Dextra and HMRC

[californiadreamin52 339]

Can anyone elaborate on the Dextra case which Rangers are basing their case with HMRC on I believe it came before the House of Lords

[kplfishtank 4,667]

not too sure about that case and how it equates to ours, end of the day if we havent been paying our taxes, then loophole or not , it aint right.

i have to pay mine so why should folk who earn a lot more than me not?

[gandhisflip 5]

Employee Benefit Trusts have been regularly proven to be legal within the current tax framework by specialist tax barristers. I work with highly paid contractors, many of whom have exploited this option. rangers have done nothing wrong with the current legislation!! HMRC, as they tend to do, are now looking to retrospectively have them ruled against - it's ridiculous. It's like you were stopped by the police at Xmas and breathalysed - yet only had .5mg of alcohol in your system when the limit is .6mg so free to go. 3yrs later they change the limit to .4mg and try and do you from the earlier incident.

[californiadreamin52 339]

Employee Benefit Trusts have been regularly proven to be legal within the current tax framework by specialist tax barristers. I work with highly paid contractors, many of whom have exploited this option. rangers have done nothing wrong with the current legislation!! HMRC, as they tend to do, are now looking to retrospectively have them ruled against - it's ridiculous. It's like you were stopped by the police at Xmas and breathalysed - yet only had .5mg of alcohol in your system when the limit is .6mg so free to go. 3yrs later they change the limit to .4mg and try and do you from the earlier incident.

Thanks clears it up quite a bit, but bet you won`t see any thing like this in the media

[bluepeter 5,627]

Employee Benefit Trusts have been regularly proven to be legal within the current tax framework by specialist tax barristers. I work with highly paid contractors, many of whom have exploited this option. rangers have done nothing wrong with the current legislation!! HMRC, as they tend to do, are now looking to retrospectively have them ruled against - it's ridiculous. It's like you were stopped by the police at Xmas and breathalysed - yet only had .5mg of alcohol in your system when the limit is .6mg so free to go. 3yrs later they change the limit to .4mg and try and do you from the earlier incident.

I hope you're right, but if what you're saying is true why has it dragged on so long? It sounds fairly straightforward to me.

[Jimfanciesthedude 24,965]

I hope you're right, but if what you're saying is true why has it dragged on so long? It sounds fairly straightforward to me.

because the government has a MASSIVE black hole to fill money wise and is doing everything in its power to get back money whatever way they can

[RFC55 110,178]

I hope you're right, but if what you're saying is true why has it dragged on so long? It sounds fairly straightforward to me.

BP i know nothing of tax issues etc so wont pretend i do. But i do remember hearing that what Rangers done at the time was exploit a loophole that was perfectly legal. They even had a top lawyer or accountant interviewd who said that hmrc make it up as they go along and havent yet succesfully done any company with this EBT. That was when this first came around, dont know if any club has been done yet?

[TheMotor 2,208]

Oddly enough, the HMRC website will provide clear and easy access to the original court ruling in their favour in the Dextra case but not the subsequent Special Commisioner rulings in the Dextra and Sempra cases where they were brutally pumped. Those, for some reason, are not downloading .

It appears there was a change in the rules in 2003, which may be the reason why money has been set aside in the interim figures for the period 1999 - 2002, where the rules are different to those for the following period but I don't understand it enough to be sure.

The funny thing is reading some of the legal opinion on the changes that HMRC made in 2003 to try and close what they believed to be a tax avoidance loophole. The following are from one assessment by a tax specialist in London, with regards to the section that I think Rangers are being chased under:

While it is not suggested that in setting out such an erroneous view in Brief 61/09 HMRC are deliberately trying to mislead taxpayers and their advisors (although they have) the alternative view (that the author of Brief 91/06 simply didn‟t understand how section 13 IHTA 1984 operates) is hardly much less worrying.

and

Conclusion

Brief 61/09 is poorly drafted and many of the points which it puts forward, particularly in regard to the application of section 13 IHTA 1984 are either nonsensical or unsustainable. The Brief should be withdrawn and proper guidance issued on the application of the section.

[RFC55 110,178]

Oddly enough, the HMRC website will provide clear and easy access to the original court ruling in their favour in the Dextra case but not the subsequent Special Commisioner rulings in the Dextra and Sempra cases where they were brutally pumped. Those, for some reason, are not downloading .

It appears there was a change in the rules in 2003, which may be the reason why money has been set aside in the interim figures for the period 1999 - 2002, where the rules are different to those for the following period but I don't understand it enough to be sure.

The funny thing is reading some of the legal opinion on the changes that HMRC made in 2003 to try and close what they believed to be a tax avoidance loophole. The following are from one assessment by a tax specialist in London, with regards to the section that I think Rangers are being chased under:

and

61/09 is an anagram of 1690. Another conspiracy

[bluepeter 5,627]

because the government has a MASSIVE black hole to fill money wise and is doing everything in its power to get back money whatever way they can

But if this case is unwinnable (as people seem to say) they are simply wasting money rather than getting it back.

BP i know nothing of tax issues etc so wont pretend i do. But i do remember hearing that what Rangers done at the time was exploit a loophole that was perfectly legal. They even had a top lawyer or accountant interviewd who said that hmrc make it up as they go along and havent yet succesfully done any company with this EBT. That was when this first came around, dont know if any club has been done yet?

If it was legal at the time, I can't see how we can lose the case. I'm with you though, I know nothing about tax except that I pay far too much of it!

[blueben_d 40]

Tax laws can be applied retrospectively, they are the only laws which can be. So even if something was legal in 2003 and the made illegal in 2011 then the HMRC can pursue it.

I think the point here is that even the current legislation does not make EBT's illegal (or at least the laws have not been made clear enough to stick) and you seriously have to question just how far back they are prepared to go, I'm not sure if there's a limit but they can't go through every companies taxes for the last 8 years or more so if (and it's a very big if) we were told to pay I'm sure there would be a long appeal process

[Guest]

I am pretty sure a while ago Arsenal were getting pursued for the same thing that we are ? I dont know if they wont the case or if they settled though. Might be wrong but think thats what i heard lol

[Nemesis 277]

No offence but if it was as cut and dried re ridiculous as it's been made out then RFC would have buried HMRC years ago.

The fact we haven't suggests to me that we were using this loophole under our 'own' interpretation.

Murray was a man who pushed things to the edge. Would be fairly typical if he had done so here also.

More to come on this (albeit not necessarily for Rangers) methinks.

[TheMotor 2,208]

No offence but if it was as cut and dried re ridiculous as it's been made out then RFC would have buried HMRC years ago.

The fact we haven't suggests to me that we were using this loophole under our 'own' interpretation.

Murray was a man who pushed things to the edge. Would be fairly typical if he had done so here also.

More to come on this (albeit not necessarily for Rangers) methinks.

We can't bury them until they bring the case. They have been trying to do so since 2008 or 2009, I think, but keep pushing it back. They have yet to win a case on this but they keep trying, rather than admit that they screwed up their own regulation.

With regards to the comment on HMRC throwing away money prosecuting these cases, I believe the Dextra and Sempra cases cost them upwards of 150 million pounds in combined legal fees and they lost both.