PDA

View Full Version : NHC Rangers tax problems



Lendo
09-06-2010, 11:38 AM
sorry if this has been posted elsewhere.

Good reading though!

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.com/taxing-times-for-rangers/


Exclusive
A few weeks ago I spoke with Rangers chief executive Martin Bain. He kindly took my call on a Saturday morning just after his lad’s football match. I told him that I was a freelance journalist commissioned to do a story for the News of the World. After exchanging some jokes about the perils of being, as I termed it, “a maddie at your boy’s fitba match” I had to tell Martin Bain some bad news.
I informed him that this journalist already knew that Rangers had received a bill from the taxman for £24 million and that interest of £12million had been nailed onto that amount.
Over the previous two weeks the News of the World had firstly broken the story that all SPL clubs were being investigated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) as part of an ongoing tax probe. The real story, however, was revealed the following Sunday in that the old firm, conjoined twins in so many areas, had very different tax policies.
For the last decade, Rangers had been making a systematic use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).
Celtic looked at this method of being “tax efficient” in 2006, but Celtic Chairman, ex of the Bank of England, Brian Quinn thought better of it.
Initially Martin Bain said to me that, effectively, the tax issue belonged to the parent company of Rangers; Murray International Holdings (MIH).
He told me that there was no tax bill at Rangers.
After going round the houses with Martin Bain on the phone we nailed down that there had been “an assessment” delivered by HMRC to Rangers FC. Most people would call that a bill.
The “assessment” formally becomes a bill when the tribunal system is exhausted, the amount on the “assessment” then “crystallises”.
That is when the money is due to be paid.
The tax authorities have sent a bit of paper to Rangers and that piece of paper has a number on it.
That amount is £24 million + £12million interest.
That £36 million is greater than the club’s well publicised bank debt.
After my interview with Bain the story was out there and perhaps because of this the club Chairman Alistair Johnston went public and clarified the position on the tax probe.
The Ohio based businessman confirmed that the assessment from HMRC was indeed “ a Rangers issue, but it is being masterminded by the Murray Group’s financial and legal advisors,” said Johnston.
The only question to be answered was what tax penalty would be imposed on Rangers by HMRC should they lose the case?
What has not been previously revealed is that Rangers football club have already been served with a tax penalty of £15 million by HMRC for their sustained use of “Employee Benefit Trusts” (EBT) to players and other senior employees.
This brings the total confirmed amount that HMRC are seeking from Rangers to £51 million.
This £51 million bill has yet to “crystallise”, i.e the tax tribunal due process has yet to reach its conclusion.
Rangers can drag out this process by using all the appeals available to them.
However this will incur huge legal bills should they decide to do this.
The figure of £15 million for the penalty is an indication of the seriousness with which HMRC view this case and their determination to see it through to a successful conclusion.
The recent press interest investigation has clearly rattled the Scottish Premier League champions with the club’s chief executive refusing to answer whether or not Rangers had ignored expert tax advice to abandon their tax strategy?
I also put the following question to Martin Bain:
- “Did Sir David Murray or other Rangers executives benefit from this scheme?”
Bain confirmed that “employees of the trust” were paid through the EBT.
I asked him if that included people at the club other than players.
He confirmed that it was not just players.
I then asked him if he had been paid through the EBT.
“That’s a matter for the tax office and my own personal contract so I’d rather not go into that.”
Of course a simple denial would have killed that particular part of the story.
When I put it to Bain that his answer was in fact a “no comment” he didn’t disagree with my characterisation of his answer.
Here is what has been confirmed at this time:
- Rangers have confirmed that there is a tax probe
- Rangers have used EBTs. This will have helped millionaire players pay lower tax rates than most Rangers’ fans.
- Chief Executive ‘Martin Bain has confirmed to this journalist that the bill for core amount has been received.
Initially Bain told this journalist that the EBT was a matter for parent company Murray International Holdings (MIH). However, after the article was published chairman Alistair Johnston confirmed that the HMRC issue was, indeed, a matter for Rangers.
“It is a Rangers issue, but it is being masterminded by the Murray Group’s financial and legal advisors,” revealed Johnston.
When I interviewed Martin Bain he suggested that I speak to MIH financial director Mike McGill.
I called McGill on the Monday after I had spoken to Bain. I spoke briefly with McGill. He told me that he had read the NOTW story and, subsequently, refused to speak to me.
The day after I spoke to the MIH financial director I received further news that shocked me.
What moves this story on is the following information.
I did not know at the time of my interview with Martin Bain that Rangers had already been served with the tax penalty.
The amount of that penalty is £15 million.
Therefore the full amount that Rangers will be due, should they lose this case against HMRC, will be £51 million.
It is clear that those in charge of Rangers did not wish this story to break.
Since I started writing on Rangers taxing problems the club’s public comments have confirmed my journalism to be accurate.
The initial stories were met with disbelief from both sides in Glasgow’s football feud thinking that this news was either too awful or too wonderful to be true.
It is true and it will not go away.
The Scottish champion’s problems with HMRC will be the dominant story out of Ibrox in the next 12 months.
The club’s bank debt is serviceable. The tax bill is not. It’s a game changer.
Martin Bain, as much as one can ascertain over a 15 minutes phone call on a Saturday morning, came across as a really really decent bloke in a difficult position.
I’m sure he cringed when he heard the “Famine song” or saw Manchester policemen kicked to the ground by feral louts in Rangers shirts.
The Ranger’s Chief Executive told me that wee Bain’s team had lost 4-1.
I told Martin to tell his lad to keep his chin up, because you usually find out more about yourself when you lose than when you win.
His dad agreed with me..
Watch this space.

CropleyWasGod
09-06-2010, 11:48 AM
Blah blah..... Fenian, traitorous, kiddy-fiddling conspiracy theory.... nothing to see here, move along now.... blah blah.

:greengrin

poolman
09-06-2010, 11:51 AM
Now that is one very interesting post :agree:

Lendo
09-06-2010, 12:01 PM
Third Divison football for Rangers next season? :thumbsup:

MacTheRat
09-06-2010, 12:12 PM
Nah, there'll be a Mason somewhere in HMRC.............been a while since we saw the "Crisis at Ibrox" headlines though.:greengrin

Pretty Boy
09-06-2010, 12:18 PM
Papal conspiracy. Absolute non story. Rangers being victimised again. Dragged up by the fenian media to detract from their title victory and so on and so forth.:wink:

BigKev
09-06-2010, 01:54 PM
Very interesting post. If HMRC stick to their guns and demand the £51 million then the huns are, aptly, royally goosed.

You'd have to imagine admin and possibly bankruptcy are the only way out.

Jolly good times :greengrin

Here's hoping the yambams are under investigation as well. A nice wee £20 million bill should be enough to wave goodbye to they fuds as well.

Lofarl
09-06-2010, 01:59 PM
It seems to good to be true. No doubt some west coast politican well bend over backwards to help the huns. The SFA will no doubt change the rules regarding debts and administration.

Dr Jimmy
09-06-2010, 02:24 PM
The ramifications for the tax system would be unprecedented if Rangers won their appeal over EBT's. Why would any company use the PAYE system when they can pay reduced tax rates via an EBT?
Not a tax expert by they way, just drawing my own conclusion from the article, I may be wrong as I often am.....according to my wife anyway!:rolleyes:

dangermouse
09-06-2010, 02:33 PM
The ramifications for the tax system would be unprecedented if Rangers won their appeal over EBT's. Why would any company use the PAYE system when they can pay reduced tax rates via an EBT?
Not a tax expert by they way, just drawing my own conclusion from the article, I may be wrong as I often am.....according to my wife anyway!:rolleyes:

It's probably a case of your wife often thought you were wrong when indeed you were always right.

Kaiser1962
09-06-2010, 05:03 PM
The ramifications for the tax system would be unprecedented if Rangers won their appeal over EBT's. Why would any company use the PAYE system when they can pay reduced tax rates via an EBT?
Not a tax expert by they way, just drawing my own conclusion from the article, I may be wrong as I often am.....according to my wife anyway!:rolleyes:

Agreed. No expert but consider the consequences. A similar analogy would be the bank charges debacle when the banks were taken to the high court, My mate, who is an expert, told me with the banking system already in turmoil there was no way this would be ratified legally. I told him he was talking bollocks as the bank were appealing previous decisions and it looked a stonewaller. We all know what happened there.

Kaiser1962
09-06-2010, 05:05 PM
And I would further add that I pay my taxes on absolutely f e ck in everything so why should they get away with it?

Devonhibs
09-06-2010, 05:49 PM
Any financial 'experts' able to explain how this little ruse actually works? Caversham?

IWasThere2016
09-06-2010, 09:16 PM
Calais - EBT is usually used to reduce the tax burden of 'employees' .. Its usually applied to freelances/consultants which footballer can technically be seen as.

Usually the EBT pays for hours worked on the contracts. Often at minimum wage or a % whichever is the greater. This pay is then subject to PAYE and NIC.The remainder of the contract value is available to the company (club) to transfer into the Employee Benefit Trust. The player accepts 'employment' with the Employee Benefit Trust. The player is by virtue of that employment become entitled to benefit in turn (at the Trustees discretion) as a beneficiary of the Employee Benefit Trust.The Trustees of the Employee Benefit Trust are then empowered to make loans to its employees; such loans are assessed by HMRC as benefits in kind at a rate of 6.25%, this value is then in turn assessed for tax purposes at a rate of* 22% or 40% (this gives a net tax rate on the loan amount of between 1.3% and 2.2%).The loans paid by the Employee Benefit Trust are the mechanism that provide for your enhanced net income retention. Salary is calculated, and loans are made on a monthly basis (like a salary). The delay between invoice and payment is minimal just like payment of salaries at the month end.

I hope that makes sense.

IWasThere2016
09-06-2010, 09:19 PM
Should add the Huns takeover is nearing completion.

CropleyWasGod
09-06-2010, 09:22 PM
Calais - EBT is usually used to reduce the tax burden of 'employees' .. Its usually applied to freelances/consultants which footballer can technically be seen as.


I hope that makes sense.

No they can't. Footballers are employed under a contract of service. The employer directs those services, decides where and when they are used, and is the master in the master/servant relationship

These are all fundamental principles of tax law which will undermine any attempt to argue that the Rangers payees (and, I believe, it includes management) are not employees.

IWasThere2016
09-06-2010, 09:26 PM
That could be right CWG - I hope so and HMRC have Der Hun by the short n curlies :greengrin

Big_D
09-06-2010, 09:35 PM
That could be right CWG - I hope so and HMRC have Der Hun by the short n curlies :greengrin

Hard to understand how that takeover would go ahead with this extra debt hanging over them , or would the new owner no be liable in any way ?

CropleyWasGod
09-06-2010, 09:41 PM
Hard to understand how that takeover would go ahead with this extra debt hanging over them , or would the new owner no be liable in any way ?

Depends how it's structured.

If it's a straight purchase of the company shares, which is normal, then the buyer buys all the assets AND liabilities.

Would you buy a, as yet unquantified, tax bill?

It would make more sense to buy the ground and the football club from RFC/MIM, and leave any tax liabilities with them. That way, the old club might be forced into liquidation. The new club would survive.

That will be £5 please, Mr. Murray.

Big_D
09-06-2010, 09:46 PM
Depends how it's structured.

If it's a straight purchase of the company shares, which is normal, then the buyer buys all the assets AND liabilities.

Would you buy a, as yet unquantified, tax bill?

It would make more sense to buy the ground and the football club from RFC/MIM, and leave any tax liabilities with them. That way, the old club might be forced into liquidation. The new club would survive.

That will be £5 please, Mr. Murray.

Thanks for that i'll keep my fingers crossed

Bostonhibby
09-06-2010, 09:48 PM
Interesting read - If I were them I would launch takeover (oops sorry merger) for Edinburgh Rangers then get rid of the maroon top and the name then for the good of the city, in this case Glasgow, rename the joint team Rangers FC. Everyones a winner in this situation apparently.

dangermouse
10-06-2010, 08:19 AM
Interesting read - If I were them I would launch takeover (oops sorry merger) for Edinburgh Rangers then get rid of the maroon top and the name then for the good of the city, in this case Glasgow, rename the joint team Rangers FC. Everyones a winner in this situation apparently.

Would the merged teams play at Straiton?

MacTheRat
10-06-2010, 09:37 AM
Would the merged teams play at Straiton?

Wash yer mooth oot.:grr:

Jack
10-06-2010, 10:50 AM
Would the merged teams play at Straiton?

I think that should be sub...merged :agree:

basehibby
10-06-2010, 10:58 AM
Wow! This is sensational news - the huns are in trouble as HMRC will not be letting them off the hook.

Interesting how the "Loyal Royal" huns are so happy to dip into Her Maj's Revenue when they think she's no looking eh?!? Theiving barstewards :grr::grr::grr:

Bostonhibby
10-06-2010, 11:45 AM
Would the merged teams play at Straiton?

Theres a perfectly good ground in Glasgow, so if I recall my history correctly and apply it to the Mercer model they East of Scotland "partner" here and their fans would totaly understand why it makes sense to move to Glasgow and form one much bigger unionist mob.

dangermouse
10-06-2010, 01:29 PM
Would the merged teams play at Straiton?


Wash yer mooth oot.:grr:


Theres a perfectly good ground in Glasgow, so if I recall my history correctly and apply it to the Mercer model they East of Scotland "partner" here and their fans would totaly understand why it makes sense to move to Glasgow and form one much bigger unionist mob.

Surely both stadia would be raised to the ground and a new one built. I suggest mid Atlantic in preparation for them playing in the Atlantic League.

booshsutton
10-06-2010, 06:41 PM
We were talking about this at work today and there is one guy who is a big Rangers fan, I brought this article up to add to the discussion after reading it last night.

Basically he's a good guy, get on really well with him usually but his dismissing of this issue really ticked me off! Especially when he asked where I read it and I said it was on hibs.net, but was linked to an interview that was carried out with Martin Bain. He basically just discredited what I said right there and then as you can't believe anything you read on there apparently.

I then chirped up with the fact that he was crowing about McGeady going to Russia after reading it on follow follow last week.... he tried to deny it, but I pushed the issue and he finally admitted that he was just repeating what he read online.

Just struck me that even the most decent of the unwashed are burying their head in the sand about this tax issue of Rangers, refusing to acknowedge there is a problem. This takeover deal thats meant to be about to happen will not be anywhere as near as straightforward as they are thinking

How great is it that we support a well run club, soon to have a completed stadium, state of the art training pitches, great youth system, top notch infrastructure, potential for a great team and our financial house in order despite all of tha above :notworthy:

Devonhibs
10-06-2010, 08:38 PM
Calais - EBT is usually used to reduce the tax burden of 'employees' .. Its usually applied to freelances/consultants which footballer can technically be seen as.

Usually the EBT pays for hours worked on the contracts. Often at minimum wage or a % whichever is the greater. This pay is then subject to PAYE and NIC.The remainder of the contract value is available to the company (club) to transfer into the Employee Benefit Trust. The player accepts 'employment' with the Employee Benefit Trust. The player is by virtue of that employment become entitled to benefit in turn (at the Trustees discretion) as a beneficiary of the Employee Benefit Trust.The Trustees of the Employee Benefit Trust are then empowered to make loans to its employees; such loans are assessed by HMRC as benefits in kind at a rate of 6.25%, this value is then in turn assessed for tax purposes at a rate of* 22% or 40% (this gives a net tax rate on the loan amount of between 1.3% and 2.2%).The loans paid by the Employee Benefit Trust are the mechanism that provide for your enhanced net income retention. Salary is calculated, and loans are made on a monthly basis (like a salary). The delay between invoice and payment is minimal just like payment of salaries at the month end.

I hope that makes sense.

TQM - Thanks very much, think I've got it

Caversham Green
11-06-2010, 06:57 AM
Any financial 'experts' able to explain how this little ruse actually works? Caversham?

The arrangements described by TQM do exist, but I'm not convinced that's what has happened here. It's a very specialised area and I'm no expert on the subject, but my take on it is as follows:-

It all hinges on the following two point:

1. Income arising and paid abroad is not subject to UK tax unless and until it is brought into the country.
2. The clubs argue that an element of their players' income is earned abroad through broadcasting, image rights, merchandise etc.

Paying the overseas element in the UK immediately attracts UK tax, so the clubs set up an offshore entity (usually in the Channel Islands, where no income tax is charged) to pay it. The players would have to have a foreign bank account or they would be taxed as soon as it was paid to them, and they would have to pay tax if they bring any of it into the UK, so it probably benefits foreign players more than Brits.

I think the Revenue are arguing that it is purely a mechanism to avoid paying UK tax and the rules tend to be weighted in their favour. I also can't see any justification for Bain benefitting from the arrangement if the implication in the OP is true, so I think the Huns (and other clubs) are on a loser.

As I say, I'm no expert so don't believe my tagline thingy here and I stand to be corrected.

Dr Jimmy
11-06-2010, 10:31 AM
I believe there is more to it than that Caversham and it will all come out in the wash for the great unwashed soon.

Caversham Green
11-06-2010, 10:59 AM
I believe there is more to it than that Caversham and it will all come out in the wash for the great unwashed soon.

There could well be more to it - that was just my outline of how I think the trust setup works. I certainly can't see how they managed to rack up the liabilities quoted on that scheme alone unless they've been abusing it massively and/or the bill covers a lot of years.

Green_one
11-06-2010, 11:44 AM
Perhaps we should have a bit of a whip round. I feel really bad that this could damage Rangers. All they were trying to do was allow guys who are paid more in a year than many of us earn in a lifetime, to avoid a bit of tax (OK a LOT of tax).

You know you love those chaps over in the West. Give generously Today.

Do not just sit back and laugh at their predicament. By Gads, it could upset the Queen.

CentreLine
13-06-2010, 07:51 PM
The arrangements described by TQM do exist, but I'm not convinced that's what has happened here. It's a very specialised area and I'm no expert on the subject, but my take on it is as follows:-

It all hinges on the following two point:

1. Income arising and paid abroad is not subject to UK tax unless and until it is brought into the country.
2. The clubs argue that an element of their players' income is earned abroad through broadcasting, image rights, merchandise etc.

Paying the overseas element in the UK immediately attracts UK tax, so the clubs set up an offshore entity (usually in the Channel Islands, where no income tax is charged) to pay it. The players would have to have a foreign bank account or they would be taxed as soon as it was paid to them, and they would have to pay tax if they bring any of it into the UK, so it probably benefits foreign players more than Brits.

I think the Revenue are arguing that it is purely a mechanism to avoid paying UK tax and the rules tend to be weighted in their favour. I also can't see any justification for Bain benefitting from the arrangement if the implication in the OP is true, so I think the Huns (and other clubs) are on a loser.

As I say, I'm no expert so don't believe my tagline thingy here and I stand to be corrected.

I've been chatting to an accountant friend who explained how an EBT works as follows:

1. Company pays £m into offshore trust set up to provide for future company creditors.
2. Company might get tax relief on this payment.
3. Offshore trust lends / grants an amount to a sub-trust
4. Sub-trust's beneficiaries are named as the wife and family of a certain employee/ director (person).
5. That person borrows an amount of £m from the sub-trust at a commercial rate of interest.
6. Person never repays capital or interest (gets all the cash tax free).
7. Years later person dies - person's estate has to repay trust (cuts Inheritance tax bill)
8. Trust pays out to beneficiaries (person's wife and family) - maybe no Inheritance tax to pay at this stage.

So company gets tax relief on initial payment; person receives large tax free amount; ultimately person's inheritance tax bill is cut as well.

No wonder these fine fellows at HMRC are challenging this arrangement .................... it looks to be too good to be true really!

lapsedhibee
14-06-2010, 12:36 PM
I'm no expert, but does any of this mean that Katie's mum will have to go back to work? :dunno:

hibee4life1983
16-06-2010, 09:51 PM
There on to a bad law loophole here and it wont be long before its not tolerated and all monies due will have to paid (probably at something stupid like 35% up front) which will cripple all teams and dodgy run buisness regimes.
They have dodged and matrix'd there way out of just about everything.
Imo, it wont last.