Jump to content

Tax Case


Recommended Posts

I am doubtful that HMRC will allow a reduced settlement - in the last two days they have been villified in the mainstream press for allowing such deals in the past - you cannot be half guilty of not paying full liabilities, and they will now demand the full liability. That does, however, assume that HMRC's case is watertight. Cameron et al will be under severe pressure to extract full liability; a ready made excuse for the govt is the need for everyone to pay taxes fully in these straightened times. I fear the worst is yet to come...

:shifty:

aye ok............timmy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax case site has gone into meltdown. They foolishly seem to be basing their hopes on the sale document.

They say Whyte can't settle it - and leave off the bit WITHOUT PERMISSION.

He may have got permission if Murray thought it was a flyer.

It may not even be Whyte that has settled it.

Who knows if there is any truth in it, but it's certainly got RTC shitting themselves.

Apparently we're all "ecstatic" over this rumour. :lol:

Bet Timmys no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax case site has gone into meltdown. They foolishly seem to be basing their hopes on the sale document.

They say Whyte can't settle it - and leave off the bit WITHOUT PERMISSION.

He may have got permission if Murray thought it was a flyer.

It may not even be Whyte that has settled it.

Who knows if there is any truth in it, but it's certainly got RTC shitting themselves.

Apparently we're all "ecstatic" over this rumour. :lol:

Bet Timmys no.

Is there an open forum on that site, cant see one

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated earlier................. :shifty:

A childish insult that really merits no futher response, but I will. I repeat; my points are pertinent, and I'm not a 'timmy'. I was in conversation (business) with Messrs McCoist and Whyte at the Hilton on the 9th of December, where Mr Whyte tripped over a small table whilst posing for photographs with supporters who were at adjoining tables. I'm certain both gentlemen will be amused at your accusation against me...

Link to post
Share on other sites

A childish insult that really merits no futher response, but I will. I repeat; my points are pertinent, and I'm not a 'timmy'. I was in conversation (business) with Messrs McCoist and Whyte at the Hilton on the 9th of December, where Mr Whyte tripped over a small table whilst posing for photographs with supporters who were at adjoining tables. I'm certain both gentlemen will be amused at your accusation against me...

I suppose everyone that does business with Mr Whyte and Mr McCoist are Rangers fans then... :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

A childish insult that really merits no futher response, but I will. I repeat; my points are pertinent, and I'm not a 'timmy'. I was in conversation (business) with Messrs McCoist and Whyte at the Hilton on the 9th of December, where Mr Whyte tripped over a small table whilst posing for photographs with supporters who were at adjoining tables. I'm certain both gentlemen will be amused at your accusation against me...

Pics or it didn't happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am. I cannot speak for any others who do business with the owner...

Back to your original post, yes you can. The people who decide on the outcome of the case can decide on both parties being partly responsible for any issues that have arisen. If it was so clear cut, it would have been over and done with.

It is in the HMRC's interest for Rangers to be around for the long haul. I can't imagine they want Rangers to go into admin as a result, so would be happy to settle on a lesser amount that lets them recoup some cash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did he not say he would pay the 18mil debt if we won the tax case or if it went really well?

The only thing I have read personally was that he would write off the debt if we lost the tax case. Wouldn't be any point in him becoming a creditor to himself. He'd also only receive a pittance in comparison to what 'he' was owed anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to your original post, yes you can. The people who decide on the outcome of the case can decide on both parties being partly responsible for any issues that have arisen. If it was so clear cut, it would have been over and done with.

It is in the HMRC's interest for Rangers to be around for the long haul. I can't imagine they want Rangers to go into admin as a result, so would be happy to settle on a lesser amount that lets them recoup some cash.

HMRC wish for the full amount liable, that much is not in question. We are contesting the liability; HMRC regard us as being fully responsible for the liability. I'm afraid that both parties cannot be held responsible for non-payment of liabilities, but may reach agreement on a reduced sum. My original post states that this way forward is now in question, due to the adverse comments the Commons Committee made these last two days; vilifying HMRC for such practices in the near past. That is where we are...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 21 April 2024 14:00 Until 16:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hearts
      Hampden Park
      Scottish Cup
×
×
  • Create New...