Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

awec

nordydan wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. But does that mean HMRC should be chasing after Ronald de Boer, Stefan Klos etc? Not quite up to speed on this

But would this also open Murray Holdings up to action from these players who would have been assured that relevant and correct taxes were being paid on their behalf?

Pompey Magnus

Jelle1880 wrote: »

However, if that IS true I can see quite a few courtcases coming up.

I assume if there are court cases it would need to be brought by the liquidators of Rangers, as Charles Green's The Rangers is a separate entity from the one which this judgement affects?

Edit: Not getting into the "different club" argument btw, just in terms of registered companies.

Eirebear

nordydan wrote: »

I understand what you are saying. But does that mean HMRC should be chasing after Ronald de Boer, Stefan Klos etc? Not quite up to speed on this

I'm not sure - this is the sticking point for me too - if it is the case we could see a lot of counterclaims against Rangers by those individuals.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

Well that's still to be decided isnt it - but the simple fact of the matter is, Rangers didn't work outside of the law, which has been accused by all corners in the last few years.
And if that's the case, its quite simple - there was nothing stopping ANY other team doing similar.

Ye still are on the hook for dual contracts and AFAIK HMRC can appeal this decision as many times as they like if they arent happy with the verdict.

Why do ye care what is happening with the old company anyways? :pac:

awec

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I assume if there are court cases it would need to be brought by the liquidators of Rangers, as Charles Green's The Rangers is a separate entity from the one which this judgement affects?

Edit: Not getting into the "different club" argument btw, just in terms of registered companies.

I would agree, this is Murray Holdings, not the club that plays in Div3 currently.

RoryMac

Dempsey wrote: »

Ye still are on the hook for dual contracts and AFAIK HMRC can appeal this decision as many times as they like if they arent happy with the verdict.

I for one have absolutely no interest in seeing any appeal and re-hash of this sh1te dragging on for another year.

Eirebear

Dempsey wrote: »

Ye still are on the hook for dual contracts and AFAIK HMRC can appeal this decision as many times as they like if they arent happy with the verdict.

Why do ye care what is happening with the old company anyways? :pac:

Let's just call it reason to despise cCraig Whyte even more.

Dempsey

RoryMac wrote: »

I for one have absolutely no interest in seeing any appeal and re-hash of this sh1te dragging on for another year.

Ive no interest either but HMRC will appeal if they have another angle that they can win. HMRC dont like tax avoidance schemes and dont forget have bigger axes to grind

RoryMac

Dempsey wrote: »

Ive no interest either but HMRC will appeal if they have another angle that they can win. HMRC dont like tax avoidance schemes and dont forget have bigger axes to grind

I saw some suggestions that the ruling opens up the possibility of HMRC going after the individuals who benefited from the EBT's, not sure how true that is?

jack presley

RoryMac wrote: »

I saw some suggestions that the ruling opens up the possibility of HMRC going after the individuals who benefited from the EBT's, not sure how true that is?

From BBC's website

"BBC Scotland's business correspondent David Henderson said the implications of the tax ruling were that "all those footballers who were playing for Rangers, happily being paid using these EBTs, may well get a letter in the post soon, saying 'give the money back to the liquidators, for onward transfer to the creditors'."

A Dub in Glasgo

So the recipents of the loans watched from the inside and sidelines as Rangers scrambled for money and were eventually put into liquidation and they did nothing to pay back their loans to Rangers and save them!

Why weren't these people called out earlier?

Peppa Pig

Rangers didn't win fully. It was accepted that some players had tax due on their EBTs, just not enough to warrant dismissal of the appeal.
Looks to me like the liquidators will have to pay tax on those (obviously won't happen) and the majority of the players will have to pay their loans back or pay the tax on it.

I fail to see how people can be sued for damages. The taxman sent a bill, Rangers contested it and won most of the appeal. In the meantime a little man called Craig Whyte came in, stopped paying the bills and ran out of cash and had to go into administration. Hardly the revenue's fault.

The report is incredible reading, have only read bits of it but Mr Ipswich was some boyo. Club captain and all round bad apple. Sounds like Ferguson, demanding exhorbitant money before he'd play a scheduled game.

Peppa Pig

jack presley wrote: »

From BBC's website

"BBC Scotland's business correspondent David Henderson said the implications of the tax ruling were that "all those footballers who were playing for Rangers, happily being paid using these EBTs, may well get a letter in the post soon, saying 'give the money back to the liquidators, for onward transfer to the creditors'."

They owe the liquidators nothing, its the trust they owe the loans to.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

I think there is also a School of thought that these EBT's were classed as loans so no tax is due on them. To be fair my brain is fried reading that

Dempsey

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I think there is also a School of thought that these EBT's were classed as loans so no tax is due on them. To be fair my brain is fried reading that

what you call a loan that you dont have to pay back?

i used to ask my father for 'a loan' when i was young. he knew he wasnt getting it back!

this is far from over tbh, legal wranglings to go on indefinately at this stage!

A Dub in Glasgo

So Rangers fans need to ask the question of their former players and employees about why they stood and watched as Rangers ran out of cash, went into administration and then liquidated

Peppa Pig

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

I think there is also a School of thought that these EBT's were classed as loans so no tax is due on them. To be fair my brain is fried reading that

Correct - but a loan must be paid back, so a lot of players will need to start paying them back or the revenue will be looking for the tax.
I think its in the report that it was agreed that 35 players had side letters, so tax is due on them. None of these were lodged with the SFA so all those contracts were not valid.

Its fairly messy all right

jack presley

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Correct - but a loan must be paid back, so a lot of players will need to start paying them back or the revenue will be looking for the tax.
I think its in the report that it was agreed that 35 players had side letters, so tax is due on them. None of these were lodged with the SFA so all those contracts were not valid.

Its fairly messy all right

And is there any interest to be paid on the loans?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Peppa Pig wrote: »

Correct - but a loan must be paid back, so a lot of players will need to start paying them back or the revenue will be looking for the tax.
I think its in the report that it was agreed that 35 players had side letters, so tax is due on them. None of these were lodged with the SFA so all those contracts were not valid.

Its fairly messy all right

If they were loans its not a side contract or rather it could be viewed that way

Peppa Pig

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

If they were loans its not a side contract or rather it could be viewed that way

Yes, but 35 (not sure of that number but its mentioned in the report) were not loans, they were salary.

A Dub in Glasgo

Brewster wrote: »

I read with interest this morning the outcome of the so called 'Big tax case'. The result does not surprise me and fully vindicates the view I adopted on the issue. I was totally hounded on this VERY THREAD for my views and support for Sir David Murray. I was told " you just don't get it" and many other rather critical things in relation to my views that Rangers won their titles, where titles are won, on the park and that Craig Whyte was the 100% to blame for the Rangers crisis earlier this year. Guess what, I was right all along. The posters who adopted this hostile approach know who you are and I would like to think at this stage that you would be big enough to hold your hands up and admit you were wrong on the issue. People should not be hounded for their perfectly valid opinions, this case proves this more than other case will. Rangers only crime was to be operate a perfectly legal tax avoidance scheme, tax avoidance schemes that businesses all over the globe take advantage of. I made this point time and time again. When all the bitterness and proganda was left outside the courtroom, the judiciary could only make one decision and it was made yesterday. Many premier league clubs will have toasted the ruling today. HRMC have alot to answer for.

Why didn't they pay back the loans when Rangers were scrambling for money?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Why didn't they pay back the loans when Rangers were scrambling for money?

totally different topic nothing to do with what happened in the tax case

A Dub in Glasgo

The tax case ruling said they were loans, Rangers gave those loans in the good times. In the bad times, not one staff member were asked to pay back or offered to pay back the loans. I wonder why?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The tax case ruling said they were loans, Rangers gave those loans in the good times. In the bad times, not one staff member were asked to pay back or offered to pay back the loans. I wonder why?

It makes no difference to this judgement The matter of loans was between the player and Rangers PLC what happened there is a different subject

A Dub in Glasgo

correct and they are the types of questions I would expect Rangers fans to be asking!

Broxi_Bear_Eire

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

correct and they are the types of questions I would expect Rangers fans to be asking!

And this would make a difference how. Its now clear that Whyte was never going to pay the bills so it would have made no difference

Pompey Magnus

So what happens next? Do the liquidators start going after the ex players and staff to reclaim the loans or will they wait to see if HMRC appeals? If the loans are called in will the recipients have any option to appeal?

Peppa Pig

The liquidators will be getting no money in, the loans are owed to the trust and are only due on the death of the recipient, apparently.

What the liquidators will be getting, is a bill from HMRC for the 33 or so EBTs that were accepted as being salary. They will add this bill to the small tax case and the millions that Whyte "forgot" to pay.

A lot of the media in Scotland are calling this a Rangers victory - its just not as bad a defeat as it could have been. The FTT has proven there was tax evasion, just some of the EBTs, not all. Its like a thief going to court over a £100k theft but only being found guilty of stealing £20k and its agreed the other £80k was a loan.

Eirebear

I would say the RTC Blog - "Who time and time again has called it correctly" - holds a different view to yourself eh?

The tax case result released yesterday afternoon was obviously a surprise. After reading the findings, it is still difficult to understand how two of the three judges arrived at such a decision. The third dissenting judge’s opinion was clearly more in line with expectations. However, in the First Tier Tribunal it is a case of majority rule.

If an appeal is launched, it will take several more months before we get the next level of decision. Appeals are not automatically granted, but in this case- with a dissenting judge and where a dispute over legal interpretation exists already- it seems certain. At the Upper Tribunal, new evidence is not introduced and the case is not re-argued. The judges at the Upper Tribunal will hear legal arguments over whether the First Tier Tribunal judges made an error in interpreting the law and will rule accordingly.

This blog brought light to a matter of public interest. This blog has been accurate on all of the major points of the case except the one that matters most to date- the FTT outcome.

We thank everyone who has participated. Hopefully, we will see the result reversed on appeal.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Peppa Pig wrote: »

The liquidators will be getting no money in, the loans are owed to the trust and are only due on the death of the recipient, apparently.

What the liquidators will be getting, is a bill from HMRC for the 33 or so EBTs that were accepted as being salary. They will add this bill to the small tax case and the millions that Whyte "forgot" to pay.

A lot of the media in Scotland are calling this a Rangers victory - its just not as bad a defeat as it could have been. The FTT has proven there was tax evasion, just some of the EBTs, not all. Its like a thief going to court over a £100k theft but only being found guilty of stealing £20k and its agreed the other £80k was a loan.

Nonsense it was a two to one judgement clearing Rangers of any liability I suggest you look at those loans again they are all in line with the payment made to a certain other player. The only case Rangers have to answer is whether these were illegal in the eyes of the SPL. Also Whyte did not forget it was a criminal act which I fully expect action to be taken over in the future

Peppa Pig

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Nonsense it was a two to one judgement clearing Rangers of any liability

FTT decision wrote:

Accordingly, the assessments made fall to be reduced substantially. It was conceded that advances in favour of certain players are taxable and liable to NIC, and we have found that in certain other limited instances, there may be a similar liability. To that extent the assessments should stand. In these circumstances we expect that it is sufficient that we allow the Appeal in principle. Parties can no doubt settle the sums due for the limited number of cases mentioned without further reference to the Tribunal.

I don't need to look at any loans. Its there in black and white in the judges findings, all three of them.
But if you want to believe its a total victory for Rangers then fire away.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Peppa Pig wrote: »

I don't need to look at any loans. Its there in black and white in the judges findings, all three of them.
But if you want to believe its a total victory for Rangers then fire away.

I think the Parties bit clearly points to players As for it being a victory its far from it if HMRC had done there job properly this would never have happened. The simple facts are when its put out there we owe 100 million plus what chance a buyer now it could be peanuts so victory no but clearing the club of outrageous claims I will take that.

It all boils down to a couple of crooks plus outside influences almost making sure there would be no Rangers there is and that is all thats important to me. I fully expect action to be taken against certain individuals by the Tax Man and hopefully criminal charges against the main perpetrators

Peppa Pig

The parties refers to the parties in the FTT, HMRC and Rangers.

if HMRC had done there job properly

So Murray accepts he indulged in tax evasion and its all the taxman's fault for allowing him. Whyte doesn't pay a penny in tax vat or ni and its all the taxman's fault. Come on ....

Broxi_Bear_Eire

Peppa Pig wrote: »

The parties refers to the parties in the FTT, HMRC and Rangers.


So Murray accepts he indulged in tax evasion and its all the taxman's fault for allowing him. Whyte doesn't pay a penny in tax vat or ni and its all the taxman's fault. Come on ....

I said they were both crooks unless you are only reading what you want to see it is pretty clear. But yes I feel HMRC are also culpable for example they did nothing to find the mole who was leaking documents

Dempsey

I find it strange that Johnston & McCoist want the SPL probe dropped. Surely it should run its course and vindicate the use of the EBT scheme? Surely all the doubts need to be addressed rather than swept under the carpet.

Jelle1880

A 37-year-old man has been arrested over allegations of "offensive" online material relating to the Rangers tax case.

The man, from Glasgow, was arrested on Thursday after going to a police station in Glasgow. The man went voluntarily to Helen Street Police Office at 1.15pm and was arrested by the Football Co-ordination Unit.

He was released on an undertaking and a report will be submitted to the procurator fiscal. It is expected that he will appear before Glasgow Sheriff Court in December.

Rangers won a significant battle against the HM Revenue and Customs earlier this week with a tax tribunal ruling that payments made to some Rangers players through trusts were loans.

The three-person First Tier Tax Tribunal could not reach a unanimous decision on the club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts between 2001 and 2010. Rangers still face an investigation by the Scottish Premier League into whether the EBTs should have been declared to football authorities.

Dozens of online posts on social media sites and online blogs have been devoted to discussion of the case and its fallout.

http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/202294-rangers-tax-case-police-make-arrest-over-offensive-online-material/

Not sure what 'offensive material' means though.

A Dub in Glasgo

I would guess this is some nutter threatening the folk who highlighted the tax avoidance / evasion of Rangers

Eirebear

Well we can rule "big Phil", unless someone died......allegedly.

blahfckingblah

Eirebear wrote: »

Well we can rule "big Phil", unless someone died......allegedly.

the only thing dead is rangers... allegedly

Broxi_Bear_Eire

blahfckingblah wrote: »

the only thing dead is rangers... allegedly

Dear me hurting much

blahfckingblah

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Dear me hurting much

hurting about what? I only said it because somebody was bound to.

lubo_moravcik

Doesnt it hurt you BBE the whole carry on that has happened over the last year or so? From Craig Whyte to administration to liquidation from oldco to newco, watching the club you supported
while growing up, die? doesn't that hurt much?
Maybe you'll say it was a joke and throw a in for good measure. I just know if i watched Celtic go through all that i'd be gutted, even more so if winning an appeal would have prevented it all

Broxi_Bear_Eire

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

Doesnt it hurt you BBE the whole carry on that has happened over the last year or so? From Craig Whyte to administration to liquidation from oldco to newco, watching the club you supported
while growing up, die? doesn't that hurt much?
Maybe you'll say it was a joke and throw a in for good measure. I just know if i watched Celtic go through all that i'd be gutted, even more so if winning an appeal would have prevented it all

Right I will start with the hurting reference it seems to me heis hurting and he might have been trying to be funny but the line through the word allegedly says different to me.
Am I angry hurting etc yes I think that is evident inmany of my posts just one wee point though my club didn't die the holding company is dying as we speak its not been liquidated yet. So it goes to show that Greens consortium bought the assets before this, that plus the fact that UEFA and the authorities in Scotland recognise the Football club suits me.
So once again I am angry because of what's happened when it is pretty clear there was no need for it. But taking a pragmatic view it could be a very good thing for the club in the long term. For the first time in years we are now seeing lots if youth being given there chance most games see us staring with three or four young players and ending the game with maybe five or six on the park. This can only be a good thing in the long term for Rangers.

blahfckingblah

what am i supposed to be hurting about? the line is through the allegedly as I don't see rangers past and rangers present as a single entity.

Broxi_Bear_Eire

blahfckingblah wrote: »

what am i supposed to be hurting about? the line is through the allegedly as I don't see rangers past and rangers present as a single entity.

Precisely and you know what tough do you really imagine that at the end of the day we really think your opinion is important. To Rangers fans. Well sorry I and all the other bear will take it from the top.

blahfckingblah

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

Precisely and you know what tough do you really imagine that at the end of the day we really think your opinion is important. To Rangers fans. Well sorry I and all the other bear will take it from the top.

dont be getting pissy with me now i didnt state my opinion til i was questioned on my post

Broxi_Bear_Eire

blahfckingblah wrote: »

dont be getting pissy with me now i didnt state my opinion til i was questioned on my post

If you put idiotic things in a post expect a reply

blahfckingblah

Broxi_Bear_Eire wrote: »

If you put idiotic things in a post expect a reply

just as long as you remember that for future instances

Jelle1880

27/11/12
SIR DAVID MURRAY TAKES LEGAL ACTION OVER TAX LEAKS

(Issued on behalf of Levy & McRae Solicitors and Notaries Public)

Professor Peter Watson of Levy & McRae has confirmed that he has been instructed by Sir David Murray to submit a complaint to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service regarding the publication of information relating to his tax affairs.

Professor Watson said: “Sir David regards such information as private and confidential and the publication of such information as unlawful. He has asked that this matter is investigated and that anyone found guilty of breaching the law is the subject of prosecution.”

Squeaky bum tim for some I'd imagine.