How Exactly Are These Figures

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

( anything from 10-50million ) accounted for regarding owed tax , I remember reading /hearing that we owed tax on players wages that were not paid at the time (sdm's tenure) , now I know in the past and even now to a lesser extent we were/are paying too much for some players wages ,so where do they get these figures from ? I just can't see how our Club can owe these amounts ffs , or is there other tax that's no been paid for income for the Club ? or somewhere else

[bell824 34]

the tax results from our over paying of wages for years.

The example being (figures fictitious) player earns 50k per week rangers paid 10k of that in sterling into a british bank account (money for aforementioned player to live of) and the remaining 40k to an overseas account/trust (savings that were paid tax free) therefor rangers and the player only paid tax on the 10k and f*all on the rest! meaning the player made more net cash than he would have if paid in british account only and rangers saved on tax.

H.M.R.C say this is unfair as he earned it here so should pay tax on it here and want to reclaim the tax paid on the aforementioned overseas payment.

This does not just implicate G.R.F.C it also may lead to H.M.R.C trying to persue players pais in this way for tax they also owe.

[Gillete 1,338]

Reading that it sounds like we are fucked

[bell824 34]

if i remember right Arsenal were also guilty of this to the tune of a tax bill approaching 100 million but settled the dispute with a 12million out of court payment

Edit-

This is an extract of the Arsenal faisco and this is also the way rangers are being chased down!

Arsenal have been hit with a bill of nearly £12m after an investigation into a tax avoidance scheme used on payments made to players and agents. The club is the first high profile hit for a campaign by HM Revenue and Customs against tax avoidance in the game. Arsenal set up a series of front companies and offshore trusts to reward its stars and save millions in tax every year. On average, players were left paying about half the 40 per cent tax rate for high earners. HMRC is demanding at least £11m back tax. Payments of more than £4m to agents have also been ruled not to be an 'acceptable business expense.' Arsenal must now pay an extra £700,000 of VAT on these. Arsenal chairman Peter Hill-Wood said, 'The Revenue are crawling all over us. We thought we had acted perfectly legally ... but now maybe the rules have changed. We are not the only people who have been doing this.' The club's tax scheme was brought out into open through documents in the divorce case of former Arsenal midfielder Ray Parlour. When he was forced to disclose his salary details to the courts, it showed that he earned a pre-tax package of £1,557,267 for the 2001-2 season on which he paid £350,000 tax, a rate of just 22 per cent.

Top Arsenal players usually receive two contracts. One pays them an annual basic wage mostly taxed at the higher rate of 40 per cent plus national insurance. They also have a second 'shadow' contract for performance-related bonuses that reward success on the pitch (and therefore may not pay as much this season). In a more successful year these can account for up to half of the total pay package and are paid via two offshore front companies that accountants say enables foreign players to avoid almost all tax. As a result, Henry is estimated to have saved almost £70,000 a year, manager Arsene Wenger about £118,000 annually, and Dennis Bergkamp more than £45,000. British-born players were able to cut their tax rate from 40 per cent to 25 per cent. Arsenal are going to have to explain in their annual report how they will put aside £11m to pay the tax bill, something they could do without as they prepare to move into their new stadium. But Premiership clubs in general are worried that it will become harder to attract top foreign players to Britain when they can still benefit from tax-free payments abroad. Premiership clubs are considering whether to make a formal representation to the Treasury. However, given public discontent about high wages, they might not receive much sympathy when it is known that players have not been paying their full share of the tax bill.

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

if i remember right Arsenal were also guilty of this to the tune of a tax bill approaching 100 million but settled the dispute with a 12million out of court payment

Cheers mate , I still think the figures mentioned are of a worse case scenario and cannot see us paying out more than 8 /10 million , could the ex players also be chased for moneys owed ?

[bell824 34]

Cheers mate , I still think the figures mentioned are of a worse case scenario and cannot see us paying out more than 8 /10 million , could the ex players also be chased for moneys owed ?

I'm sure i read somewere that players paid in this way could also be liable

[BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293]

Could the financial directors at the time not be liable personally or has the blame firmly been put at the Clubs door , which is now Mr Whytes door ( so to speak )

[bell824 34]

Could the financial directors at the time not be liable personally or has the blame firmly been put at the Clubs door , which is now Mr Whytes door ( so to speak )

As was quoted in todays scottish sun Mr Whyte will not discuss the personal deals he made with SDM and his background team, But as he signed the takeover with this in mind there must be a plan A and plan B what they are I don't know!

My educated geuss at this is theres a blame line right down the middle for both Craig Whyte and MIH, this would have been discussed at length and i for one am not as negative about his as others on RM are!

If we do lose this case we will not be paying the 45-50 million i reckon closer to 10-15 going on the arsenal case, my biggest worry is the slashing of the wage bill required to live within our means, i have faith in Craig Whyte as no one makes the sort of money he has used to bail the bank away - remembering he made his millions in the turnaround market - and doesn't know what he is doing.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

the tax results from our over paying of wages for years.

The example being (figures fictitious) player earns 50k per week rangers paid 10k of that in sterling into a british bank account (money for aforementioned player to live of) and the remaining 40k to an overseas account/trust (savings that were paid tax free) therefor rangers and the player only paid tax on the 10k and f*all on the rest! meaning the player made more net cash than he would have if paid in british account only and rangers saved on tax.

H.M.R.C say this is unfair as he earned it here so should pay tax on it here and want to reclaim the tax paid on the aforementioned overseas payment.

This does not just implicate G.R.F.C it also may lead to H.M.R.C trying to persue players pais in this way for tax they also owe.

Personally, I always thought that it should be the players who were held responsible, since it's their income and therefore income tax which was avoided.

Also, it has to be asked, if the claims of this being a test case, just why choose us first? Chance? Easy target? Unfairly targeted?