Our HMRC issues....

[Alnic3856 358]

_{As for Whye being to blame.....well yes but ask yourself this.}

As it stands HMRC made a fraudulent claim for monies that was not theirs.

Now if I try and take money from you and its not mine to take we have a word for it THEFT. or at least attempted.

Had HMRC known their own rules or not been corrupt (take your pick) the Whyte would have been nowhere to be seen.

HMRC started the ball rolling.....

Thats a ridiculous statement, they didn't make a fraudulent claim they were pursuing us through the courts/tribunals for money they believed was owed, they tried to set a precedent, it was Whytes refusal to pay PAYE which put us in admin , which then meant we had to accept HMRC's POTENTIAL liability should they have won.

HMRC didn't send us under, Craig Fucking Whyte did.

[Blue and True 311]

Thats a ridiculous statement, they didn't make a fraudulent claim they were pursuing us through the courts/tribunals for money they believed was owed, they treid to set a precedent, it was Whytes refusal to pay PAYE which put us in admin , whihc then meant we had to accept HMRC's POTENTIAL liability should they have won.

HMRC didn't send us under Craig Fucking Whyte did.

Were (as it stands) HMRC entitled to the monies they were claiming....NO... they are appealing right enough but as it stands it was not their money to chase.

So again without this claim which was wrong and given the end result fraudulent do you think Whyte would have been the preferred (only) bidder for the club?.

Look if we had simply paid the 49 mill or whatever it was to HMRC that would have been fraud....would it not....

[Blue and True 311]

and I would add Whyte is a crook and a scum bag...

But HMRC have made a fraudulent claim against the company (very enthusiastic to collect)

HMRC ignored non payment of tax by Whyte. (not so enthusiastic to collect)

HMRC ARE UP TO THEIR NECKS IN THIS. and I for one would like to know why?????

[Alnic3856 358]

Were (as it stands) HMRC entitled to the monies they were claiming....NO... they are appealing right enough but as it stands it was not their money to chase.

So again without this claim which was wrong and given the end result fraudulent do you think Whyte would have been the preferred (only) bidder for the club?.

Look if we had simply paid the 49 mill or whatever it was to HMRC that would have been fraud....would it not....

No it would have been stupidity on our part, HMRC have the right to pursue those they believe owe them tax, it is not fraud, it would be fraud if they added a couple zero's on to the end of our tax bill without telling us and we unwittingly paid it. They can be right or they can be wrong in this case they were wrong but that should not detratc from the issue that if Whyte had paid the PAYE then we would never have had to accept the contingency liability of UP TO 90+ million ie the worst case scenario and a cva may have been possible.

Again HMRC are not to blame for this. yes they could have been quicker, they could have raised concerns earlier they could have done a lot of things, they did not however try to fucking defraud us, thats paranoid and stupid and makes us look desperate.

[Alnic3856 358]

and I would add Whyte is a crook and a scum bag...

But HMRC have made a fraudulent claim against the company (very enthusiastic to collect)

HMRC ignored non payment of tax by Whyte. (not so enthusiastic to collect)

HMRC ARE UP TO THEIR NECKS IN THIS. and I for one would like to know why?????

There is no point in trying to debate with you, your hell bent on it's some kind of opus dei conspiracy. We do not know how long HMRC were chasing Whyte for payment before we hit admin because only Whyte had eyes on the accounts/inner workings of the club and he kept shtum, so to say they were not desperate to colllect is just guesswork.

[Blue and True 311]

No it would have been stupidity on our part, HMRC have the right to pursue those they believe owe them tax, it is not fraud, it would be fraud if they added a couple zero's on to the end of our tax bill without telling us and we unwittingly paid it

-------

but you see they did they added 6 frign zeros and stuck a 49 in front......

We owed them nowt (or pretty close to it) they should have known that if they knew their own rules.

Are HMRC that thick they dont understand tax law.... because that is what 2 lawyers have concluded...

In 2003 HMRC should have been in at the club looked at the EBT being used and concluded like the 2 law experts that they were fine....

But they didnt.... they waited 8 years and then sent us a bill trying to fraudulently take money not theirs to take.

Where would the little scum bag that is Whte be had that been the case?

[Blue and True 311]

There is no point in trying to debate with you, your hell bent on it's some kind of opus dei conspiracy. We do not know how long HMRC were chasing Whyte for payment before we hit admin because only Whyte had eyes on the accounts/inner workings of the club and he kept shtum, so to say they were not desperate to colllect is just guesswork.

==

they are about to shut down hearts for 100k ffs.

And we all know about it...

yet we are in it for 9 mill before its comes out...

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Again HMRC are not to blame for this. yes they could have been quicker, they could have raised concerns earlier they could have done a lot of things, they did not however try to fucking defraud us, thats paranoid and stupid and makes us look desperate

Alnic

Given the nature of football cubs as opposed to other businesses - and the fact we had a new owner who was yet to publish accounts - do you think HMRC should maybe have gone public over the debt concerns and alerted fans/shareholders ?

[Blue and True 311]

Alnic

Given the nature of football cubs as opposed to other businesses - and the fact we had a new owner who was yet to publish accounts - do you think HMRC should maybe have gone public over the debt concerns and alerted fans/shareholders ?

good question Dart

and lets not forget Whyte had history very well known to HMRC

Yet we are to believe they either ignored it or made requests for payment and then ignore it....

seriously this is what some would have us believe

Just about everything was being leaked about our tax issues but not this....gee me peace....

[nachothelegend 1,932]

HMRC wanted us Dead, and Buried quite simple.

[iang2911 423]

Our Football club got forced into admin at the first time of a none payment of a bill by these clowns yet Hearts have a owner that is not interested in paying any bill to HMRC unless threatened with a winding up order. Does anyone know why our club was treated differently, When both cases are very much the same.

I don't remember HMRC given our club the chance to negotiate a deal, Or even the chance to pay up the debt in full.

The first time I knew we were in debt to HMRC was when we went into admin for the non payment of PAYE and NI. Why are other clubs been given chance after chance to pay up?

Why did we not hear about the issue with HMRC over PAYE and NI before it was to late?..

This is one of they many answers I would like HMRC to answer and why a signed my name to the petition.

CW was well known to HMRC for non payment of paye and ni. My question is why it was not highlighted to the SFA.

[choochooblue 342]

No it would have been stupidity on our part, HMRC have the right to pursue those they believe owe them tax, it is not fraud, it would be fraud if they added a couple zero's on to the end of our tax bill without telling us and we unwittingly paid it

-------

but you see they did they added 6 frign zeros and stuck a 49 in front......

We owed them nowt (or pretty close to it) they should have known that if they knew their own rules.

Are HMRC that thick they dont understand tax law.... because that is what 2 lawyers have concluded...

In 2003 HMRC should have been in at the club looked at the EBT being used and concluded like the 2 law experts that they were fine....

But they didnt.... they waited 8 years and then sent us a bill trying to fraudulently take money not theirs to take.

Where would the little scum bag that is Whte be had that been the case?

what gets me is how hmrc became main creditors only after adding together unpaid paye and ebt bill . Now someone on here with greater knowledge of the procedures could correct me, but i believe cva main creditor should have been ticketus as hmrc's claim on ebt is classed under 'phantom debt' as it was not settled by the time of cva proposal , so hmrc can only put down a token claim . This imo is where d&p failed us .

[dummiesoot 16,006]

what gets me is how hmrc became main creditors only after adding together unpaid paye and ebt bill . Now someone on here with greater knowledge of the procedures could correct me, but i believes cva main creditor should have been ticketus as hmrc's claim on ebt is classed under 'phantom debt' as it was not settled by the time of cva proposal , so hmrc can only put down a token claim . This imo is where d&p failed us .

D&P put ticketus out of the picture as Shytey was guarantor of the debt not Rangers.

[The Educator 1,572]

There needs to be a truly independent investigation into the handling of the BTC and the non-payment of PAYE by HMRC. The best tax brains in the country had been saying the EBT's were legal but for some reason HMRC kept on pushing a cause that those in the know thought they would lose. Month by month we were give revised figures of how much we should have to pay them as a means of bring the club to a standstill, I've never seen any club treated like this before and I honestly don't believe that I'll see any other club treated like this in the future.

As for the PAYE, when you consider how quickly they clamp down on companies for this it really seems odd that they let it run so long in the case of Rangers, though id does seem as though they may have thought it would help in their pursuit of the BTC.

There must be a public disclosure of who drove these events at HMRC and what their motivation was.

[CalvinC 1,414]

Can Lizzy no just scratch it all. Mon hen do us a favour.

[davy1shoe 63]

Were (as it stands) HMRC entitled to the monies they were claiming....NO... they are appealing right enough but as it stands it was not their money to chase.

So again without this claim which was wrong and given the end result fraudulent do you think Whyte would have been the preferred (only) bidder for the club?.

Look if we had simply paid the 49 mill or whatever it was to HMRC that would have been fraud....would it not....

Bullshit , HMRC change the rules after that fact that in any other world would not be on.

Murray offered money at the start years ago but they wanted way more.

HMRC caused all of this trying to rob us.

[Ecosse123 27]

What exactly were the rest of the board and everyone who knew doing at that time. We've hit leak after freaking leak since things turned around with Green and onwards. Like was me mentioned earlier why wasn't this flagged after 1 month.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Bullshit , HMRC change the rules after that fact that in any other world would not be on.

Murray offered money at the start years ago but they wanted way more.

HMRC caused all of this trying to rob us.

Ive heard that offered quote at £10 million and £12 million - either way thats alot of dough they have forfeited - especially when you consider Educator's point - the best legal brains in the country were suggesting it would go in Rangers favour- 60/40 in our favour was the one I remember reading.

[davy1shoe 63]

Ive heard that offered quote at £10 million and £12 million - either way thats alot of dough they have forfeited - especially when you consider Educator's point - the best legal brains in the country were suggesting it would go in Rangers favour- 60/40 in our favour was the one I remember reading.

I do think there is dark forces in all of this with the Money Vodaphone Starbucks Amazon walk away from by having a mailing address in another country.

If theres companys to go after go after these as thats total going out of the way to avoid tax ,Rangers paid tax just not as much as HMRC wanted but these companys try and get away with paying next to nothing.

[Alnic3856 358]

Alnic

Given the nature of football cubs as opposed to other businesses - and the fact we had a new owner who was yet to publish accounts - do you think HMRC should maybe have gone public over the debt concerns and alerted fans/shareholders ?

Personally I think they should have, although how legal is that? To divulge a companies tax bill in public, are they allowed to do that and when? After a default? before? naming and shaming so to speak is perhaps something they should do more often, however would it have affected Rangers under Whyte's ability to pay? Would we have paid if they had gone public, probably not.

There are lots of questions to be answered and as I said we have no idea how long HMRC were knocking on the door behind the scenes, Whyte may have been in talks with them we do not, and never will know the answer to this. But for some folk to come on here and assert that a government department downright tried to defraud Rangers and allowed us to deliberatley accumulate huge PAYE bills in order to deliberately put us out of business and shut us down is fucking hopelessly paranoid, delusional and fucking embarrasing.

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Personally I think they should have, although how legal is that? To divulge a companies tax bill in public, are they allowed to do that and when? After a default? before? naming and shaming so to speak is perhaps something they should do more often however would it have affected rangers under whyte's ability to pay? Would we have paid if they had gone public, probably not.

There are lots of questions to be answered and as I said we have noe idea how long HMRC were knocking on the door behind the scenes, Whyte may have been in talks with them we do not and never will know the answer to this. But to come on here and assert that a government department downright tried to defraud Rangers and allowed us to deliberatley acummulate huge PAYE bills in order to deliberately put us out of business and shut us down is fucking hopelessly paranoid, delusional and fucking embarrasing.

They were obviously limited in what they could have said - I fully appreciate that. But I think it could have been done in a manner which kept within the limits of that - remember when the stories were circulating about Sheriff's Officer's visiting the club etc. A statement to the effect of "HMRC would like to clarify that our current actions concerning RFC are not as is being reported linked to the EBT investigation, but concern the non payment of PAYE"

[Alnic3856 358]

I do think there is dark forces in all of this with the Money Vodaphone Starbucks Amazon walk away from by having a mailing address in another country.

If theres companys to go after go after these as thats total going out of the way to avoid tax ,Rangers paid tax just not as much as HMRC wanted but these companys try and get away with paying next to nothing.

the difference with these companies and Rangers is that they hold all the cards, deals are struck behind closed doors, how many people for example do you think Vodafone employ in the UK? Hundreds, thousands? Same as Amazon etc, all these conglomorates are not tied to the UK they can do business here while being based offshore, put too much pressure on them and they relocate causing havoc in the economy and unemployment rates, the Government does not hold all the cards when dealing with these people.

Football clubs are different, we must be based in Scotland we cannot say move our HQ to Luxembourg and trade from there we must be in the country we play in, see all the fuss surrounding Monaco and the French FA wanting them to move their HQ into france so they do not benefit massively when paying salaries to players due to different tax laws.

Rangers were an easy target to test the validity of the EBT schemes on, and HMRC were entitled rightly or wrongly to pursue us for what they believed was owed, in the end they were wrong but it is their right in fact it is their DUTY to try and recover tax where they believe it is due, unfortunately Rangers didn't have the same bargaining power as say Vodafone, and yes that stinks but thats a seperate issue.

There are no Dark Forces, just twisted rules and regulations which make it easier to target someone like Rangers than Amazon.

[Alnic3856 358]

They were obviously limited in what they could have said - I fully appreciate that. But I think it could have been done in a manner which kept within the limits of that - remember when the stories were circulating about Sheriff's Officer's visiting the club etc. A statement to the effect of "HMRC would like to clarify that our current actions concerning RFC are not as is being reported linked to the EBT investigation, but concern the non payment of PAYE"

Perhaps that is something the Government should look into mate, what exactly is HMRC responsibility, if any to the SE/Shareholders.

And if they do not have one should they be given one, although even this, in our situation would have changed nothing since Whyte had sole control, it's not as though we had a board who could sack him/question him, ye we would have known about it earlier but ultimately what would it have changed?

[D'Artagnan 13,319]

Rangers were an easy target to test the validity of the EBT schemes on, and HMRC were entitled rightly or wrongly to pursue us for what they believed was owed, in the end they were wrong but it is their right in fact it is their DUTY to try and recover tax where they believe it is due, unfortunately Rangers didn't have the same bargaining power as say Vodafone, and yes that stinks but thats a seperate issue.

You see Al I'm not totally convinced we were such an "easy target". I remember listening to Traynor (long before he joined us) speaking about our EBT scheme. As they go ours was apparently very well run and administered.

In terms of fulfilling their duty to the tax holder - they have now declined a settlement of up to £12 million - instead to pursue a case against a company, who the legal experts opinion was, likely to win.

Despite that ruling they are spending more money now going after a company which has been liquidated and which there will be no potential for recovery of monies. I appreciate they are attempting to establish a legal precedent which they can apply to others.

I think when you review all this from start to finish, in terms of the wisdom of their decisions compared to their core aims and objectives - the whole process is worthy of public review.

[Alnic3856 358]

You see Al I'm not totally convinced we were such an "easy target". I remember listening to Traynor (long before he joined us) speaking about our EBT scheme. As they go ours was apparently very well run and administered.

In terms of fulfilling their duty to the tax holder - they have now declined a settlement of up to £12 million - instead to pursue a case against a company, who the legal experts opinion was, likely to win.

Despite that ruling they are spending more money now going after a company which has been liquidated and which there will be no potential for recovery of monies. I appreciate they are attempting to establish a legal precedent which they can apply to others.

I think when you review all this from start to finish, in terms of the wisdom of their decisions compared to their core aims and objectives - the whole process is worthy of public review.

Ours was very well run and administered from our legal representatives point of view, you have to take into consideration what HMRC's legal advisors were telling them, people conveniently forget the role lawyers played in this whole saga, who incidentally get paid win lose or draw.

HMRC cannot accept £12m if they believe they are owed more, unless they get dispensation from somewhere as per Vodafone.

Yes I agree from start to finish they have fundamentally failed in their remit, but as a result of a hate campaign against a football club, or bad advice from said lawyers?