decided thereafter was to do away with the waiver process entirely in select cases' date=' i.e, imposition of duty on cars won as prizes.[/quote'] Import duty on cars won as prizes was waived off years before SRT was gifted the Ferrari. In all likelihood, his mainstay arguement would have been that a car gifted to him in lieu of a sporting achievement ( equaling Bradman in this case) is de facto a prize. The MoF, later decided to do away with import duties on all gifted automobiles too.

[Lurker]

Think of the whole situation from SRT's pov. He didn't really want the car.It was a publicity stunt by Ferrari. The car is pretty unusable on Indian roads. If we're talking about morality, keeping the ^^ points in mind,Ferrari should be the ones who offer to pay the duty upfront ( which they eventually did).

I wouldnt be so quick to judge SRT, or Ferrari. As India, and Indians, have made money and more money, their propensity for Western riches have grown much. Many of these social status, like fast fars, are very much an Indian norm. Yes sure you can not drive a Ferrari much on Indian roads but that simply adds to the elitist status does it not? Oh we are too cool for India, you know what I mean. Many of these cars are quite affordable by Indians today. A half decent Ferrari can be bought around 150-200K US Dollars, about 1 crore INR. Even if you put the import duties and customs at 500% of the cost, that would come to 5 crore. Total cost being 6 crore INR. For someone like SRt or Dhoni or perhaps even Kohli is it really that huge a number today? The figure were more for elaboration, dont ask me to quote Kelley Blue Book on this :winky:

[zen]

I've opened this thread in CT because I've come across many posts (by different posters) that denigrate Sachin Tendulkar wrt to the whole Ferrari gifting episode. One may or may not think him to be the greatest ever, one may or may not like him, but to say that he evaded tax/duty is totally baseless. Thought, I'd clear that up once and for all. I had posted this earlier, but the thread got closed before the guys who alleged that Sachin evaded tax could respond. A rough chronology of the events that transpired: - Sachin equals Bradman in # of test centuries and Ferrari decides to gift him a car. Schumacher hands him the keys. - Sachin applies for an exemption on customs duty (1) ( very different from evading duty) - The government grants him the exemption, and the duty on importing the gifted car is waived. - The Finance minister also proposes to modify the Customs Act. Hitherto, only automobiles won as prizes could be exempted from duty (2) - The proposed change is eventually introduced & the Customs Act is accordingly amended. - PIL is filed in the DHC on the amendment and it garners a lot of public attention - With debates (read: controversy) brewing, Sachin declares that he will pay the duty inspite of getting a waiver from the government, just so that the controversy is laid to rest. - Ferari steps in and agrees to pay the duty. Now the fun part; (1) & (2) Sachin wasn't the first cricketer to ask for such an exemption. Ravi Shastri had won an Audi ( can't remember which year) and he had asked for an exemption on Import duty back then. The government then amended Customs Act when the financial bill was passed, and declared that automobiles that are won as a prize would have the import duty waivered. In Sachin's case, it wasn't a prize, but was an ersatz prize gifted to him in lieu of his performance. That he applied for an exemption is based on the previous precedent , i.e Shastri's behaviour. You can hold all kinds of grudges against Sachin's batting, bowling and fielding. But accusing someone of dodging tax/ evading duty is a rather serious allegation. And in this case its baseless. Fact is, that Tendulkar is a breed apart among modern cricketers. Not just on the field, but off the field too. With a near perfect public image. You want to fault someone for the entire controversy, point your gun at the government, not Tendulkar. He merely asked for an exemption, which given the circumstances wasn't wrong at all. I could go on where top notch Industrialists have been gone and evaded duty on machines they've imported into India that has harmed their segment of the market and monopolized trade. Just to highlight the difference.But that'd be going off topic. You say he is seeking a Capital gains waiver on the sale of his 'gift'. Haven't come across this anywhere. Care to share a link. If he is, I think it would be unethical. But I don't think he'd do anything of the sort. The tax would be chump change for him, and he has an image to live up to.

I don't know why you wasted your time in writing this without much research: 1. Gavaskar had already passed Bradman's 29 test 100s. Unless you are implying that Sachin got 29 test 100s in 80 innings or so (which would be like equaling Bradman's record) 2. Shastri won the Audi for being declared the "man of the tournament" (for that tourney it was referred to as "Champions of Champions). Sachin getting the Ferrari for equaling bradman's record (which is a misnomer in the first place) and thus this being a some kind of a prize eligible for tax exception is not spot on. It's "more" like Miandad hitting that '6' of the last ball of Sharma and people gifting him tons of money and then Miandad asking for tax exemption on those gifts. Or How about SRK asking for an exemption for being gifted a F16 because he received an Oscar We don't know for sure if this was some kind of an arrangement b/w Fiat and SRT and Fiat cooked up a reason to gift him (for whatever reasons) or he truly was gifted out of 'fan' appreciation. Whatever the case, either SRT or Fiat should have paid the required duties. One shouldn't be asking for exemptions for these kind of things

[Prakat]

Equally Bradman's record isn't an established contest for which prizes are given. It would be ingenuous of the govt. to recognize it. The only way around it would be to categorize it as a gift. Which in itself is quite considerate, when you take into account that this is clearly a marketing gimmick as far as Ferrari is concerned. After all the company is not invested in any way with cricket or with Sachin.

[Mariyam]

I don't know why you wasted your time in writing this without much research: 1. Gavaskar had already passed Bradman's 29 test 100s. Unless you are implying that Sachin got 30 test 100s in 80 innings or so (which would be like breaking Bradman's record)

I suggest you read the OP again. I never mentioned that SRT was the first person to equal or surpass Bradman's record. The part you've highlighted only says that SRT equaled Bradman's record and Ferrari saw that as an occasion enough to gift him the car. What Gavaskar achieved is a moot point, because Ferrari weren't interested in awarding him the vehicle.

2. Shastri won the Audi for being declared the "man of the tournament" (for that tourney it was referred to as "Champions of Champions). Sachin getting the Ferrari for equaling bradman's record (which is a misnomer in the first place) and thus this being a some kind of a prize eligible for tax exception is not spot on. It's "more" like Miandad hitting that '6' of the last ball of Sharma and people gifting him tons of money and then Miandad asking for tax exemption on those gifts. Or SRK asking for an exemption for being gifted a F16 because someone thought his film did well overseas

You have to understand that there was already an exemption on import duties on cars won as prizes, when Sachin was gifted his Ferrari. Why should the GoI differentiate between a car won as a prize in a bonafide cricket tournament and a car that was gifted/ a prize to a player for achieving some landmark ( however dubious the connect may be)? Think of it from the GoI POV. After all, both were representing India there. Matters not if Shastri was the man of the Tournament, Shehenshahon ka shehenshah etc and SRT is a choker. If people want to gift Miandad for the 6, and there is a law in Pakistan that explicitly grants exemption to prize money for cricketing feats, he can argue that gifts given to him by well wishers for a cricketing achievement are no different. Fair game. A better analogy would be: Rett does a good job and his boss decides to give him 10000USD as prize money. Turns out that some anonymous posters on the net are so impressed with his mind blasting (pun intended) arguments in the Sachin vs ____ threads and decide to gift him 10000USD. The government wouldn't differentiate between the two, both would be included in his net taxable income.

We don't know for sure if this was some kind of an arrangement b/w Fiat and SRT and fiat cooked up a reason to gift him or he truly was gifted out of 'fan' appreciation. Whatever the case, either SRT or Fiat should have paid the required duties. One shouldn't be asking for exemptions for these kind of things case closed

He shouldn't or not is subject to individual judgement. This isn't one of those black-white scenarios. And this is India. Cases take a long time to close. :P

[Mariyam]

Equally Bradman's record isn't an established contest for which prizes are given. It would be ingenuous of the govt. to recognize it. The only way around it would be to categorize it as a gift. Which in itself is quite considerate, when you take into account that this is clearly a marketing gimmick as far as Ferrari is concerned. After all the company is not invested in any way with cricket or with Sachin.

Not disagreeing with any thing you say, but when you say 'established contest' , for whom is the contest established? The BCCI/ICC or the GoI? Let me put across a hypothetical scenario to you, since its morality that we're discussing: India won the T20 world cup (a very tangible and quantifiable victory, unlike the Bradman record) in England. A rich Brit Indian, who has nothing to do with the BCCI gifts each team member a mini cooper. Do you think they'd be justified in asking for an import duty exemption in taking the cars back home?

[zen]

I suggest you read the OP again. I never mentioned that SRT was the first person to equal or surpass Bradman's record. The part you've highlighted only says that SRT equaled Bradman's record and Ferrari saw that as an occasion enough to gift him the car. What Gavaskar achieved is a moot point, because Ferrari weren't interested in awarding him the vehicle. Tax exemption? Import duty exemption, you mean. You have to understand that there was already an exemption on import duties on cars won as prizes, when Sachin was gifted his Ferrari. Why should the GoI differentiate between a car won as a prize in a bonafide cricket tournament and a car that was gifted to a player for achieving some landmark ( however dubious the connect may be)? Matters not if Shastri was the man of the Tournament, Shehenshahon ka shehenshah etc and SRT is a choker. If people want to gift Miandad for the 6, and there is a law in Pakistan that explicitly grants exemption to prize money for cricketing feats, he can argue that gifts given to him by well wishers for a cricketing achievement are no different. Fair game. A better analogy would be: Rett does a good job and his boss decides to give him 10000USD as prize money. Turns out that some anonymous posters on the net are so impressed with his mind blasting (pun intended) arguments in the Sachin vs ____ threads and decide to gift him 10000USD. The government wouldn't differentiate between the two, both would be included in your net taxable income. This is India. Cases take a long time to close. :P

Bahenji, A summery before we go further: * no one has ever equaled Don's record * if # of 100s are to go then it was Gavaskar's tally of 34 * there was no 'official' competition in place for equaling Bradman/Gavaskar's record. * Shastri won a price that was put up 'officially' in the tournament and available for grabs by all those who participated in that event. The below would be the correct parallel with Sachin's case: * Shastri became "Champion of Champions". Audi is not put as a price by the tournament organizers. Audi, which is not a part of the tourney, on its own decides to give Shastri a car (may be to advertise its brand in India). Shastri asks for import duty exception claiming that he won Audi as a prize. In such a case, should the govt. grant him an exemption? Is Shastri right in asking for such an exemption? Shouldn't Shastri or Audi be paying the duties as the car was a 'gift' (not an official prize). In this case either Shastri or Audi (ideally) should pay the duties .... the truth is Shastri recieved an official prize. A prize that everyone playing in the tourney had a chance of winning. And this is something that Shastri won for India. Sachin was wrong to ask for an exemption. We can say he used his stature "unreasonably" to gain benefits for himself and Fiat (owners of Ferrari). I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that Sachin was the brand ambassodor for Fiat during that time :winky: even though the above^ is self explanatory and answers your post, some one lines below for fun: :P

You have to understand that there was already an exemption on import duties on cars won as prizes, when Sachin was gifted his Ferrari.

For winning an official prize. not a personal gift "presented" as a prize for an non existing record

Why should the GoI differentiate between a car won as a prize in a bonafide cricket tournament and a car that was gifted to a player for achieving some landmark ( however dubious the connect may be)? Matters not if Shastri was the man of the Tournament, Shehenshahon ka shehenshah etc and SRT is a choker.

explained in the main post above .... prize vs personal gift presented as a prize. this is called 'trying' to fool the system

If people want to gift Miandad for the 6, and there is a law in Pakistan that explicitly grants exemption to prize money for cricketing feats, he can argue that gifts given to him by well wishers for a cricketing achievement are no different. Fair game.

IF

A better analogy would be: Rett does a good job and his boss decides to give him 10000USD as prize money. Turns out that some anonymous posters on the net are so impressed with his mind blasting (pun intended) arguments in the Sachin vs ____ threads and decide to gift him 10000USD. The government wouldn't differentiate between the two, both would be included in your net taxable income.

*Like you tried to suggest that $10K from the boss wouldn't be a prize, it would be a bonus liable for personal taxes. * the gift from "anonymous" should be treated as tax deducted when you win a "lottery" for example

[bulbul]

Bahenji,

Mariawathi :haha: