AJ and more bullet dodging.

[ray 105]

To the EBT's then which haven't forced Rangers into admin but seem to be the crux of the problem. Speaking on Radio 5 Live yesterday former Rangers chairman Alistair Johnston said:

AJ: He's been on BBC 5Live, giving an explanation of the larger tax bill which I had only heard portions of before. This is the £49m or so, which HM Revenue and Customs say they're owed for player payments paid through an offshore Employee Benefit Trust.

Asked if HMRC had said in the past that such an arrangement was OK with them, he made it clear that the tax authorities had not approved it. Instead, this was an arrangement strictly between Sir David Murray and the top players.

It was "orchestrated by Murray, all negotiations and interfacing was by Murray. Even after I became chairman, all negotiations came from Murray, with his advisers and financial people".

Mr Johnston said Sir David appeared to be taking the very best advice, from barristers and lawyers, and was confident the offshore payment arrangement would stand up to scrutiny.

You can conclude two things from this. The former directors are clearly pinning the blame for the 'big tax bill' on Sir David, but conversely, it looks like they were failing in their duty to protect the interests of the club and those who own the remaining 15% of shares.

Mmmmmmmmmmm. No HMRCs clearance.....

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/hmrc-calls-administrators-rangers/524397

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

There is no "blame" for the big tax bill yet - it's not been resolved.

[ray 105]

There is no "blame" for the big tax bill yet - it's not been resolved.

I don't believe blame is really the thrust of the article, although johnston's constant denial of any responsibility for anything is wearing very thin.

[boss 1,941]

AJ's position seems to be: SDM said it's okay, so I'll believe him and I don't need to go any further in carrying out my legal duties as a director.

He did need to go further, and he should have gone further. He failed.

[ray 105]

AJ's position seems to be: SDM said it's okay, so I'll believe him and I don't need to go any further in carrying out my legal duties as a director.

He did need to go further, and he should have gone further. He failed.

I think that the article implies is that whatever the outcome, johnston, mini and others failed in their fiduciary duties as directors, an observation I fully concur with, they were no more than murray yes men every last one of them.

[Guardian 4,281]

The only thing that AJ (and Paul Murray) ever admitted to doing at Rangers was bringing the debt down.

And they didn't even do that.

In fact they wanted to increase it, and blamed it all on Donald Muir and the bank at the time.

[El Carpintero 546]

Meeting Liewell will be seen as another victory for the taigs.

[southcoastbear 1,639]

Meeting Liewell will be seen as another victory for the taigs.

Don't give a stuff what that lot think, it's more a case of keep your friends close and your enemies closer still so you can see when they are about to to try stab you in the back.

Probably been told lots about fat boy and wants to weigh him up for himself, you'll need some industrial sized scales for that tub of lard Mr Green.

[southcoastbear 1,639]

AJ's position seems to be: SDM said it's okay, so I'll believe him and I don't need to go any further in carrying out my legal duties as a director.

He did need to go further, and he should have gone further. He failed.

No doubt in what you say but part of the problem was also it appears nobody was allowed to question Murray's actions and when someone sets themselves up as some sort of false god there will always be a big fall which fans and shareholders of rangers and MIH are now paying for.

[boss 1,941]

No doubt in what you say but part of the problem was also it appears nobody was allowed to question Murray's actions and when someone sets themselves up as some sort of false god there will always be a big fall which fans and shareholders of rangers and MIH are now paying for.

Yes, I can sympathise to an extent. But in AJ, we are not talking about a naive minion - we're talking about a millionaire businessman who has mingled in the top circles for decades and has access to the best legal advice wrt his fiduciary responsibilities. However hard it might have been for even AJ to stand up to SDM, he failed to do so. But even more than that, he failed to disclose to the support the 'Whyte dossier' which he had.

[HHB 63]

What AJ (and Murray/King et al.) seem to be saying is that all the good things that happened while they were on the Board were thanks to them but all the bad things were the fault of David Murray.

The problem is that none of them were saying anything when they were on the Board. It is only now, after the shit has hit the fan, that they are saying anything. A reasonable person might be forgiven for thinking that this is a back covering exercise.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

To the EBT's then which haven't forced Rangers into admin but seem to be the crux of the problem. Speaking on Radio 5 Live yesterday former Rangers chairman Alistair Johnston said:

AJ: He's been on BBC 5Live, giving an explanation of the larger tax bill which I had only heard portions of before. This is the £49m or so, which HM Revenue and Customs say they're owed for player payments paid through an offshore Employee Benefit Trust.

Asked if HMRC had said in the past that such an arrangement was OK with them, he made it clear that the tax authorities had not approved it. Instead, this was an arrangement strictly between Sir David Murray and the top players.

It was "orchestrated by Murray, all negotiations and interfacing was by Murray. Even after I became chairman, all negotiations came from Murray, with his advisers and financial people".

Mr Johnston said Sir David appeared to be taking the very best advice, from barristers and lawyers, and was confident the offshore payment arrangement would stand up to scrutiny.

You can conclude two things from this. The former directors are clearly pinning the blame for the 'big tax bill' on Sir David, but conversely, it looks like they were failing in their duty to protect the interests of the club and those who own the remaining 15% of shares.

Mmmmmmmmmmm. No HMRCs clearance.....

http://www.accountin...-rangers/524397

You dont need HMRC approval (or clearence) for an EBT.

[HHB 63]

Truth is ... AJ and co. were all big pals with Murray and thought the sun shone out of his rear-end. That is why nothing was ever said prior to CW taking over. Indeed, right up to the actual sale, they though that Murray would see them right which is why they never went public with the information they had. When Murray's house of cards came tumbling down, he (Murray) ran for cover and he basically cut his pals loose. Murray showed himself up for the ruthless individual that he is and took decisions that were in his interests with no thought for his pals. What we are seeing now is anger born from a feeling of personal betrayal by Murray rather than anger at what he did to Rangers.

[ray 105]

You dont need HMRC approval (or clearence) for an EBT.

You would have to take that up with the author. Just another example of johnston's incompetence ?

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

You would have to take that up with the author. Just another example of johnston's incompetence ?

Just a wee statement - I have some (but not huge) amounts of sympathy for AJ in taking other peoples word for the EBT's.

Although Directors have mutual accountability every director cant investigate every other decision that every other director takes - its often a question of trust - and if I have been on the board and my FD had said it was OK and this and that accountant had signed off on it - I would have went along with it.

BUT he did have the dossier on Shyte and could have done MORE with that information.

[HHB 63]

You would have to take that up with the author. Just another example of johnston's incompetence ?

The tax authorities will never 'approve' any given scheme. What usually happens is that a tax consultancy firm come up with a scheme that their lawyers and tax experts say is legal. They then hawk it around companies looking for buyers. Buyers will often get independent advice from their own tax advisers before signing up. They then set up the scheme and it is up to HMRC to attack its legitimacy.

Some schemes are riskier than others. KPMG got badly stung when they set up a tax shelter scheme in the USA. That one was highly risky and was fairly quickly shot down. The cost to KPMG was $456 million in penalties and 9 criminal indictments of partners.

EBTs are a fairly common and relatively low risk form of tax avoidance in the UK. That is why they are quite widely used. Which begs the question as to how David Murray managed to get them so wrong. My guess is that arrogance got the better of prudence.

[HHB 63]

Just a wee statement - I have some (but not huge) amounts of sympathy for AJ in taking other peoples word for the EBT's.

Although Directors have mutual accountability every director cant investigate every other decision that every other director takes - its often a question of trust - and if I have been on the board and my FD had said it was OK and this and that accountant had signed off on it - I would have went along with it.

BUT he did have the dossier on Shyte and could have done MORE with that information.

I would expect the board to have seen a report from the tax guys, detailing the scheme, how it works, what the risks and benefits are and including which advisers had been consulted and what they had said about it.

[caseyjones 3,009]

[quote name='HHB' timestamp='1338033458' post='1060076

My guess is that arrogance got the better of prudence.

And so out of character.

[ray 105]

The tax authorities will never 'approve' any given scheme. What usually happens is that a tax consultancy firm come up with a scheme that their lawyers and tax experts say is legal. They then hawk it around companies looking for buyers. Buyers will often get independent advice from their own tax advisers before signing up. They then set up the scheme and it is up to HMRC to attack its legitimacy.

Some schemes are riskier than others. KPMG got badly stung when they set up a tax shelter scheme in the USA. That one was highly risky and was fairly quickly shot down. The cost to KPMG was $456 million in penalties and 9 criminal indictments of partners.

EBTs are a fairly common and relatively low risk form of tax avoidance in the UK. That is why they are quite widely used. Which begs the question as to how David Murray managed to get them so wrong. My guess is that arrogance got the better of prudence.

No argument from me, but one would suspect an accountancy website would have some idea of protocols involved.

[HHB 63]

No argument from me, but one would suspect an accountancy website would have some idea of protocols involved.

This is an interesting article in the Financial Times on the subject with specific reference to Rangers:

City waits anxiously on Rangers tax result

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eff86914-598a-11e1-8d36-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1vygdymvR

My question is why did HMRC decide to make Rangers the test case? My guess is that they knew that David Murray was pushing the limits of what was legal and acceptable and that they had more chance with Rangers than with a business that has a more conservative tax strategy.

[ray 105]

This is an interesting article in the Financial Times on the subject with specific reference to Rangers:

City waits anxiously on Rangers tax result

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eff86914-598a-11e1-8d36-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1vygdymvR

My question is why did HMRC decide to make Rangers the test case? My guess is that they knew that David Murray was pushing the limits of what was legal and acceptable and that they had more chance with Rangers than with a business that has a more conservative tax strategy.

After losing in the High Court yesterday HMRC will be looking for an example to set, they would not think twice about permanently ploughing us under, that action would set alarm bells ringing through out football.

I am encouraged that this result was announced before our own tribunal result, I hope I am not clutching at very thin straws.

http://goo.gl/z818S

[MikeBlue 136]

This is an interesting article in the Financial Times on the subject with specific reference to Rangers:

City waits anxiously on Rangers tax result

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/eff86914-598a-11e1-8d36-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1vygdymvR

My question is why did HMRC decide to make Rangers the test case? My guess is that they knew that David Murray was pushing the limits of what was legal and acceptable and that they had more chance with Rangers than with a business that has a more conservative tax strategy.

Like your style - demonstrate you've got a subscription to FT to prove your credentials.

Nice one

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I would expect the board to have seen a report from the tax guys, detailing the scheme, how it works, what the risks and benefits are and including which advisers had been consulted and what they had said about it.

It sounds like they did BUT who actually cares - what I blame AJ for was NOT doing more - publically - to stop Whyte's takover but also as it is untimetely a shareholder decision there was bugger all they could do. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though and chages nothing

[HHB 63]

Like your style - demonstrate you've got a subscription to FT to prove your credentials.

Nice one

I do not have a subscription to the FT.

I need financial news faster than the FT can deliver it so I use online sources.

[HHB 63]

It sounds like they did BUT who actually cares - what I blame AJ for was NOT doing more - publically - to stop Whyte's takover but also as it is untimetely a shareholder decision there was bugger all they could do. Hindsight is a wonderful thing though and chages nothing

Exactly. Waiting until the shit hits the fan and then saying I told you so doesn't do anyone any good.