Tyson Fury and brothers forced to pay the taxman nearly £100,000
The boxing champion and brothers John and Shane were taken to court by Cheshire East Council over land they owned in Styal
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
World heavyweight boxing champion Tyson Fury and two of his brothers must pay nearly £100,000 after a judge ruled they were liable for unpaid business rates.
Cheshire East Council took the fighter and siblings Shane and John to court for non-payment of business rates since April 2021 at land they owned in Styal, Cheshire.
None of the trio attended a hearing on Tuesday at Chester Magistrates’ Court to settle the dispute but their father, John Snr, gave evidence to say he had previously transferred his ownership of the site at Moss Lane to them.
The court heard he rented a storage yard, said to be “a stone’s throw away” from Manchester Airport, for £600 per month to Babakir Elmosbah, who said he was director of a firm which used the site for a valet parking service to and from the airport.
However, District Judge John McGarva said the respondents – the Fury brothers – had “not got anywhere near establishing a prima facie case” that the company, Holiday Car Parks Manchester Ltd, were in actual occupation of the premises.
He ordered the Furys to pay the business rates bill of £82,166.85, together with the council’s court costs of £17,206.
Mr Fury Snr told the court he had placed ownership of the land into a trust fund for his three sons to take over when they turned 21.
He admitted though that his signature was on a commercial lease agreement with Holiday Car Parks Manchester Ltd.
I’m an old-fashioned man and I’m semi-literate. That’s how it is
He said he was dyslexic, could not read or write and that a trusted adviser who was “a lot more educated than me” had assisted him in all business dealings.
He said: “All I have done is rent a piece of land out to this gentleman (Mr Elmosbah). I don’t have any understanding of what business they do.
“I’m an old-fashioned man and I’m semi-literate. That’s how it is.”
Asked why he had signed the form when his sons were the registered landowners, he said he came from a “different culture” and that “I’m still the man of that land”.
He went on: “They have nothing to do with it. I’m a boxing coach, I’m a boxing trainer. I have no understanding at all. The only trouble I have been in is criminal, not the technical stuff. It’s not my field. I try to keep away from paperwork.”
He said he had not been told to attend Tuesday’s hearing but wanted to explain why his sons were registered as the landowners.
Mr Fury Snr said: “They had nothing to do with any of this. It’s ridiculous. Especially Tyson, when you are paying millions in tax every year. He has not lived here for 18 years.”
Mr Fury Snr left the court after he gave evidence and did not return to hear the judge’s ruling.
Judge McGarva said the local authority did not dispute that Holiday Car Parks Manchester Ltd existed, but noted Mr Elmosbah could not explain why in its accounts for the year ending August 2022 it was listed as dormant and had no employees in that period.
He was satisfied the company did exist, but the evidence about it was “wholly conflicting”.
The judge said that Mr Elmosbah was “far from an impressive witness” and “not credible”, while he said it was “wholly unsatisfactory” he had not heard from any of the three respondents in person, or from Mr Fury Snr’s adviser.
He added the lease agreement “left more questions than answers” including why Mr Fury Snr had agreed to lease a property he had “already disposed of”.
Martin Budworth, representing the respondents, argued the council had no positive case against his clients other than their names were recorded on the Land Register.
He said the suggestion that the car parking firm’s operation “can be discounted or disregarded as some sort of sham is a really bold proposition”.
He said: “What we are seeing is a local authority that has an urge to find a rateable occupier that has assets to meet the liability.”
Mr Budworth said there had been an “unfortunate history of failed tenants” at the site which meant the local authority had struggled to collect rates.