SKAITV — broadcast
20261012 130000 UTC
261 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:00] and records their entire lives, your entire life, the
[00:00:04] entire second season comes to
[00:00:07] Sky,
[00:00:11] the Pepper Experience takes you to Paris to
[00:00:14] see Nurán Duran Live, four days for two people with
[00:00:18] all expenses paid on a trip signed by
[00:00:21] Vlasopuls Travel to win the next Pepper Experience,
[00:00:25] tune in to Pepper
[00:00:26] 96-6.
[00:00:37] every weekend we highlight society's
[00:00:40] issues every weekend the
[00:00:53] Mina Karamitrou and George Grigoriadis. What
[00:00:56] we are saying is that every weekend with us.
[00:01:00] the information, is worth your time, every
[00:01:04] Saturday and Sunday at 10:20 in the morning on
[00:01:07] Sky.
[00:01:18] You have an appetite, we have
[00:01:51] which site knows you by your name sky.gr. log
[00:01:55] in and discover information that really
[00:01:57] concerns you. the information you need and
[00:02:01] the news you want to know.
[00:02:05] here begins the next day of
[00:02:07] news
[00:02:10] sky.gr
[00:02:13] news.
[00:02:25] Good morning with Thei Mavragani. every
[00:02:29] Saturday and Sunday. at 5:30 in the morning on sky,
[00:03:12] ADE, the authority that examines tax issues,
[00:03:15] has also entered the game. An audit was conducted at Nikos
[00:03:19] Karvelas's house for outstanding issues regarding his tax
[00:03:22] declarations, which
[00:03:24] way to experience the life of were also audited. It was not an audit, but a visit for service
[00:03:28] obviously.
[00:03:30] and a, how do we say it, a document that he has some outstanding issues and
[00:03:34] needs to cover them. He
[00:03:37] talks about these amounts that are heard, which are approximately 850,000€.
[00:03:41] It has not been clarified whether it is from Anna Vissi's concerts or from other
[00:03:44] activities of Nikos Karvelas, who of course has
[00:03:47] also suspended his company and now lives
[00:03:50] only from royalties, so this also falls
[00:03:54] under the general audit, and at the same time,
[00:03:57] the ones that
[00:04:04] appear not to have been paid as they should have been
[00:04:07] paid, this is for the concert at Kallimarmaro and for Anna Vissi's European
[00:04:11] tour. The note here, however, is that the production
[00:04:15] companies that held the concerts at Kallimarmaro did not belong to
[00:04:18] Anna Vissi. That is, while now it is not a company that Anna Vissi supposedly
[00:04:22] created, and this is only for OAKA, for
[00:04:26] OAKA, her previous concerts. and
[00:04:36] these are the news, sir, yes, Anna Vissi's circle
[00:04:39] denies that she owes anything and has said that she is consistent
[00:04:43] in all her obligations and
[00:04:46] that she is also available for any now these amounts that were heard
[00:04:50] 850,000 50-70 are
[00:04:53] we sure that they are valid? I want to say, look, if there is no
[00:04:56] official announcement from the... well, there is no official announcement now.
[00:05:05] when they call you and an audit, they don't even know the amount. Let's bring Konstantinos
[00:05:09] Davlos, financial editor of Sky, into the conversation, and he will help us a lot.
[00:05:13] First of all, why does the tax office come to your house? Good evening, thank you very much for
[00:05:17] your help. Good evening, uh, the answer
[00:05:21] to this question is very simple, because Mr.
[00:05:24] Karvelas's business headquarters are his home. So
[00:05:27] it doesn't come, the AADE wouldn't come, for example, to me and
[00:05:31] you who are, let's say, on the TV like this to knock on our
[00:05:35] door, it goes to a business, it's just that this
[00:05:38] business has the same address as the house, so that's
[00:05:41] where they go.
[00:05:46] The fact that there has been a cessation does not mean that you cease to be associated with the
[00:05:49] business you had, nor that you cease to be liable for
[00:05:53] audits if a reason or cause arises that needs
[00:05:57] to be audited. If indeed, I don't know for sure
[00:06:00] and no one knows for sure, only if Mr.
[00:06:03] Karvelas is indeed being audited for 850,000 and he wants to
[00:06:06] check, obviously, if these funds pass through
[00:06:10] the business he had when they were active,
[00:06:14] obviously they will serve him the document at his house,
[00:06:17] seeking and wanting to conduct an audit for anything they deem
[00:06:21] necessary to audit, so it is common,
[00:06:24] common, it is a practice to go to a
[00:06:28] business, for the AADE to go to a business at the headquarters of
[00:06:32] the business is not common, it is the
[00:06:35] absolutely proper thing to do, it is the norm.
[00:06:38] Now there are other issues, because if it is true
[00:06:42] what is being said, that there was a reaction from Mr.
[00:06:46] Karvelas in the past, there had
[00:06:49] been, for example, on a well-known island
[00:06:52] of our country, reactions, clashes,
[00:06:56] beatings of AADE auditors, and laws
[00:07:00] have been enacted that
[00:07:03] manage how you can react against an
[00:07:06] auditor, which can even have criminal penalties. In the end, from what
[00:07:10] I know, Mr. Karvelas received the document
[00:07:13] electronically, obviously in his folder, in the email
[00:07:17] he has with the tax administration, and
[00:07:20] so the service was made. Now, what will be examined
[00:07:24] and how this will come out later and if the
[00:07:27] amounts are correct and what the amounts are, these are surely information that does not come out from the
[00:07:31] AADE, but in a case where two
[00:07:34] sides are involved and obviously each side wants to release some
[00:07:37] information, one side releases other information about the other, and somehow
[00:07:41] that's how it seems...
[00:07:49] declarations, I received some amounts, I received the same at
[00:07:51] Kallimarmaro, it's that simple, I wouldn't say it's that
[00:07:55] simple, uh, I don't think the AADE started
[00:07:58] moving now, today, to check
[00:08:02] an event which obviously would have had
[00:08:05] very large amounts being circulated and many
[00:08:08] businesses focused there, meaning it's a business for
[00:08:12] the... it's a production business that
[00:08:15] collaborates with a business that will bring lights, with a business that will bring
[00:08:18] sound, with a business that will bring toilets, with a business that
[00:08:22] will close advertisements, that will bring beers, where, where, where.
[00:08:26] All this is a tax burden
[00:08:29] and if we accept that there have been previous
[00:08:33] concerts by Ms. Vissi last year at Kallimarmaro, which
[00:08:36] also attracted so many people and brought in a lot
[00:08:40] of money, whether the tax has been paid, I don't know, and I'm not going to
[00:08:44] say it, but surely these trigger
[00:08:48] alarm bells in the AADE's algorithm. Let's not forget that the
[00:08:51] AADE now checks such cases with algorithms, but even if they don't
[00:08:55] trigger the AADE's model, the AADE
[00:08:59] has surely visited a
[00:09:02] production company that is going to do something so
[00:09:06] big, because it prepares in order to
[00:09:09] see if this very big thing will cover it.
[00:09:12] and will be dealt with correctly tax-wise. I wasn't talking about this
[00:09:15] case, I was talking about Karvelas's case, that is, if
[00:09:19] it coincided in time, was it accidental that the next day the
[00:09:22] AADE went outside his house? That's what I'm saying, there's no way it's something
[00:09:26] accidental, because even if Mr.
[00:09:29] Karvelas is not involved in this case, issues of
[00:09:32] rights are involved and these have surely been discussed
[00:09:36] within the AADE. If we assume, for example,
[00:09:39] although I don't follow this case very closely,
[00:09:43] that both sides say that something was paid to Mr. Karvelas, whether
[00:09:47] it was paid or not, I don't know, this
[00:09:49] means that even there it has been heard
[00:09:52] tax-wise that Mr. Karvelas has received something
[00:09:56] or is about to receive something or should have received
[00:09:59] something because
[00:10:02] 3€, that's what I'm saying, these are amounts that I've heard
[00:10:05] 250, I heard 300, it could be
[00:10:09] now, if from there on a procedure starts.
[00:10:12] it's because obviously, again, in the AADE's algorithms
[00:10:16] alarm bells are ringing and these are big alarm bells, if
[00:10:20] we assume that 6 million were circulated, six and
[00:10:23] more amounts have. reached to be circulated in a possible
[00:10:27] audit from 2021 until 2025, I think the audit will take place,
[00:10:31] this was requested, this is what we heard. When there is
[00:10:34] a gap or an amount of 80,000, what
[00:10:37] happens in this case, what happens?
[00:10:39] Obviously, question.
[00:10:43] A fine is imposed. A fine is imposed. First of all, there haven't
[00:10:46] been, from what I've read at least from other colleagues, there haven't been any declarations
[00:10:50] that were finally submitted retrospectively. The declarations must
[00:10:53] be submitted. If there weren't, I don't
[00:10:57] know, I can't know that. This means, however, that
[00:11:00] at some point an audit comes,
[00:11:03] and this audit, especially if it concerns the previous
[00:11:07] five years, even if someone's economic
[00:11:10] business activity has ceased,
[00:11:13] the first five years are certainly a five-year period in which you are
[00:11:17] obliged, even if you have closed your business, to keep records. Your accountants keep them,
[00:11:21] they are digital now, so you can...
[00:11:25] be audited and you are responsible for them. Surely
[00:11:28] after five years, other regulations start to apply. So, if the
[00:11:32] 850 are beyond the five-year period, it's something
[00:11:35] else that applies to that, but for the last five years, it's certain that
[00:11:39] these funds can be audited and
[00:11:42] are treated as current income, let's
[00:11:46] say. This is my question. Should Anna Vissi
[00:11:50] and Nikos Karvelas regret the previous
[00:11:54] all this publicity and the light they shed on
[00:11:57] the concerts, or is it something that would have happened anyway, they would have been
[00:12:00] audited anyway? Uh, I don't think, because it's not
[00:12:04] of a financial nature.
[00:12:07] I understand how you put it. In the end, if we assume they should
[00:12:11] regret it, uh, I have the impression that
[00:12:14] I'm sure that at some point, listening to Ms. Vissi's
[00:12:18] lawyer, I think he was right to say that it probably
[00:12:21] didn't do them any good.
[00:12:25] then on, it is certain that they should have
[00:12:28] imagined that if they had not imagined it, they have
[00:12:32] made a mistake, that when you make an event of this
[00:12:35] size, you have to expect that you will undergo
[00:12:38] audits.
[00:12:41] because the money is very large, the amounts are very large, and one last question: if someone
[00:12:44] theoretically lends you an amount of 100, 200,
[00:12:48] 500,000, it's an amount that you are obliged to declare
[00:12:51] to the tax office even if it's from a friend, because it's a large
[00:12:55] amount, of course, whether it's a gift, I don't know, it could be a gift,
[00:12:58] all, for all these there are rules, of course, and you have to declare it,
[00:13:02] there are, let's say, if you don't declare it, if it's not
[00:13:06] a family relationship and is not considered a parental provision,
[00:13:10] uh, of course it's a gift and it exceeds, it has
[00:13:13] tax treatment, of course, whether it's a loan or a gift,
[00:13:17] even if it's a loan, you have to declare it, you can't
[00:13:20] uh, money doesn't
[00:13:23] move like that anymore and especially as our
[00:13:27] lives become digitized, money can't move in this
[00:13:31] way, because it always has to be income
[00:13:34] in the end. So, an income you, if we assume you take an
[00:13:37] amount and then invest it and from that
[00:13:40] you receive profits, why did you invest
[00:13:44] it? Uh, how will it show up, how did you prove it, where is the
[00:13:47] origin of this amount? This amount needs to have appeared somewhere,
[00:13:50] it's not that simple in the end, because the AADE was mentioned
[00:13:54] a lot.
[00:13:57] what did it do, what did it ask for, for such
[00:14:00] issues and on the contrary, as you said at the beginning of the discussion, there are
[00:14:03] GDPR, there are issues of personal data and the
[00:14:07] AADE is very careful about this. When it makes
[00:14:10] announcements, it always refers to a company, to a
[00:14:13] region and to the sector of
[00:14:16] catering, for example, or something like that, and it never reveals
[00:14:20] who it is. Some things are learned journalistically from
[00:14:24] sources and through other channels, that's why I said at the
[00:14:27] beginning that perhaps here the information is given by one
[00:14:31] side for the other side, depending on what they think they want to
[00:14:35] gain, and it doesn't come from the AADE. Indeed,
[00:14:38] this famous algorithm that rings alarm bells, is
[00:14:42] it more likely to ring when someone says "I went in, guys, I didn't make
[00:14:46] any money at all," or when they say "I made money"? The
[00:14:49] algorithm surely rings when the money is a lot,
[00:14:53] uh, whether it says I didn't make it or I made it, or I didn't
[00:14:57] make it, is of very little importance to the algorithm,
[00:15:01] which will surely look for the large amount and how
[00:15:04] it was circulated. Surely the state will demand the VAT,
[00:15:07] no one can escape it, so,
[00:15:11] as it moves, and if now
[00:15:14] an activity has no
[00:15:18] profit, tax-wise this does not
[00:15:21] affect it, it may not end up having tax
[00:15:24] on profit, but the fact that you will be asked
[00:15:28] to pay the VAT on the amount, depending on
[00:15:32] which category it falls under and what VAT is imposed, you certainly cannot
[00:15:35] avoid this regardless of whether you lost money. No, there is no
[00:15:39] such case. If the money must be paid
[00:15:42] or if the rights must be
[00:15:45] paid, whether the company or the
[00:15:48] concert made profits or not, it does not mean that
[00:15:51] the rights are paid or not paid. They must
[00:15:54] be paid, they are part of the cost, there are some reliefs
[00:15:58] however for the coming years, if some, perhaps if you don't have profits, when a
[00:16:02] company, when something is loss-making for the coming years, things are more
[00:16:06] favorable for you. Yes, finally, if the company is proven
[00:16:10] indeed that this event was loss-making,
[00:16:13] it will not pay income tax, because it did not make
[00:16:16] income.
[00:16:19] These will be paid, and within the
[00:16:22] expenses of the event, there may
[00:16:25] be the logical ones, electricity, rental of the
[00:16:28] space, people, but it's probably also the rights, so that's also part of the
[00:16:32] expense. Now, if the
[00:16:36] expense was calculated correctly, yes. Or people came, because an event can be
[00:16:39] prepared and the stadium not be full and it could go completely wrong, it
[00:16:42] still doesn't mean that you won't pay what
[00:16:46] you owe. You won't ultimately pay tax because you didn't make
[00:16:50] a profit. If you do make a profit, you will obviously pay tax. Indeed.
[00:16:54] Yes, you rent chairs from somewhere and the event doesn't go well, you won't
[00:16:57] pay. These are givens. This is what you owe.