When is/was the first EBT repayment date?

[BlueThunder 8,453]

I read somewhere on here that the EBTs had to be paid back within 10 years. If true, when is that date? I'm wondering whether this is the reason the HMRC case hasn't concluded.

If they are indeed waiting for this date then how could they instigate proceedings prior to this date as they have done?

[Calgacus 88]

The case has concluded, both sides have put their argument before the panel and await their decision. It's too late for either side to submit any new arguments or evidence or information, so anything that does or does not happen since the case concluded won't be a factor with the judges and/or experts who heard the appeal.

[Ricky_ 893]

i dont think it will be a repayment aas such.

if we lose i thnk the debt jsut gets lumped on to what we already owe HMRC and its up to them to accept a CVA on that figure or not.

[BlueThunder 8,453]

Thanks. I'm just trying to fathom the reasons for the delays. I'm sure the verdict had to be delivered within a certain period of time after the case ended, and I thought we had passed that already.

[Anchorman 85]

I read somewhere on here that the EBTs had to be paid back within 10 years. If true, when is that date? I'm wondering whether this is the reason the HMRC case hasn't concluded.

If they are indeed waiting for this date then how could they instigate proceedings prior to this date as they have done?

Although the arguements have been put I believe you are correct as to the reason HMRC tried to draw it out initially. My understanding is that these were 10 year loans that could be repaid any time up to the last minute of those 10 years. And the loan coould also be extended in some cases I understand which also complicated matters.

[4MenHadADream 122]

Thanks. I'm just trying to fathom the reasons for the delays. I'm sure the verdict had to be delivered within a certain period of time after the case ended, and I thought we had passed that already.

It is apparently normal practice for a result to be released within 60-90 days, but there is no time limit imposed, the judges have as long as they need to come up with a verdict.

[jcb 1,167]

Although the arguements have been put I believe you are correct as to the reason HMRC tried to draw it out initially. My understanding is that these were 10 year loans that could be repaid any time up to the last minute of those 10 years. And the loan coould also be extended in some cases I understand which also complicated matters.

The whole point of the EBT scheme was the money would never be repaid.

[Anchorman 85]

The whole point of the EBT scheme was the money would never be repaid.

Not the way I understand it. They are supposed to be used for interest free loans. The scenario you have given is what could land us in trouble. HMRC are trying to prove that we told players they would never have to pay them back, and if they can prove that we are fecked. The reason they were tax free is that they were loans. If you never had to pay them back why would you not pay tax, as it would be a salary or bonus, in effect?

[jcb 1,167]

Not the way I understand it. They are supposed to be used for interest free loans. The scenario you have given is what could land us in trouble. HMRC are trying to prove that we told players they would never have to pay them back, and if they can prove that we are fecked. The reason they were tax free is that they were loans. If you never had to pay them back why would you not pay tax, as it would be a salary or bonus, in effect?

While what you say is correct,my understanding is that there was neither any obligation nor time-scale on repayments of said loans.

[Anchorman 85]

While what you say is correct,my understanding is that there was neither any obligation nor time-scale on repayments of said loans.

So they are not loans then? You can take them to your grave? Why is the crux of HMRC's case based around trying to prove that we told the people involved they would never have to pay them back?

[gaga 16]

I have some experience in implementing EBTs and their lawful fulfillment.

As you point out, with an EBT a cash transfer is defined as a loan. But in order for the Loan and EBT to be properly construed, the lender (Rangers) and the borrower (players etc) must address detailed nuances of law that relate to such arrangments.

In two key areas, Rangers failed to implement the EBT system to the satisfaction of HMRC and the Law: 1) there is a requirement that conditions of each and every loan made within the EBT structure, including repayment terms, are formally delivered to the borrower annually. And 2) the borrow must reject those conditions in response, again annually. My understanding is that Rangers failed to do this, otherwise the system would have possibly passed scrutiny.

Another condition, possibly more serious, is that the loan is in no way formally connected with remuneration; that is to say, no reference or insinuation ought to be made that implies the loan is any way connected to wages or service. Notionally, it stands to reason that any such connection would contribute to the view that the loan was actually a form of remuneration.

It's hugely disappointing that Rangers could have gotten away with the EBT structures they implemented had they satisfied such basic conditions and in financial management terms it was a very basic and careless mistake to make. The EBT system is well documented and covered.

So they are not loans then? You can take them to your grave? Why is the crux of HMRC's case based around trying to prove that we told the people involved they would never have to pay them back?