HM Revenue and Customs' Rangers tax case appeal to be heard in public

[five stars 1,741]

Not sure i like the sound of this Judge Bishop. He basically says there is no such thing as a club anymore but business's who's objective is maximising profits for shareholders. How many clubs in the UK regularly pay out dividends? I would imagine not that many. A football club is more than a incorporated company.

[dummiesoot 16,139]

When the CVA failed HMRC said they couldn't agree to it as it would prejudice their efforts to go after individuals involved. The fact they will get next to nothing from oldco isnt important. A win opens up other avenues to pursue the people involved with the EBTs.

No that was to do with shyte's non payment not ebts.

[dummiesoot 16,139]

Think in the administrators report that we did have a liability somewhere between those figures.

Obviously when the tax case went in our favour, this reduced closer to the first figure.

Regardless, Whyte was only one of the villains, Murray was just as bad.

I am no fan of murray but how do you put sdm in the same boat as whyte? Whyte wilfully did not paye and ni sdm took tax expert advice and reduce tax liability. One you can go to jail for.

[jayzer 36]

John Reid (fucking despicable bastard) was the wheel behind HMRC.......he actioned and assisted the inquiry and accelerated it with hate towards us.

All behind the scenes by the way.........

N.I. Minister......Member of Parliament......then Chief Exec of the immigrants.......ffs........Wake Up !!!

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

I am no fan of murray but how do you put sdm in the same boat as whyte? Whyte wilfully did not paye and ni sdm took tax expert advice and reduce tax liability. One you can go to jail for.

Whyte gambled on European revenue and tried to play hardball with the HMRC. It didnt work.

Murray put the club in great danger by leaving us open to such a risky scheme. He sold us to Whyte because he was desperate to get us off his books.

Both as bad as each other in my eyes.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

John Reid (fucking despicable bastard) was the wheel behind HMRC.......he actioned and assisted the inquiry and accelerated it with hate towards us.

All behind the scenes by the way.........

N.I. Minister......Member of Parliament......then Chief Exec of the immigrants.......ffs........Wake Up !!!

[BertContraband 282]

Its unbelievable this is still going, nearly a year since we won FTT yet we have to put up with the taxman acting the big bully with taxpayers money after we win the appeal too we should make sure the idiots who have wasted millions of the public's money lose their jobs for this shit.

exactly. unless they plan to pursue other companies that used ebts in the past. no real relevance to us now anyway. just a corporate shell being kicked about like a burst ball

[Doughnut001 7]

The scum at HMRC have previously claimed that the reason they make tax deals with big companies like vodafone is that they don't think going after them properly is economically viable. I.e it would cost more than they would gain.

There is no possible chance that an appeal of the tax case will do anything other than lose the taxpayer money.

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,788]

THE BY-LINE IS ENOUGH FOR ME MICK FARRELL ! WAKEN UP FUR FUCKS SAKE !

[Alwaysblue 709]

John Reid (fucking despicable bastard) was the wheel behind HMRC.......he actioned and assisted the inquiry and accelerated it with hate towards us.

All behind the scenes by the way.........

N.I. Minister......Member of Parliament......then Chief Exec of the immigrants.......ffs........Wake Up !!!

Whilst we have no definite proof of this, it is my take on it too. Like a previous poster said, holding it in public may let us see who was behind it, the people leaking info etc

[elephants stoned 2,994]

exactly. unless they plan to pursue other companies that used ebts in the past. no real relevance to us now anyway. just a corporate shell being kicked about like a burst ball

It may just be a corporate shell but I still want to see HMRC beaten again and sent away with their tail between their legs its a total sham if they can just appeal until they win all paid for by you and me the taxpayers, its about defending our reputation Rangers never committed any offences under any corporate guise and no bent appeals system loaded in favour of HMRC will ever chance that

[neiljung 3]

I work for a Government department who are involved in civil cases on a daily basis, I worked in their appeals department a few years ago and this is what I remember, I will share a bit of knowledge to hopefully help clear a few things up with the procedural side of things.

HMRC have lost the First Tier Tribunal, they have appealed this decision but can only appeal if they think there has been an error in the way the law has been applied.

This new hearing is only to assess the First Tier decision and can go one of two ways; there has been an error in law therefore the case will be sent to the Upper Tribunal to reassess the same facts. No new evidence can be brought to this hearing, all the same evidence will be assessed and the new Judges and Layperson can call the same witnesses to ask different questions but must still use the old evidence. The second outcome is the new Judge finds no error in law and the case is finished.

In the second outcome HMRC still have the option of a Judicial Review if they still think there has been an error in law. This is part of Scots law in which everyone resident in Scotland can submit a Judicial Review against any decision even if they have no right of appeal. If this fails the case is done.

If the case goes to the Upper Tribunal and HMRC win then whoever is acting for oldco can appeal this decision. The Upper Tribunal can also refer the case back to the First Tier if they cannot make an agreement on the outcome. In either of these circumstances HMRC have still lost.

Worst case scenario is the case gets to the Upper Tribunal and they overturn the decision in HMRC’s favour then oldco can seek a judicial Review of this decision. Judicial Reviews are not the same as any other case as they rely on proportionality of the decision (amongst other things I can’t remember just now). This is often why murders get a reduced sentence by JR, they are still guilty but the punishment outweighed the crime. The question asked would be was going through all of this proportionate to the money HMRC may get back?

The fact the case will be heard in public makes no difference, these are civil cases with no jury and only a panel of Judges and Laypeople. Any members of public in the gallery are there to observe only and will not be involved in any part of the hearing. Civil cases rely on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt so there is no need for a jury.

The First Tier voted 2-1 against HMRC, the two Judges voting against and they Layperson for. This is positive as the expectation is the Judges know the law and apply it properly. The only negative is HMRC can withdraw action at anytime if they think they may loose then hit oldco with another bill with different demands, this case everyone is back to square one.

I work for a Government department who are involved in civil cases on a daily basis, I worked in their appeals department a few years ago and this is what I remember, I will share a bit of knowledge to hopefully help clear a few things up with the procedural side of things.

HMRC have lost the First Tier Tribunal, they have appealed this decision but can only appeal if they think there has been an error in the way the law has been applied.

This new hearing is only to assess the First Tier decision and can go one of two ways; there has been an error in law therefore the case will be sent to the Upper Tribunal to reassess the same facts. No new evidence can be brought to this hearing, all the same evidence will be assessed and the new Judges and Layperson can call the same witnesses to ask different questions but must still use the old evidence. The second outcome is the new Judge finds no error in law and the case is finished.

In the second outcome HMRC still have the option of a Judicial Review if they still think there has been an error in law. This is part of Scots law in which everyone resident in Scotland can submit a Judicial Review against any decision even if they have no right of appeal. If this fails the case is done.

If the case goes to the Upper Tribunal and HMRC win then whoever is acting for oldco can appeal this decision. The Upper Tribunal can also refer the case back to the First Tier if they cannot make an agreement on the outcome. In either of these circumstances HMRC have still lost.

Worst case scenario is the case gets to the Upper Tribunal and they overturn the decision in HMRC’s favour then oldco can seek a judicial Review of this decision. Judicial Reviews are not the same as any other case as they rely on proportionality of the decision (amongst other things I can’t remember just now). This is often why murders get a reduced sentence by JR, they are still guilty but the punishment outweighed the crime. The question asked would be was going through all of this proportionate to the money HMRC may get back?

The fact the case will be heard in public makes no difference, these are civil cases with no jury and only a panel of Judges and Laypeople. Any members of public in the gallery are there to observe only and will not be involved in any part of the hearing. Civil cases rely on the balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt so there is no need for a jury.

The First Tier voted 2-1 against HMRC, the two Judges voting against and they Layperson for. This is positive as the expectation is the Judges know the law and apply it properly. Another positive is Government Departments get a hard time in court and must have a watertight case, the Judges want to show they are impartial and seperate from the state but by doing this they will more often than not give the other side the benefit of doubt more than the Government. Judges also do not like it if they think the Government is being aggressive in it pursuit of an outcome.

The only negative is HMRC can withdraw action at anytime if they think they may lose then hit oldco with another bill with different demands, this case everyone is back to square one.

It's Friday night and I have had a few beers but hopefully this makes sense.

[eejay the dj 31,964]

Eh? How you get that?

We won, the tax case has no impact on us now, regardless if they win the appeal or not.

I dont see how im being negative.

Crock of shite you spout sometimes .If this is overturned the beggars ,the beggar loving media and all our enemies will have a field day .This has fuck all to do with going after other clubs .Its being railroaded by higher authority in the Hmrc which is riddled with taigs in E-k ,Cumbernauld buildings so there's a fair chance their bosses are rodents .This is all about getting one over our club and nothing more .

[montana100 335]

I honestly believe that HMRC will exhaust all levels in the appeals process in a attempt to get a decision they're happy with.

my wife has been fighting the tax robber for eight years, yes eight years and still they are taken her to the cleaners. Problem is she hasn't backed down and they are pulling every law and rule to f♡k her over until they get what THEY are happy with.

Our lawyer is happy with my wife and the tax robber is also happy..........so the fight continues.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

Crock of shite you spout sometimes .If this is overturned the beggars ,the beggar loving media and all our enemies will have a field day .This has fuck all to do with going after other clubs .Its being railroaded by higher authority in the Hmrc which is riddled with taigs in E-k ,Cumbernauld buildings so there's a fair chance their bosses are rodents .This is all about getting one over our club and nothing more .

I seriously doubt the EK and Cumbernauld centres will be heading this up mate.

[Malvern 11,329]

I seriously doubt the EK and Cumbernauld centres will be heading this up mate.

I knew you would be all over this thread like lice.

The process of EBT's were legal at the time, if your bhoys do not like it that is a different thing, when it was banned Rangers stopped. You can cry all you want into your hoops top, doesn't change facts and the law cannot be rewritten the way you ideally want, you cannot commit an act against the law retrospectively if it is changed after a certain date (notice date applies), it is against the law now but not then (yeah the fun in that one). Oh and by the way the whole of MIH wil fight this to the end, DM has too much money at risk on this judgement as he did the previous one and threatened HMRC.

However the HMRC have the right to appeal a decision as everyone does but it is our money they are wasting not theirs (oh and Rangers for representation which could be seen as a bit dubious to clear eyes), the same facts are still going to be put forward and will still be relevant, namely one big one, it was legal (Morality like your mate Spiers likes to crone on about is not in the law, so sorry your sh1t out of luck there!). The only thing that has not stopped this dead is the number of names who signed up to the petition, our support have been blinded by lethargy!

It was legal. It has been accepted once, it will be again or DM will have to answer the sh1t personally. your going to have to buy another box of Kleenex to dry your eyes.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

I knew you would be all over this thread like lice.

The process of EBT's were legal at the time, if your bhoys do not like it that is a different thing, when it was banned Rangers stopped. You can cry all you want into your hoops top, doesn't change facts and the law cannot be rewritten the way you ideally want, you cannot commit an act against the law retrospectively if it is changed after a certain date (notice date applies), it is against the law now but not then (yeah the fun in that one). Oh and by the way the whole of MIH wil fight this to the end, DM has too much money at risk on this judgement as he did the previous one and threatened HMRC.

However the HMRC have the right to appeal a decision as everyone does but it is our money they are wasting not theirs (oh and Rangers for representation which could be seen as a bit dubious to clear eyes), the same facts are still going to be put forward and will still be relevant, namely one big one, it was legal (Morality like your mate Spiers likes to crone on about is not in the law, so sorry your sh1t out of luck there!). The only thing that has not stopped this dead is the number of names who signed up to the petition, our support have been blinded by lethargy!

It was legal. It has been accepted once, it will be again or DM will have to answer the sh1t personally. your going to have to buy another box of Kleenex to dry your eyes.

Is English your first language? I am guessing not.

Firstly, its not a case of having the law changed, no-one is talking about retrospectively charging someone with an amended law. They are determining if the OldCo obeyed the rules as they were at the time.

The HMRC might win, they might lose. They have been granted the right for appeal though, and counter to your obvious argument, just because the decision first time favoured the OldCo, does not mean that it must favour them in the appeal.

Oh, and please dont accuse people of being tims. It breaks the rules of the forum. You seem like you are possibly under the influence of heroin though, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt this time and not report you.

[Malvern 11,329]

Is English your first language? I am guessing not.

Firstly, its not a case of having the law changed, no-one is talking about retrospectively charging someone with an amended law. They are determining if the OldCo obeyed the rules as they were at the time.

The HMRC might win, they might lose. They have been granted the right for appeal though, and counter to your obvious argument, just because the decision first time favoured the OldCo, does not mean that it must favour them in the appeal.

Oh, and please dont accuse people of being tims. It breaks the rules of the forum. You seem like you are possibly under the influence of heroin though, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt this time and not report you.

To quote directly "no-one is talking about retrospectively charging someone with an amended law", why not? It is because they would lose as it was the law at the time (Newco as would not be culpable anyway).

As far as the HMRC appeal goes I covered that, they have the right to appeal and waste more Rangers money not Ceptic money as they are the government, by the way that money is your and our taxes.

As to the charge of Timmy calling I stand by it as I think you have an agenda that is nefarious in the extreme, I know BP will ban me if he thinks I am wrong, but I have been watching your little diatribes along with certain others and I fail to see anything possitive but a shed load negative, your not giving anything constructive.

I will stand with my Rangers and will be till the day I die, you stand with your HMRC tribunal and see where it gets you. Oh and to clear a last point up, I will ask a question of you if I may, "How can a judgement about EBT's be turned against Rangers if they were legal at the time, you even stated yourself nobody was talking of it, so what is the charge?"

I look forward to your reply.

PS I am a MacDonald from the Isles and i do speak English quite well thanks.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

To quote directly "no-one is talking about retrospectively charging someone with an amended law", why not? It is because they would lose as it was the law at the time (Newco as would not be culpable anyway).

As far as the HMRC appeal goes I covered that, they have the right to appeal and waste more Rangers money not Ceptic money as they are the government, by the way that money is your and our taxes.

As to the charge of Timmy calling I stand by it as I think you have an agenda that is nefarious in the extreme, I know BP will ban me if he thinks I am wrong, but I have been watching your little diatribes along with certain others and I fail to see anything possitive but a shed load negative, your not giving anything constructive.

I will stand with my Rangers and will be till the day I die, you stand with your HMRC tribunal and see where it gets you. Oh and to clear a last point up, I will ask a question of you if I may, "How can a judgement about EBT's be turned against Rangers if they were legal at the time, you even stated yourself nobody was talking of it, so what is the charge?"

I look forward to your reply.

PS I am a MacDonald from the Isles and i do speak English quite well thanks.

Of course EBTs were legal at the time, no-one is disputing that. You misunderstand the case. The HMRC are not now claiming that EBTs are now to be declared illegal and so people that used them in the past must be charged.

The argument is that OldCo used them incorrectly and in manner not intended by the rules as they stood at the time. If this is the case, a crime will not have been committed, but the OldCo will be liable for the tax that they avoided at the time along with certain penalties.

Again, EBTs were legal at the time if used in the right way. The claim is we did not use them in the right way.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

I think these clowns see this as an open goal. If the keep appealing, appealing, etc, they will eventually get the verdict they want, and who at Rangers is going to appeal the appeal?

then they go after other clubs in the UK.

You've actually hit the nail in the head with this comment, it isn't so much about winning the case against us even though it might feel that way, what they want is a winning formula so they can go after other clubs who have used EBTs in the past, clubs who have a lot more wealth than us and playing in the EPL.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

You've actually hit the nail in the head with this comment, it isn't so much about winning the case against us even though it might feel that way, what they want is a winning formula so they can go after other clubs who have used EBTs in the past, clubs who have a lot more wealth than us and playing in the EPL.

Think the EPL settled all outstanding cases with the HMRC if I remember correctly.

I dont think it is about football clubs, I think they are going after corporates who have been using them. Would dwarf the usage from football, but a football case gets all the headlines.

[Poetry_In_Blue 1,043]

Think the EPL settled all outstanding cases with the HMRC if I remember correctly.

I dont think it is about football clubs, I think they are going after corporates who have been using them. Would dwarf the usage from football, but a football case gets all the headlines.

I doubt any club would have paid any money over what could be classed as allegations though without proof, which is why we went through this whole process.

[nachothelegend 1,932]

I hope the HMRC win.

Dont agree with aggressive tax avoidance.

Why not even Socialists like it and abide by the Ethics.

FFS every cnut has morals all of a sudden.

Oh I'm a fucking Tax payer even though I spent 6 years out of the Country.

[Malvern 11,329]

Of course EBTs were legal at the time, no-one is disputing that. You misunderstand the case. The HMRC are not now claiming that EBTs are now to be declared illegal and so people that used them in the past must be charged.

The argument is that OldCo used them incorrectly and in manner not intended by the rules as they stood at the time. If this is the case, a crime will not have been committed, but the OldCo will be liable for the tax that they avoided at the time along with certain penalties.

Again, EBTs were legal at the time if used in the right way. The claim is we did not use them in the right way.

No your claim is that they were not used in the right way, err show me the paragraph and chapter that in the lawbooks that say they can be used but only in this way.

You can't they were used and were legal, there is no but.

There is no "but you meant it this way" or if you can prove it was meant that way put it forward, do not prevaricate the mater.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

No your claim is that they were not used in the right way, err show me the paragraph and chapter that in the lawbooks that say they can be used but only in this way.

You can't they were used and were legal, there is no but.

There is no "but you meant it this way" or if you can prove it was meant that way put it forward, do not prevaricate the mater.

Of course there is. EBTs were only allowed to be used as a loan mechanism I believe. Not as a mechanism to pay remuneration.

The HMRC claim that the OldCo were actually using them to pay remuneration which if judged to be true would exempt them from being tax free. The whole case is around if the HMRC's interpretation of 'remuneration' is correct. In the FTT 2 of the votes decided they were loans, one vote said it was remuneration.

If whoever holds the appeal agrees with the one descenting voice, then the HMRC win. Its that simple.

Its down to interpretation of the law as much as anything.