Our HMRC issues....

[Blue and True 311]

I'm no, You should have checked before you started moothing away in caps.

YOU FRIGN ARE AND WERE

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Mitre good to hear from you....

Only in part would be the answer..

when the EBTs first appeared on our accounts this should have been settled.

They make the complaint in 2003 and we freeze the use until settled.

Its not rocket science ............and if it was I would employ a rocket scientist.....they can do complex stuff, unlike HMRC.

Thats fair enough.

I still blame Murray and the guys at our club first and foremost. They should not have used such a risky payment scheme in the first place.

HMRC were within their rights to go after us, but the way it was handled was very poor.

What grates me most is that im sure there are plenty of other clubs who have used equally as dodgy if not identical schemes, yet have not been pulled up.

[Blue and True 311]

I still blame Murray and the guys at our club first and foremost. They should not have used such a risky payment scheme in the first place.

==

yes to a point

They did however take advice....now they could and looking back should have called in HMRC and advised what they were doing why they were doing it and why it was non taxable.

But then we did put them in the accounts signed them off and paid what we assumed was the correct amount.

At that point HMRC should have been coming in telling us their thoughts. This was 2003 I think.

[Blue and True 311]

They did check, they went to court, thats how you check the legality of a disputed claim when there are two conflicting opinions. Your whole argument is based on they should have checked, checked with who? Themselves? the guys who set up the scheme? or go to court and ask for an independent verdict on it?

Of course they go to court and ask for an independent verdict, thats what the tax case was all about, HMRC checking. Whatever happened between them beginning the check and it ending was not under their control.

Is that so hard to understand?

I really need to go now this is getting tiresome.

You are correct I did not make any specific checks on this. I was going from memory.

However since you brought this up and my lack of checking....guess what I did?

Yup... correct I checked.

I will copy the response I received and the email I sent.

This will show and hopefully prove that your assertion in regards to HMRC and the checks made prior to billing Rangers for a fictional tax liability (as it stands) was based on one thing at that was their opinion. No checks no visits to court Nowt.

Now in future when you decide to give lessons and cheek out on issues such as this may I respectfully request YOU check first before posting.

emails as mentioned.

Dear ****

Just a quick question in regards to your posting ‘Rangers FC wins tax appeal’.15^th March 2013.

When HMRC originally concluded that Rangers FC was in breach of the rules and guidelines appropriate to the use of EBTs, Did they do this with any support from the courts or was it simply their own conclusion?

Thank you and I look forward to your reply.

================================

On the main point in the Rangers case, HMRC have had no support from the courts at all. They had already taken two cases through the courts previously and had lost both of them. One of the previous two cases was decided in the House of Lords, which was then the highest court in the UK.

What I mean by the “main point” is that, broadly speaking, money goes through an EBT and ends up in the employees’ pockets as a loan made from the EBT to them. HMRC’s view is that, at some point in the process, this money should be taxable as salary or as a bonus. The courts have not backed them up on this in any case so far. It is an internal HMRC decision to challenge planning of this sort. They object to money ending up in employees’ pockets without ever being subject to income tax and national insurance contributions and so are pushing the point even though they have been defeated on it in court several times.

However, I would note that HMRC have had support from the courts on other technical points related to EBTs.

Please let me know if you would like to discuss.

====

The source of this information is a well respected expert on tax law with no connection with Rangers and I hope you can take this as such as it is completely independent .

[Alnic3856 358]

have you been up aw night googling stuff and emailing folk because some cunt disagreed with ye on a fitba forum?

:lol: :lol:

Ya mental obsessed bastard!

PS. I stand by my point, you were saying they should have checked before they issued the bill or while it was being issued, I'm saying they didn't have anyone to check with, and only way to find out the truth re a disputed claim was to take it to court which they did, hence the tax case, the tax case was them checking. hindsight is a wonderful thing and perhaps if they knew then what they knew now they wouldnt have issued the bill, but they didn't and thats the point I'm making. You also conveniently seem to forget that HMRC have the taken up the right of appeal and may yet prove that the EBT scheme was illegal, there are obviously a lot of powerful folk who think it was, otherwise they wouldn't be wasting their time and money 'checking' if a now defunct company broke the rules, the reason? there are other culprits out there who have used/are using similar schemes and they want the right to go after them with a precedent behind them.

You seem to have either fundamentally misunderstood what I'm saying, or you choose to ignore it beacuse you think I'm having a pop at you.

[st1965 14]

Alnic - HMRC liquidated the holding company based on EBT debt and penalties along with whyte non payment of vat and PAYE. u can say they are in their "rights" to pursue tax they think they are owned but surely there is something fundamentally wrong with the law in this country that they can pursue liquidation before an appeal is heard!!! Remember HMRC refused a CVA as they took into account ebt potential, not actual debt, as part of their calcullation and subsequently liquidated rangers holding company " to pursue the men responsible". This, IMO, is whatneeds to be answered - at best incompetency at worse illegal?

[Alnic3856 358]

Alnic - HMRC liquidated the holding company based on EBT debt and penalties along with whyte non payment of vat and PAYE. u can say they are in their "rights" to pursue tax they think they are owned but surely there is something fundamentally wrong with the law in this country that they can pursue liquidation before an appeal is heard!!! Remember HMRC refused a CVA as they took into account ebt potential, not actual debt, as part of their calcullation and subsequently liquidated rangers holding company " to pursue the men responsible". This, IMO, is whatneeds to be answered - at best incompetency at worse illegal?

I agree, but it's not imcompetency if they act according to protocol, which in this instance dictates for CVA purposes, before the verdict is heard that the company acepts liability for the maximum possible penalty should they lose. This makes complete sense, why would HMRC accept a CVA from a company for 10 million then find out later that company owes them 100 million? thats never going to happen. (ok we know now we owe them nothing but we didn't then and neither did they)

Now as far as pushing for liquidation thats wrong, it was not HMRC's fault we went into administration BEFORE the verdict (Well maybe it could have been delivered earlier) HMRC did not put Rangers in the situation where a CVA had to be voted on BEFORE the verdict, Craig fucking Whyte did, he and he alone created this situation whereby we had to accept a possible liability totalling tens of millions in order to try and get a CVA and he did it deliberately to get rid of the big case incase we lost it, blaming the tax authorities for carrying out their duty is bullshit and allows the real villain to get off lightly.

I say again I am not defending HMRC as many people seem to be asserting, they did a lot of things wrong and should be investigated as i stated earlier, but I'm not gonnae sit here and watch while everycunt bemoans them for a situation created by a conman. Big bad HMRC liquidated Rangers by chasing them for debt they didnt owe. No they didn't, only in hindsight they did, at the time no one knew whether it was due or not.

[Johnny Hubbard 280]

The tax tribunal's last meeting was in late January but the verdict wasn't released until November.

Explain that one !

[Alnic3856 358]

The tax tribunal's last meeting was in late January but the verdict wasn't released until November.

Explain that one !

Vatican conspiracy

[dummiesoot 16,006]

I agree, but it's not imcompetency if they've act according to protocol, which in this instance dictates for CVA purposes, before the verdict is heard that the company acepts liability for the maximum possible penalty should they lose. This makes complete sense, why would HMRC accept a CVA from a company for 10 million then find out later that company owes them 100 million? thats never going to happen. (ok we know now we owe them nothing but we didn't then and neither did they)

Now as far as pushing for liquidation thats wrong, it was not HMRC's fault we went into administration BEFORE the verdict (Well maybe it could have been delivered earlier) HMRC did not put Rangers in the situation where a CVA had to be voted on BEFORE the verdict, Craig fucking Whyte did, he and he alone created this situation whereby we had to accept a possible liability totalling tens of millions in order to try and get a CVA and he did it deliberately to get rid of the big case incase we lost it, blaming the tax authorities for carrying out their duty is bullshit and allows the real villain to get off lightly.

I say again I am not defending HMRC as many people seem to be asserting, they did a lot of things wrong and should be investigated as i stated earlier, but I'm not gonnae sit here and watch while everycunt bemoans them for a situation created by a conman. Big bad HMRC liquidated Rangers by chasing them for debt they didnt owe. No they didn't, only in hindsight they did, at the time no one knew whether it was due or not.

HMRC were not owed anywhere near the amounts in the creditors their ability to claim penalties and interest is wrong until guilt is proven and the reason our owners were liquidated.

[Alnic3856 358]

HMRC were not owed anywhere near the amounts in the creditors their ability to claim penalties and interest is wrong until guilt is proven and the reason our owners were liquidated.

Why is this so hard to fucking understand folks.

They did not claim penalties and interest that were not due, our administrators agreed to a contingent liability up to and including the maximum possible amount that may have been due if we had lost the case. This is because of the point I raised earlier, we owed them, for arguments sake 10m from Whyte era and another unknown amount from the big tax case which COULD have,been (and still fucking might be) up to 100m or whatever, HMRC could not possibly agree a CVA at 10m knowing full well the result could be published showing we owed more.

Everyone seems to think HMRC said Rangers owe us £100 million, which simply is not true, thats what the fucking scottish media reported cos it sounded bad, what HMRC said was we believe Rangers owe us an amount which could be anything from A best case (10m ish Whytes debt) to B worst case (Whytes debt and the BTC if lost plus penalties and interest) and guilt is being decided by a tribunal as we speak, that figure was only ever theoretical and because our administrators wanted the CVA process pushed through they agreed to accept the highest possible figure which may or may not have been due to HMRC for voting purposes. The other alternative, the only alternative at this stage was to remain in administration until after the big tax case had been published. Why that didn't happen is anyones guess.

D+P hold the answers as to why they agreed to accept responsibility for a theoretical debt, not HMRC, I'm not saying HMRC were right to claim it, but they HAD the right to do so. Why was it accepted is the question folk should be wanting answered, what was the rush when accepting it virtually guaranteed liquidation.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Why is this so hard to fucking understand folks.

They did not claim penalties and interest that were not due, our administrators agreed to a contingent liability up to and including the maximum possible amount that may have been due if we had lost the case. This is because of the point I raised earlier, we owed them, for arguments sake 10m from Whyte era and another unknown amount from the big tax case which COULD have,been (and still fucking might be) up to 100m or whatever, HMRC could not possibly agree a CVA at 10m knowing full well the result could be published showing we owed more.

Everyone seems to think HMRC said Rangers owe us £100 million, which simply is not true, thats what the fucking scottish media reported cos it sounded bad, what HMRC said was we believe Rangers owe us an amount which could be anything from A best case (10m ish Whytes debt) to B worst case (Whytes debt and the BTC if lost plus penalties and interest) and guilt is being decided by a tribunal as we speak, that figure was only ever theoretical and because our administrators wanted the CVA process pushed through they agreed to accept the highest possible figure which may or may not have been due to HMRC for voting purposes. The other alternative, the only alternative at this stage was to remain in administration until after the big tax case had been published. Why that didn't happen is anyones guess.

D+P hold the answers as to why they agreed to accept responsibility for a theoretical debt, not HMRC, I'm not saying HMRC were right to claim it, but they HAD the right to do so. Why was it accepted is the question folk should be wanting answered, what was the rush when accepting it virtually guaranteed liquidation.

I'm not sure that is exactly true, the HMRC did say we owed them c£90m, it was us who challenged this through the appeal. They did quantify the amount though.

I do agree with you in general here, there is no anti rangers conspiracy at the HMRC. We played with a very risky tax avoidance scheme and paid the price. Fault is with our previous management, not the HMRC, although the HMRC could have dealt with it better.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Why is this so hard to fucking understand folks.

They did not claim penalties and interest that were not due, our administrators agreed to a contingent liability up to and including the maximum possible amount that may have been due if we had lost the case. This is because of the point I raised earlier, we owed them, for arguments sake 10m from Whyte era and another unknown amount from the big tax case which COULD have,been (and still fucking might be) up to 100m or whatever, HMRC could not possibly agree a CVA at 10m knowing full well the result could be published showing we owed more.

Everyone seems to think HMRC said Rangers owe us £100 million, which simply is not true, thats what the fucking scottish media reported cos it sounded bad, what HMRC said was we believe Rangers owe us an amount which could be anything from A best case (10m ish Whytes debt) to B worst case (Whytes debt and the BTC if lost plus penalties and interest) and guilt is being decided by a tribunal as we speak, that figure was only ever theoretical and because our administrators wanted the CVA process pushed through they agreed to accept the highest possible figure which may or may not have been due to HMRC for voting purposes. The other alternative, the only alternative at this stage was to remain in administration until after the big tax case had been published. Why that didn't happen is anyones guess.

D+P hold the answers as to why they agreed to accept responsibility for a theoretical debt, not HMRC, I'm not saying HMRC were right to claim it, but they HAD the right to do so. Why was it accepted is the question folk should be wanting answered, what was the rush when accepting it virtually guaranteed liquidation.

I also don't agree with your stance on D&P. there was no real point in negotiating down the theoretical BTC debt. HMRC were always going to hold the required 25% to allow a CVA blockage.

[Alnic3856 358]

I'm not sure that is exactly true, the HMRC did say we owed them c£90m, it was us who challenged this through the appeal. They did quantify the amount though.

I do agree with you in general here, there is no anti rangers conspiracy at the HMRC. We played with a very risky tax avoidance scheme and paid the price. Fault is with our previous management, not the HMRC, although the HMRC could have dealt with it better.

I know what you are saying mate, yes there was an initial claim that we challenged (See my post No 61), but saying that we were forced into liquidation due to that initial claim is wrong, which is the point I am making.

[Alnic3856 358]

I also don't agree with your stance on D&P. there was no real point in negotiating down the theoretical BTC debt. HMRC were always going to hold the required 25% to allow a CVA blockage.

This may or may not be true, at that time if the BTC debt was not taken into the equation then ticketus were the biggest creditor, they were taken out the picture later on. None of this matters anymore anyway, it's just that it is downright inaccurate to say that RFC were forced into liquidation because of a fraudulent claim by HMRC.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

I know what you are saying mate, yes there was an initial claim that we challenged (See my post No 61), but saying that we were forced into liquidation due to that initial claim is wrong, which is the point I am making.

I kinda agree with you, but I think ultimately the claim did result in our troubles and then sale to Whyte and then to NewCo. If that claim was not hanging over us, we would not have got into that situation. HMRC had every right to challenge though.

[Alnic3856 358]

I kinda agree with you, but I think ultimately the claim did result in our troubles and then sale to Whyte and then to NewCo. If that claim was not hanging over us, we would not have got into that situation. HMRC had every right to challenge though.

Absolutely the claim resulted in our troubles, initially, everyone Including Alistair Johnston said at the time the contingent liability was the elephant in the room for any potential buyer but it was Whyte who put HMRC in the driving seat by dragging us into administration before the tax verdict and saddling us with another potential creditor in ticketus. When that happened there was only ever going to be one outcome. Prior to this, debt was being reduced year on year tax was being paid and the team remained relatively competitive, had this continued until the verdict was published then who knows what may have happened.

But as I said, the statements in this thread that RFC went into liquidation because HMRC chased us for money we didn't owe are not accurate, that was only a part of the story, and no one knew if it was owed or not, not even us.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

This may or may not be true, at that time if the BTC debt was not taken into the equation then ticketus were the biggest creditor, they were taken out the picture later on. None of this matters anymore anyway, it's just that it is downright inaccurate to say that RFC were forced into liquidation because of a fraudulent claim by HMRC.

You are right, Ticketus were the biggest creditor, but the HMRC had more than enough for a 25% blockage. Even if you remove the liability for the BTC altogether, Whyte had built up a debt of about c15m quid i think to the hmrc on VAT, PAYE and the small tax cases. Given the debt minus the btc would have been about £50m all in, even then they had enough for 25%.

[Alnic3856 358]

You are right, Ticketus were the biggest creditor, but the HMRC had more than enough for a 25% blockage. Even if you remove the liability for the BTC altogether, Whyte had built up a debt of about c15m quid i think to the hmrc on VAT, PAYE and the small tax cases. Given the debt minus the btc would have been about £50m all in, even then they had enough for 25%.

None of it matters now anyway,

At the end of the day Hearts are still fucked.

[Alnic3856 358]

Tick Tock.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Absolutely the claim resulted in our troubles, initially, everyone Including Alistair Johnston said at the time the contingent liability was the elephant in the room for any potential buyer but it was Whyte who put HMRC in the driving seat by dragging us into administration before the tax verdict and saddling us with another potential creditor in ticketus. When that happened there was only ever going to be one outcome. Prior to this, debt was being reduced year on year tax was being paid and the team remained relatively competitive, had this continued until the verdict was published then who knows what may have happened.

But as I said, the statements in this thread that RFC went into liquidation because HMRC chased us for money we didn't owe are not accurate, that was only a part of the story.

Personally, Whyte or no Whyte, I recon the oldco was doomed. We were only posting profits in the Europe years, losses when not qualifying. With the threat of appeal after appeal on the BTC, we would have been toxic to any potential new buyer. Without a rich new owner and with no ability to leverage credit due to our risk status, we would have limped on for a year or two before then going down the newco route.

[Alnic3856 358]

Personally, Whyte or no Whyte, I recon the oldco was doomed. We were only posting profits in the Europe years, losses when not qualifying. With the threat of appeal after appeal on the BTC, we would have been toxic to any potential new buyer. Without a rich new owner and with no ability to leverage credit due to our risk status, we would have limped on for a year or two before then going down the newco route.

You could well be right mate, I guess thats an outcome we will never know, makes you wonder though if it was inevitable, why Whyte was the only person willing to 'do the deed' if you know what I mean.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

You could well be right mate, I guess thats an outcome we will never know, makes you wonder though if it was inevitable, why Whyte was the only person willing to 'do the deed' if you know what I mean.

I was saying at the time. If someone had volunteered to do it sensibly, we might now be in a much stronger position. It could hav been handled proactively with much less dramatics.

Problem is, our fans would never have allowed someone who newco'd us to remain in control. At the time most thought being newco'd meant the club would die and we would lose our history.

[Alnic3856 358]

I was saying at the time. If someone had volunteered to do it sensibly, we might now be in a much stronger position. It could hav been handled proactively with much less dramatics.

Problem is, our fans would never have allowed someone who newco'd us to remain in control. At the time most thought being newco'd meant the club would die and we would lose our history.

Was Whytes plan to just allow that to happen, for the club to die naturally hence his floating charges and attempts to secure all assets? he would have walked away with a few million quid and Rangers would have been no more, did failure to make the champions league screw his plans up forcing administrationa and effectively 'saving' Rangers from him?

It's a controversial theory but don't think it can be entirely discounted, maybe whittakers red card in Malmo saved Rangers?

:rolleyes:

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Was Whytes plan to just allow that to happen, for the club to die naturally hence his floating charges and attempts to secure all assets? he would have walked away with a few million quid and Rangers would have been no more, did failure to make the champions league screw his plans up forcing administrationa and effectively 'saving' Rangers from him?

It's a controversial theory but don't think it can be entirely discounted, maybe whittakers red card in Malmo saved Rangers?

:rolleyes:

I thought at the time he might have had a plan to do something like that. Turned out he was just a scheming prick though.