BlueThunder 8,454 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 A KEY witness at Rangers’ tax tribunal over the use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) has told Scotland on Sunday he believes the club can still win the case that could otherwise land them a bill for more than £50 million from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.The source, who asked not to be named with a judgment still possibly two weeks away, called into question owner Craig Whyte’s implication of the so-called “big tax case” in the Ibrox club’s plunge into administration last week. HMRC insisted that the reason was a further £9m in unpaid tax accrued since Whyte took over the club last May.“Until a fortnight ago, it was widely reported that Rangers’ chances of winning the tribunal were 50-50, now it is said they will lose,” the source said. “Yet nothing can have changed in that intervening period, with the tribunal ending last month [18 January]. It has been said Whyte must have got wind of the outcome ahead of the club being placed in administration, but he can’t have done so. The opinion of the judges must remain strictly confidential until they make public their decision. If Rangers won the EBT case, their future should have been secure. Now it won’t be and, in that scenario, serious questions must be asked of Whyte.”The source says there are “myths” about how EBTs were administered when Sir David Murray owned Rangers, and that HMRC made “no headway” in convincing the three judges who will decide if these were operated in a manner that changed them from a legal tax avoidance loophole to a tax evasion scheme.EBTs are believed to have been run by around 5,000 businesses in the UK, including football clubs south of the Border. They became illegal in December 2010 but, until then, firms had been able to exploit the tax laws to provide sums to employees without PAYE or National Insurance as long as these were in the form of discretionary, repayable loans. At the tax tribunal, HMRC argued Rangers’ use of them for nine years was, in fact, a way to help mostly foreign players evade tax on salaries and bonuses. The source, who is not connected to Rangers but had clients who benefited from EBTs, claims that this entirely misrepresents the scheme in operation at Ibrox. “It was totally and absolutely correctly administered, and the club met all their legal responsibilities and complied with all tax laws,” said the source. “They took advice from top-notch lawyers and a whole battalion of the best accountants on a global level.“I have read a lot that isn’t true about how Rangers were supposed to have misused them. They weren’t written into the players’ contracts of employment. They were totally separate. Money in any EBTs was not a salary sacrifice. The EBTs were independently administered offshore in Guernsey. I have heard it said that players had letters stating they did not have to pay these loans back. The tax commission hammered away at that but made no headway because these letters categorically do not exist.”The Rangers Tax Case blog, which has covered the situation exhaustively for almost two years, claimed the “smoking gun” for HMRC was a number of letters indemnifying players from any future tax liabilities on money placed in their EBTs.The source insisted: “There is nothing unusual in that as it is always employees who set the schedule basis for tax and there was no great gain for the players.”But the source also admitted: “The very slight weakness is that the administrators in Guernsey weren’t always as diligent in their book-keeping as they should have been. Players buggered off back to Argentina, Italy and Australia and they didn’t keep track of these movements, as was incumbent on them. This was tightened up, though, over time.”--------------------------Given the last paragraph, I think I know the identity of three players who used EBTs Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNuts 552 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 what paper is this from Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Monk 3,208 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Sounds good Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueThunder 8,454 Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 what paper is this fromThe Scotsman, or Scotland on Sunday. Found it on NewsNow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC55 110,159 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 A Whyte get out imo. We all assumed we had lost the case and Whyte got wind of it, unfortunatley we didnt know he had with held 9million from HMRC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4MenHadADream 122 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Sounds a little more promising. The length of the deliberation in itself should surely hint at the fact that whatever way the verdict goes in the end, it is not nearly as clear cut as the majority of the media seem to think it is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIJoe 98 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Seems to be from the Scotsman. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 627 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The Scotsman, or Scotland on Sunday. You sure about that bud Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Sounds a little more promising. The length of the deliberation in itself should surely hint at the fact that whatever way the verdict goes in the end, it is not nearly as clear cut as the majority of the media seem to think it is.I still think we will lose, but you are spot on There is no way it can be clear cut for either side for it to take this long. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueThunder 8,454 Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 One worrying thing I heard today was that the decision isn't expected until April, which is obviously after the euro deadline, so I'd imagine we'd stay in admin until then at least. Mind you, Darrell King said we could theoretically agree a maximum price with HMRC prior to the outcome. (I'm assuming this scenario means that we pay nothing if the case is won by us, or pay up to the amount we agreed if we lose). I'm not sure how this would affect us in terms of being able to leave administration before April though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueThunder 8,454 Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 You sure about that bud Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
4MenHadADream 122 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I still think we will lose, but you are spot on There is no way it can be clear cut for either side for it to take this long.I think it will probably end up being a partial loss/win. Probably a bill in the region of £10-15mThat however, is based on nothing but my own feelings Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getstiffed 8,863 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Whytes a baddy, the old board were really ok.Almost in time for a takeover?....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topgoalie 637 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Sounds a little more promising. The length of the deliberation in itself should surely hint at the fact that whatever way the verdict goes in the end, it is not nearly as clear cut as the majority of the media seem to think it is.honestly mate when do you ever listen to the media,and believe me i know their dealings in a round about way ie.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldo1690 7 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 in my last employment i had the choice to use something similar to an ebt (umberla company, of shore ( jersey, i believe), not anywhere near the amount these guys where making. i would probably been earning £50 per month more but rejected as was worried when i get paid of social would do me. after getting paid off in nov 11 i was told i was lucky i was not in this scheme as i would not have got dole money due to this becoming an unfair way of being paid last year. now this was only decided it was unfair from last year (2011) so how and why can hmrc bring this back to 2001? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 whytes fanboys won't like this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueThunder 8,454 Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 in my last employment i had the choice to use something similar to an ebt (umberla company, of shore ( jersey, i believe), not anywhere near the amount these guys where making. i would probably been earning £50 per month more but rejected as was worried when i get paid of social would do me. after getting paid off in nov 11 i was told i was lucky i was not in this scheme as i would not have got dole money due to this becoming an unfair way of being paid last year. now this was only decided it was unfair from last year (2011) so how and why can hmrc bring this back to 2001?Where have you been? The whole case is based on HMRC believing we used the EBT scheme incorrectly. HMRC can go back as far as they like if they feel we have done something wrong.Frankly I have no idea whether we will win or not. Craig Whyte and Murray both said they were confident...... Ah, bugger! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeBlue 136 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 A Whyte get out imo. We all assumed we had lost the case and Whyte got wind of it, unfortunatley we didnt know he had with held 9million from HMRC.Not as simple as that - HMRC could (would) have appealed and we would have been faced with months or years of uncertainty. At least this way we can end it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Could this be from a former players agent Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM1872 3,772 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 whytes fanboys won't like this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRITNEY IS NOT FEELING IT 8,293 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 EBTs are believed to have been run by around 5,000 businesses in the UK, including football clubs south of the Border. They became illegal in December 2010 but, until then, firms had been able to exploit the tax laws to provide sums to employees without PAYE or National Insurance as long as these were in the form of discretionary, repayable loansSo ebt bacame illegal in December 2010 , so cannot see hmrc being allowed to go back further than that if it was legal beforehand ffs. I better start paying all they fines for throwing away my cigarette ends for before it became illegal Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
weshallnotbemoved! 714 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Even if we win, HMRC, have made it quite clear that they intend to appeal again and again...The saga needs to end. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldo1690 7 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Where have you been? The whole case is based on HMRC believing we used the EBT scheme incorrectly. HMRC can go back as far as tmhey like if they feel we have done something wrong.Frankly I have no idea whether we will win or not. Craig Whyte and Murray both said they were confident...... Ah, bugger! mate, i am only going with the company who i worked with, and must say put lots of major pressure on our workers to move to this company, i believe some did seek the extra few £s but no idea outcome.as i said, i have no clue of what the hmrc have against us but the fact guys where paying less tax an ni at the time had me confused.and i would like to reitarate (sp) i have no clue what the fuck is going on at our club Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Even if we win, HMRC, have made it quite clear that they intend to appeal again and again...The saga needs to end.The administrators statement tonight would perhaps call the above into question.Remember, its only Whyte that has said this and he has a huge history of telling porky pies to us all Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gillRFC 0 Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Hopefully this gives us a small glimmer of hope? This whole situation is just one big horrible mess. Sooner we know the outcome the better. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.