HarryH 15 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Kenneth Mure QC named as man tasked with ruling on Rangers' Big Tax caseJul 27 2012kenneth mure qc Image 2THIS is the man who will be taking the decision on the Rangers Big Tax case.Scots barrister Kenneth Mure QC is chairing the three-person tribunal on the £50million offshore taxavoidance schemes which helped drag Rangers into financial disaster.The schemes – known as Employee Benefit Trusts – were run by the club between 2001 and 2010 during Sir David Murray’s ownership.Rangers set up the foreign trusts for 87 players and staff – then paid cash into them in addition to their regular wages, which meant UK tax was avoided on the extra money.Ex-skipper Barry Ferguson pocketed £2.49million tax- free. Former manager Alex McLeish got £1.7million and German keeper Stefan Klos was given £2million.Ex-chairman Murray himself got £6.3million via an EBT, although he says the money came via Murray International Holdings, not the club.The Inland Revenue believe the Rangers EBT payments were against the law, a claim Rangers disputed at every stage of the tribunal.A possible multi-million pound fine over the EBTs was one of the reasons Bank of Scotland pressured Murray into selling the club for £1 to Craig Whyte last year.Mure is presiding over the tax tribunal with accountancy experts Dr Heidi Poon and Scott Rae.But last night, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service said there is no set date for when the decision will be known.The result was originally expected around Easter, after Rangers went into administration but before the club were liquidated.But a courts service spokeswoman said last night: “There has never been a set time for a decision.“All the evidence has been heard and it is now a matter of the ruling being issued.”The spokeswoman would not say when the evidence part of the procedure had begun, how many daysit had lasted, or who gave evidence.The determination issued by the tribunal, with Mure as judge, will address what measures could be taken by HMRC against Rangers now the club have ceased to exist in their old form.But even if the tribunal rules against Rangers, there is little the taxman can do to retrieve any fine imposed.Financial expert Neil Patey, a partner in accountancy giants Ernst and Young, said: “HMRC will have no claim on the newco. The newco bought the assets of the oldco, not its corporate history.“In essence, a victory for HMRC will mean it will get a significantly bigger proportion of the £1million or so available from the £5.5million put in by Charles Green’s consortium. This will obviously mean other creditors get significantly less.”-- From todays Record. On the phone so cant post the proper link. The bit below stood out to me Financial expert Neil Patey, a partner in accountancy giants Ernst and Young, said: “HMRC will have no claim on the newco. The newco bought the assets of the oldco, not its corporate history.“In essence, a victory for HMRC will mean it will get a significantly bigger proportion of the £1million or so available from the £5.5million put in by Charles Green’s consortium. This will obviously mean other creditors get significantly less.” Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StornowayBlue 630 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Not much of an update Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 In essence, a victory for HMRC will mean it will get a significantly bigger proportion of the £1million or so available from the £5.5million put in by Charles Green’s consortium. This will obviously mean other creditors get significantly less.” No comprende!!! would that not have been the case if we had a CVA? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyFRFC 10 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I think a CVA wouldnt have allowed HMRC to continue 'chasing' any other guilty party related to the mess i.e murray?Fuck knows - another thing i just wish would get resolved so we can move on Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StornowayBlue 630 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 In essence, a victory for HMRC will mean it will get a significantly bigger proportion of the £1million or so available from the £5.5million put in by Charles Green’s consortium. This will obviously mean other creditors get significantly less.” No comprende!!! would that not have been the case if we had a CVA?Green took his share of the Pie for 5.5M and removed the club from the oldco, this money goes into pot for creditors as the old company gets liquidated. D&P will get first dibs on that money then the remainder will be shared out proportionately. If HMRC win the case, theirs will be the biggest share of that remaining money. Patey fails to mention any outstanding court claims for other money that might come in in future.There's nothing really new here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueThunder 8,636 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Just another reason to have a dig about the 'club' being liquidated it seems. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarryH 15 Posted July 27, 2012 Author Share Posted July 27, 2012 Not much of an update I do appologise..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCLACHLAN1 49 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Doesn't really matter.Won't be us paying the bill no matter howMuch it is Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigblueyonder 11,158 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 FTT Update: There is no update. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre 1,663 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I know Kenneth Mure and i'm 100% confident he'll make a decision that ignores any pressure from outside parties. It will be a fair decision. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jocky Broon 207 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I wonder if Rangers can get any kind of fair Hearing given the amount of prejudice stirred up in the Mhedia. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain1712 336 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 In essence, a victory for HMRC will mean it will get a significantly bigger proportion of the £1million or so available from the £5.5million put in by Charles Green’s consortium. This will obviously mean other creditors get significantly less.” No comprende!!! would that not have been the case if we had a CVA?after a liquidation there's a sum of money left to be distibuted to the creditors that's what they're meaning by the million or so . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elephants stoned 2,994 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I cant believe that theres still no indication of when the verdict will be announced, this has dragged on for a good couple of years at least. If we were as guilty as the mhanky mhedia like to say then surely it would of been announced a long time ago. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I know Kenneth Mure and i'm 100% confident he'll make a decision that ignores any pressure from outside parties. It will be a fair decision.Whit school did he go tae? :craphead: Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Old news broken by thomson.http://tinyurl.com/bqsnenk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I wonder if Rangers can get any kind of fair Hearing given the amount of prejudice stirred up in the Mhedia.That is a really good point and one which should not be overlooked.We have been found guilty by the media and the football authorities already.Have a rep. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non_Sucumbi 876 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 More shoddy lazy journalism.Sentence 1 contains '..................will be taking the decision'Sentence 2 then informs the reader '...........QC is chairing the three-person tribunal'So which is it. Is he chairing the tribunal or is he making the decision. If its the latter why are the other two 'cardboard cut-outs' required? 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.