Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Keith_M]

Hopefully I will be proved entirely wrong, but it appears that King is running rings around the TOP.......


I think you're right.

It looks like they're a toothless body and may as well shut up shop now.

[Famous Fiver]

Interesting that they are picking up on the Celtic transfer philosophy.

Value Morelos at squillions (allegedly turned down £3.75 Mill from Bordeaux) yet Lafferty is only worth bidding £200,000 for.

Wonder what Mr Lafferty makes of that?

However, their ace in the pack is that said Lafferty would crawl on his hands and knees to Glasgow for another payday.

In my opinion.

[BH Hibs]

I smell corruption.

Normal service resuming. I really hope the *******s go bust again.

[blaikie]

Danish Hong Kong based Private Equity investor named on the board earlier today, no doubt he’ll have an agenda.

[HoboHarry]

Danish Hong Kong based Private Equity investor named on the board earlier today, no doubt he’ll have an agenda.
Making money at Sevco's expense I hope.......

[Joe6-2]

Danish Hong Kong based Private Equity investor named on the board earlier today, no doubt he’ll have an agenda.

Hong Kong Phooey

[Winston Ingram]

Interesting that they are picking up on the Celtic transfer philosophy.

Value Morelos at squillions (allegedly turned down £3.75 Mill from Bordeaux) yet Lafferty is only worth bidding £200,000 for.

Wonder what Mr Lafferty makes of that?

However, their ace in the pack is that said Lafferty would crawl on his hands and knees to Glasgow for another payday.

In my opinion.

Tbf to Sevco on this one, Lafferty is on about £8k a week and i’ve heard all summer he’s away. It wouldn’t surprise me if Hearts were actively trying to move him. Shifting him will save around £400k a year

[Souter96Mac]

I heard that Lafferty had a goal bonus of £5k every time he scores. Unbelievable if true, they'll be wanting him gone.

[CentreLine]

I heard that Lafferty had a goal bonus of £5k every time he scores. Unbelievable if true, they'll be wanting him gone.

Might explain why he spends so much time on the bench

[Rumble de Thump]

Tbf to Sevco on this one, Lafferty is on about £8k a week and i’ve heard all summer he’s away. It wouldn’t surprise me if Hearts were actively trying to move him. Shifting him will save around £400k a year

Laugh at me doesn't want to be at Hearts. He didn't want to sign for them but they were the only Scottish club to make him an offer and, as he wanted to be playing closer to home, he accepted the offer rather than risk having it being withdrawn. He was desperate to play for The Rangers and still is. He's told Hearts he wants the move and they will no doubt accept whatever The Rangers' best offer is prior to the transfer window closing.

[Joe6-2]

Laugh at me doesn't want to be at Hearts. He didn't want to sign for them but they were the only Scottish club to make him an offer and, as he wanted to be playing closer to home, he accepted the offer rather than risk having it being withdrawn. He was desperate to play for The Rangers and still is. He's told Hearts he wants the move and they will no doubt accept whatever The Rangers' best offer is prior to the transfer window closing.

Having a medical today

[jacomo]

Danish Hong Kong based Private Equity investor named on the board earlier today, no doubt he’ll have an agenda.


Who is this guy?

King seems to be able to pull an endless amount of new investors in to prop up the basket case.

[CropleyWasGod]

Who is this guy?

King seems to be able to pull an endless amount of new investors in to prop up the basket case.There's a bit of confusion about this.

There are reports that he bought some of Ashley's shares last year. If that's the case, it's not new money.

That said, he won't be getting a seat on the board for nothing. He is either there for his abilities to attract new money, he has lent some this year, or he is one of those who is buying some of the new shares. Or a combination of all 3.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[hibees 7062]

https://scontent.fltn2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/40187756_457413061413434_7784630560462209024_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=0&oh=f4efa8d0755002dddff5392d65e98555&oe=5BF759D7

[CraigHibee]

https://scontent.fltn2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/40187756_457413061413434_7784630560462209024_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=0&oh=f4efa8d0755002dddff5392d65e98555&oe=5BF759D7

😂 Rangers are dead, they are the tribute act

[greenginger]

https://scontent.fltn2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/40187756_457413061413434_7784630560462209024_n.jpg ?_nc_cat=0&oh=f4efa8d0755002dddff5392d65e98555&oe=5BF759D7


What's with the Sevvie Gerrard ?

Sevco Gerrard surely.

[HoboHarry]

What's with the Sevvie Gerrard ?

Sevco Gerrard surely.
That's got to be someone trolling surely?

[Chic Murray]

That's got to be someone trolling surely?

I prefer to think Gerrard isn't quite the boot faced whinger that he comes across as, and that he has a sense of humour.

[grunt]

Oh dear.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45322276?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound

[ancient hibee]

This is outrageous.Everyone knows that when you get a loan you shouldn't have to pay it back.

[hibbyfraelibby]

Oh dear.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45322276?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound

Wheels are coming off...

[CraigHibee]

Oh dear.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45322276?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound

Oops, can see a few of them filing for bankruptcy on the back of that

[Winston Ingram]

Oops, can see a few of them filing for bankruptcy on the back of that

Solicitors transferring all assets to ex-hun spouses as we speak...

[CropleyWasGod]

Oh dear.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45322276?ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=scotland&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sportsound

There are 2 basic holes in HMRC's case for doing this, and I suspect any decent adviser will be making that point:-

1. by the Court finding in HMRC's favour, they have deemed Oldco to be the employer, and thus responsible for paying the tax and NI. It's irrelevant that they can't pay it. Oldco should be treated as any other employer that has gone into liquidation; after all, no-one expects the employees of any such company to pay the tax company's debts.

2. the assessment that HMRC made of Oldco's liability made the assumption that the payments to the players were net of PAYE and NI. In other words, that the players had already paid their dues. They can't be taxed twice.

This won't be as easy as that piece suggests.

[Bostonhibby]

This is outrageous.Everyone knows that when you get a loan you shouldn't have to pay it back.

:agree: Should have gone to UKIOS Bank - owing it to yourselves has a much better outcome.

[Hibs4185]

It’s absolutely mental. Sevco aren’t affected whatsoever I would imagine as it was the old club that is liable.

The players who had EBT’s won them their titles. Players are now in firing line because old club is dead.

Sevco claim their history is in tact but the payers who won them are now facing hefty bills.

Any bad news-ah well that’s the dead rangers. Anything else...we’re going for 55.

[lord bunberry]

There are 2 basic holes in HMRC's case for doing this, and I suspect any decent adviser will be making that point:-

1. by the Court finding in HMRC's favour, they have deemed Oldco to be the employer, and thus responsible for paying the tax and NI. It's irrelevant that they can't pay it. Oldco should be treated as any other employer that has gone into liquidation; after all, no-one expects the employees of any such company to pay the tax company's debts.

2. the assessment that HMRC made of Oldco's liability made the assumption that the payments to the players were net of PAYE and NI. In other words, that the players had already paid their dues. They can't be taxed twice.

This won't be as easy as that piece suggests.
Will HMRC be likely to accept that and move on or is there likely to be another court case?

[JimBHibees]

Oops, can see a few of them filing for bankruptcy on the back of that

Think Super Barry already has.

[Bishop Hibee]

Crooks.

[CropleyWasGod]

Will HMRC be likely to accept that and move on or is there likely to be another court case?

Whether any of the many situations (since we're talking about the individual recipients now, rather than the one club) get to Court will depend on a lot of things.

I suspect, though, that each player's adviser will be saying the same things, whilst HMRC will be aggressive in light of what they see as their new powers in combatting tax avoidance. In practice, what may happen is that whichever case gets to a Tribunal first will serve as the test-case for all the others.

[Hibs4185]

More importantly is the share issue not happening round about now? If I remember correctly it was the end of August according to the documents. If it goes ahead or not, it will tell us a lot about the TOP and the state of sevco.

[CropleyWasGod]

Think Super Barry already has.

He's been discharged from bankruptcy now.

[jacomo]

There are 2 basic holes in HMRC's case for doing this, and I suspect any decent adviser will be making that point:-

1. by the Court finding in HMRC's favour, they have deemed Oldco to be the employer, and thus responsible for paying the tax and NI. It's irrelevant that they can't pay it. Oldco should be treated as any other employer that has gone into liquidation; after all, no-one expects the employees of any such company to pay the tax company's debts.

2. the assessment that HMRC made of Oldco's liability made the assumption that the payments to the players were net of PAYE and NI. In other words, that the players had already paid their dues. They can't be taxed twice.

This won't be as easy as that piece suggests.


I missed that. Seems a fairly extraordinary assumption to make, and on the face of it quite odd.

[cabbageandribs1875]

He's been discharged from bankruptcy now.



so he will have already started finding hidey-holes where money was stashed away under duvets etc etc etc, bet he's itching to get that new fancy car :cool2:

[hibbyfraelibby]

Solicitors transferring all assets to ex-hun spouses as we speak...

Too late they can recover them too

[CropleyWasGod]

I missed that. Seems a fairly extraordinary assumption to make, and on the face of it quite odd.

It's not odd; it's HMRC's normal way of dealing with cases like this, where a PAYE scheme has been improperly administered.. It was the basis of the assessment they made on Oldco, and why it was so high.

For example, Oldco paid Ferguson £2.5m. That is treated as a NET salary of £2.5m, ie after PAYE and NI. HMRC gross that up, let's say to £5m, being the gross equivalent, and add a further £500k for Employer's NI. Thus Oldco owe them £3m.

[Ozyhibby]

Can’t they approach the same club with their comfort letters and ask them to settle the bill? Wouldn’t be surprised to see some of them take it up with the SFA, PFA or UEFA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

It's not odd; it's HMRC's normal way of dealing with cases like this, where a PAYE scheme has been improperly administered.. It was the basis of the assessment they made on Oldco, and why it was so high.

For example, Oldco paid Ferguson £2.5m. That is treated as a NET salary of £2.5m, ie after PAYE and NI. HMRC gross that up, let's say to £5m, being the gross equivalent, and add a further £500k for Employer's NI. Thus Oldco owe them £3m.

Won’t there be massive penalties and interest due by now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crazyhorse]

It's not odd; it's HMRC's normal way of dealing with cases like this, where a PAYE scheme has been improperly administered.. It was the basis of the assessment they made on Oldco, and why it was so high.

For example, Oldco paid Ferguson £2.5m. That is treated as a NET salary of £2.5m, ie after PAYE and NI. HMRC gross that up, let's say to £5m, being the gross equivalent, and add a further £500k for Employer's NI. Thus Oldco owe them £3m.

This is your field but I find it a bit strange too. I thought these 'payments' were loans. Is PAYE and NI usual in this sort or context?

[Billy Whizz]

It's not odd; it's HMRC's normal way of dealing with cases like this, where a PAYE scheme has been improperly administered.. It was the basis of the assessment they made on Oldco, and why it was so high.

For example, Oldco paid Ferguson £2.5m. That is treated as a NET salary of £2.5m, ie after PAYE and NI. HMRC gross that up, let's say to £5m, being the gross equivalent, and add a further £500k for Employer's NI. Thus Oldco owe them £3m.

The moral issue here is, they couldn’t have afforded these players if they hadn’t given them these contracts
Some of the top top players only came to Rangers because they thought the could get their gross salary as a net payment

[Smartie]

Can’t they approach the same club with their comfort letters and ask them to settle the bill? Wouldn’t be surprised to see some of them take it up with the SFA, PFA or UEFA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that we've got the Scottish Cup in the bag, that is the thing I would most like to see happen in World football.

[Jack Hackett]

This is your field but I find it a bit strange too. I thought these 'payments' were loans. Is PAYE and NI usual in this sort or context?

I think the various court cases have now classified the payments as income

[PeeKay]

There are 2 basic holes in HMRC's case for doing this, and I suspect any decent adviser will be making that point:-

1. by the Court finding in HMRC's favour, they have deemed Oldco to be the employer, and thus responsible for paying the tax and NI. It's irrelevant that they can't pay it. Oldco should be treated as any other employer that has gone into liquidation; after all, no-one expects the employees of any such company to pay the tax company's debts.

2. the assessment that HMRC made of Oldco's liability made the assumption that the payments to the players were net of PAYE and NI. In other words, that the players had already paid their dues. They can't be taxed twice.

This won't be as easy as that piece suggests.

That's really interesting. My PAYE was underpaid by £69 last year. Should I ignore the demand from HMRC and tell them they have to get it from my employer?

[CropleyWasGod]

That's really interesting. My PAYE was underpaid by £69 last year. Should I ignore the demand from HMRC and tell them they have to get it from my employer?Sadly, no [emoji16]

There's a difference between your situation, which is probably down to a (innocent or neglectful) coding issue, and the systematic abuse of the system that was Oldco's.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Won’t there be massive penalties and interest due by now?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThose were built into the settlement figure that HMRC were pursuing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Seveno]

There are 2 basic holes in HMRC's case for doing this, and I suspect any decent adviser will be making that point:-

1. by the Court finding in HMRC's favour, they have deemed Oldco to be the employer, and thus responsible for paying the tax and NI. It's irrelevant that they can't pay it. Oldco should be treated as any other employer that has gone into liquidation; after all, no-one expects the employees of any such company to pay the tax company's debts.

2. the assessment that HMRC made of Oldco's liability made the assumption that the payments to the players were net of PAYE and NI. In other words, that the players had already paid their dues. They can't be taxed twice.

This won't be as easy as that piece suggests.

Why would ‘loans’ be subject to PAYE and NI?

[CropleyWasGod]

Why would ‘loans’ be subject to PAYE and NI?They're not loans, though. That's what the case has been about.

HMRC assessed them as salaries as soon as they knew about them. They have maintained that throughout the case, and have been vindicated by the Courts.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Seveno]

They're not loans, though. That's what the case has been about.

HMRC assessed them as salaries as soon as they knew about them. They have maintained that throughout the case, and have been vindicated by the Courts.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Yes but Sevco said they were treating them as loans so they would not have paid PAYE and then NI on them. They can’t have it both ways.

[Famous Fiver]

The SFa and SPFL (in their present and past form) should now grow a pair and declare all trophies awarded to this club quite clearly in breach of tax rules between 2001-2010 to be null and void.

I am sure someone on here can provide the details of these tainted trophies but no 55 is now just a laughable myth.

Will our authorities act? No chance.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes but Sevco said they were treating them as loans so they would not have paid PAYE and then NI on them. They can’t have it both ways.Sevco have nothing to do with it. This is Oldco we're talking about.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Famous Fiver]

Sevco, Oldco, it makes no difference to me as far as football is concerned.

They should be stripped of every 'honour' gained 2001 -2010.

Billy Dodds, a reported EBT beneficiary,is never off our radio these days. According to a good source he has 'friends' in the BBC keen to help him out in his, hopefully, extended absence from the game. It'll take more than a few radio stints to clear his dues to the taxman, though. I wonder if someone on one of his radio stints(go on Michael Stewart, you know you want to) will ask him for his view of developments.

[Inconsequential]

Sevco have nothing to do with it. This is Oldco we're talking about.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk Yes that's right it was Oldco but many of my Rangers 'friends' assure me that they are the same club ( which is not the case). It is the same club when the circumstances suit them.

[Seveno]

Sevco have nothing to do with it. This is Oldco we're talking about.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

My mistake, I meant Oldco. Still do not accept that they would have deducted PAYE and NI if they say that they were giving payments as ‘loans’. It would defeat the whole basis of their immoral scheme.

[CropleyWasGod]

My mistake, I meant Oldco. Still do not accept that they would have deducted PAYE and NI if they say that they were giving payments as ‘loans’. It would defeat the whole basis of their immoral scheme.They didn't deduct it. But, they should have, as the payments were ultimately determined to be salaries, not loans.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

Their beloved United Kingdom is facing straitened times so I wouldn't be surprised to see Sevco fans intervening here to make sure their majesty gets her dues now that the supreme Court has ruled.

At least they know who's a blight on their traditional view of their club and it's loyalties. Get Her Majestys revenue paid.

Should be pitchforks and burning torches... .

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[HIGHLANDLEITHER]

They didn't deduct it. But, they should have, as the payments were ultimately determined to be salaries, not loans.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I think the point is that ultimately the responsibility is on all of us to pay the correct amount of tax. In a way it would be up to the players to sue Oldco for incorrect advice, rather it being HMRC's problem to pursue it.

[CropleyWasGod]

I think the point is that ultimately the responsibility is on all of us to pay the correct amount of tax. In a way it would be up to the players to sue Oldco for incorrect advice, rather it being HMRC's problem to pursue it.That would only be a goer if the players were held to be liable for the tax. And they'd get next to nothing out of Oldco.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Inconsequential]

I think the point is that ultimately the responsibility is on all of us to pay the correct amount of tax. In a way it would be up to the players to sue Oldco for incorrect advice, rather it being HMRC's problem to pursue it. Most employees would trust their employers to pay the correct amount of tax but yes the players have been misled here I would say as they were told it was loans.

[Ozyhibby]

That would only be a goer if the players were held to be liable for the tax. And they'd get next to nothing out of Oldco.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

If the players are due money then that is a football debt and Sevco have agreed to honour all football debts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

If the players are due money then that is a football debt and Sevco have agreed to honour all football debts?

:greengrin

[Brizo]

Most employees would trust their employers to pay the correct amount of tax but yes the players have been misled here I would say as they were told it was loans.

Id guess that regardless of what tax advice the players and others received from their accountants and RFC, individuals are ultimately responsible for their own tax affairs. My understanding is that the taxman can charge penalties on top of the PAYE and NIC due and that while a defence of being "misled" might reduce any penalty, the PAYE and NIC can't be negotiated down from what is due ?

[HIGHLANDLEITHER]

That would only be a goer if the players were held to be liable for the tax. And they'd get next to nothing out of Oldco.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
The players all have advisers who look after their tax affairs. Any decent adviser would have pointed out that the deal broke EBT rules in the payments being promised to individuals and being regular rather than on off payments. It therefor follows that the employee is responsible who then may sue his adviser or former employer. HMRC don't want to be going down that route themselves.

[Crazyhorse]

Most employees would trust their employers to pay the correct amount of tax but yes the players have been misled here I would say as they were told it was loans.

I'm not clear how the players were mislead. They were paid a salary and on top of that negotiated additional payments (income/loans) which no one paid tax on.
I receive a salary but I do other work (consultancy) and I also receive tax statements for that. As far as I can see the oldco-player shenanigans are like me agreeing a deal with a builder to do my garage where I agree to pay half of the cost cash in hand but we sign an official contract for the other half. With the added twist that he doesn't trust me (maybe I supported Rangers Mk 1) and insists I supply him with a letter promising to pay the hidden half. Seems to me we are both under no illusions we are cheating the taxman.

[CropleyWasGod]

If the players are due money then that is a football debt and Sevco have agreed to honour all football debts?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe players aren't due any money [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

The players aren't due any money [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Does Ozy not mean the players being due to pay money to the taxman?

[Ozyhibby]

The players aren't due any money [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Do they not have comfort letters from Rangers indemnifying them from any tax due from the scheme and saying Rangers will pick up the tab?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

Does Ozy not mean the players being due to pay money to the taxman?

I think I know what he means.

Someone is due HMRC money, and they are going after the players. The players should not be due to pay the money, for reasons outlined above by CWG.

If there is a tax debt to be paid to HMRC and it is not due by the players, then it should be due by the club. So far Sevco have managed to wriggle out of all such debts as they were borne by Oldco.

However, one of the stipulations of the 5 way agreement was that newco were to pay football debts in full. Surely that is not only the money due to other clubs, but all players they had at the time? If these players end up owing HMRC then surely the players should be reimbursed by Sevco as they are a football debt?

If money were to be the main priority of these players then this would surely be the best route for them to go down.

If they preferred not to inflame ra peepul however..........

[CropleyWasGod]

Does Ozy not mean the players being due to pay money to the taxman?I thought he was at the wind- up [emoji23]

The players aren't due to pay HMRC anything yet. There's a lot to be played out before that happens.

IF it happens, and IF the players then sue Oldco... then we'll be onto Season 8 with lots more Court cases. [emoji38]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Do they not have comfort letters from Rangers indemnifying them from any tax due from the scheme and saying Rangers will pick up the tab?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk...which Oldco already have. That's one of the principles that will be at stake when the arguments start.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Found it. Last paragraph.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180827/003f52a336a611f931aa40e3f680b86f.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Billy Whizz]

I thought he was at the wind- up [emoji23]

The players aren't due to pay HMRC anything yet. There's a lot to be played out before that happens.

IF it happens, and IF the players then sue Oldco... then we'll be onto Season 8 with lots more Court cases. [emoji38]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I know exactly what he means. Some teams have bought players they can’t afford to win trophies. Rangers used EBT’s to win trophies. So he sees these as a football debt

[jacomo]

It's not odd; it's HMRC's normal way of dealing with cases like this, where a PAYE scheme has been improperly administered.. It was the basis of the assessment they made on Oldco, and why it was so high.

For example, Oldco paid Ferguson £2.5m. That is treated as a NET salary of £2.5m, ie after PAYE and NI. HMRC gross that up, let's say to £5m, being the gross equivalent, and add a further £500k for Employer's NI. Thus Oldco owe them £3m.


I understand what you are saying.

However, there is also the common understanding that, for a salaried employee, both employer and employee pay contributions to HMRC in the form of NI and income tax.

Neither has done so, so surely both (Oldco and beneficiaries) are liable?

It should be easy to work out how much. Every time I’ve been offered a job, the salary I’ve been offered is obviously gross, not net.

Pay up Huns!

[Hibs Class]

Found it. Last paragraph.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180827/003f52a336a611f931aa40e3f680b86f.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would take that to mean if a player ends up with a tax liability the club would reimburse them. If the club is bust and the indemnity worthless it wouldn't affect the question of the players' primary liability

[CropleyWasGod]

I understand what you are saying.

However, there is also the common understanding that, for a salaried employee, both employer and employee pay contributions to HMRC in the form of NI and income tax.

Neither has done so, so surely both (Oldco and beneficiaries) are liable?

It should be easy to work out how much. Every time I’ve been offered a job, the salary I’ve been offered is obviously gross, not net.

Pay up Huns!

It's already been worked out. That's what Oldco were assessed for, and was the basis of the Court case.



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I would take that to mean if a player ends up with a tax liability the club would reimburse them. If the club is bust and the indemnity worthless it wouldn't affect the question of the players' primary liability

But Sevco have agreed to cover all football liabilities so should be no problem?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

There are 2 basic holes in HMRC's case for doing this, and I suspect any decent adviser will be making that point:-

1. by the Court finding in HMRC's favour, they have deemed Oldco to be the employer, and thus responsible for paying the tax and NI. It's irrelevant that they can't pay it. Oldco should be treated as any other employer that has gone into liquidation; after all, no-one expects the employees of any such company to pay the tax company's debts.

2. the assessment that HMRC made of Oldco's liability made the assumption that the payments to the players were net of PAYE and NI. In other words, that the players had already paid their dues. They can't be taxed twice.

This won't be as easy as that piece suggests.

I have two questions for the learned examiner but they may be outwith your expertise :-)

Is the letter, referred to by the BBC, maybe just a 'con' from this company hoping to elicit fees from the former players to sort out their tax mess? As in we'll sort out your tax issues for half a million, to HMRC, plus fees but if you don't take up our offer you're likely to be due a million. (60% of marks available)

And ...

If there is any balance in the players 'loan' accounts could HMRC grab it? (40%)

[CropleyWasGod]

I have two questions for the learned examiner but they may be outwith your expertise :-)

Is the letter, referred to by the BBC, maybe just a 'con' from this company hoping to elicit fees from the former players to sort out their tax mess? As in we'll sort out your tax issues for half a million, to HMRC, plus fees but if you don't take up our offer you're likely to be due a million. (60% of marks available)

And ...

If there is any balance in the players 'loan' accounts could HMRC grab it? (40%)

1. Well spotted. And I would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids.

2. They'd have to have a square go with their lawyers first.
.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[ancient hibee]

The Revenue will never get away with what Trident say is happening.The idea that they can go after employees of a failed company because that company did not remit tax to the Revenue that the Revenue already agree has been deducted from the employees would be laughed out of court.If House Of Fraser finally goes to the wall they would never try to get unremitted tax from the employees,there would be a revolution.

[Jack]

1. Well spotted. And I would've gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those pesky kids.

2. They'd have to have a square go with their lawyers first.
.


Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Top of the class. I think!

[majorhibs]

There are 2 basic holes in HMRC's case for doing this, and I suspect any decent adviser will be making that point:-

1. by the Court finding in HMRC's favour, they have deemed Oldco to be the employer, and thus responsible for paying the tax and NI. It's irrelevant that they can't pay it. Oldco should be treated as any other employer that has gone into liquidation; after all, no-one expects the employees of any such company to pay the tax company's debts.

2. the assessment that HMRC made of Oldco's liability made the assumption that the payments to the players were net of PAYE and NI. In other words, that the players had already paid their dues. They can't be taxed twice.

This won't be as easy as that piece suggests.

C’mon now! You’ve been taking the zombies side for 5 yrs plus easy, I reckon you must be a clever ex official or player protectin yer nest egg, you find an anti angle every time it looks good, once & fer all they died in 2012 & anything thereafter is a new club, & I reckon with your brains your that clever clogs Iain Ferguson ex St Mirren & Zombies & no popular at aw wi Scotland fans!

[CropleyWasGod]

C’mon now! You’ve been taking the zombies side for 5 yrs plus easy, I reckon you must be a clever ex official or player protectin yer nest egg, you find an anti angle every time it looks good, once & fer all they died in 2012 & anything thereafter is a new club, & I reckon with your brains your that clever clogs Iain Ferguson ex St Mirren & Zombies & no popular at aw wi Scotland fans!Iain Ferguson is my sponsor at MENSA.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[O'Rourke3]

Iain Ferguson is my sponsor at MENSA.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
:faf:

[majorhibs]

Iain Ferguson is my sponsor at MENSA.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

There was me tryin for a bite fi leftfield tae! Secretly, I was convinced it wis drunken Duncan!

[Ozyhibby]

The Revenue will never get away with what Trident say is happening.The idea that they can go after employees of a failed company because that company did not remit tax to the Revenue that the Revenue already agree has been deducted from the employees would be laughed out of court.If House Of Fraser finally goes to the wall they would never try to get unremitted tax from the employees,there would be a revolution.

The HMRC position will be that the employee colluded with the club to avoid paying this tax. This was not just a case of the club not paying tax they had collected. The players were in on the whole scheme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ancient hibee]

The HMRC position will be that the employee colluded with the club to avoid paying this tax. This was not just a case of the club not paying tax they had collected. The players were in on the whole scheme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Revenue has already won a case stating that tax was deducted and the payment to the employee was net.They can’t now argue that the employee is liable.As for what you are suggesting about collusion that would be a criminal offence and there is zero chance of that happening.

[majorhibs]

Wow, appears to be some angst ridden nervous EBT recipients around, eh?

[1875godsgift]

The Revenue has already won a case stating that tax was deducted and the payment to the employee was net.They can’t now argue that the employee is liable.As for what you are suggesting about collusion that would be a criminal offence and there is zero chance of that happening.

Just out of interest, why do you think there is zero chance? Is it because it was so long ago?

[Tomsk]

Just out of interest, why do you think there is zero chance? Is it because it was so long ago?

Because he's one of the 20.

[Crazyhorse]

The Revenue has already won a case stating that tax was deducted and the payment to the employee was net.They can’t now argue that the employee is liable.As for what you are suggesting about collusion that would be a criminal offence and there is zero chance of that happening.

Deducted by who, the Revenue? If it was deducted Oldco must have paid their taxes and there there must be a record of it. I assume it would have appeared in Oldco accounts. Why all the business of side letters, etc?

[southern hibby]

Right here’s my 3p worth.

If it’s wages ( as we and the courts see it ) tax and NI has to be paid by both employer and employee.

If it’s a Loan as Oldco and the players have said it is. Then surely this money should be recovered and shared out by all the folk who were shafted when Oldco ceased to exist?

GGTTH

[Moulin Yarns]

Right here’s my 3p worth.

If it’s wages ( as we and the courts see it ) tax and NI has to be paid by both employer and employee.

If it’s a Loan as Oldco and the players have said it is. Then surely this money should be recovered and shared out by all the folk who were shafted when Oldco ceased to exist?

GGTTH

I like your thinking

[CropleyWasGod]

Deducted by who, the Revenue? If it was deducted Oldco must have paid their taxes and there there must be a record of it. I assume it would have appeared in Oldco accounts. Why all the business of side letters, etc?It has been deemed deducted by HMRC. Those deductions are part of Oldco's creditors.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Just out of interest, why do you think there is zero chance? Is it because it was so long ago?Intent to defraud is a difficult thing to prove.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Ronniekirk]

As much as I like these updates it appears that on the Field ,The Rangers are starting to get it right , and Gerrard is doing better than many expected . If they negotiate thier next European game ,and get thrpugh to the Group Stages ,then they are back to a position where they will strengthen again in the next Transfer Window .
However the pressure is on this game ,so will be interesting to see how they handle it ,if they were to lose an early goal

[Greenfly]

Right here’s my 3p worth.

If it’s wages ( as we and the courts see it ) tax and NI has to be paid by both employer and employee.

If it’s a Loan as Oldco and the players have said it is. Then surely this money should be recovered and shared out by all the folk who were shafted when Oldco ceased to exist?

GGTTH



Indeed ... and what's all this guff about them believing they were being given loans which don't need to be repaid? What is that? If a loan doesn't need repaid it surely can't be a loan? It's a payment and is therefore taxable. I don't believe for one moment that they were all so stupid that they couldn't see that. Those who took these payments are as greedy and culpable as the club who dished them out and as you say, there were plenty others made to pay the price. They cheated the Revenue, they cheated those who eventually lost out when Oldco folded and they cheated all Scottish football fans.

[CropleyWasGod]

Indeed ... and what's all this guff about them believing they were being given loans which don't need to be repaid? What is that? If a loan doesn't need repaid it surely can't be a loan? It's a payment and is therefore taxable. I don't believe for one moment that they were all so stupid that they couldn't see that. Those who took these payments are as greedy and culpable as the club who dished them out and as you say, there were plenty others made to pay the price. They cheated the Revenue, they cheated those who eventually lost out when Oldco folded and they cheated all Scottish football fans.

Nobody ever claimed that the loans didn't need to be repaid. Had the Courts decided that they were indeed loans, they would have been repayable from the recipient's estates.

The Courts decided that they were net payments of salaries, which means the onus falls on the employer to make good the PAYE and NI that has been lost.

[Crazyhorse]

Nobody ever claimed that the loans didn't need to be repaid. Had the Courts decided that they were indeed loans, they would have been repayable from the recipient's estates.

The Courts decided that they were net payments of salaries, which means the onus falls on the employer to make good the PAYE and NI that has been lost.

Yeah which was 'deemed' to be deducted. Which takes us back to the issue of the misregistration of contracts I guess.

[HoboHarry]

Nobody ever claimed that the loans didn't need to be repaid. Had the Courts decided that they were indeed loans, they would have been repayable from the recipient's estates.

The Courts decided that they were net payments of salaries, which means the onus falls on the employer to make good the PAYE and NI that has been lost.
There's nothing quite like you wrecking our hopes and dreams with your damned knowledge and logic.........

[CropleyWasGod]

There's nothing quite like you wrecking our hopes and dreams with your damned knowledge and logic.........

I'm a riot at parties.

My party piece is pissing in the punch :greengrin

[JeMeSouviens]

As much as I like these updates it appears that on the Field ,The Rangers are starting to get it right , and Gerrard is doing better than many expected . If they negotiate thier next European game ,and get thrpugh to the Group Stages ,then they are back to a position where they will strengthen again in the next Transfer Window .
However the pressure is on this game ,so will be interesting to see how they handle it ,if they were to lose an early goal

On the flip side - by Sunday they could be out of Europe, 4 points behind Celtc and sitting in the bottom 6.

[southern hibby]

There's nothing quite like you wrecking our hopes and dreams with your damned knowledge and logic.........

I think CWG is really Spock, just too much logic in everyone of his posts to be a coincident........

GGTTH

[HoboHarry]

I think CWG is really Spock, just too much logic in everyone of his posts to be a coincident........

GGTTH
Think he needs to undertake some Pon Farr instead of wrecking our beautiful thoughts.....

[CropleyWasGod]

I think CWG is really Spock, just too much logic in everyone of his posts to be a coincident........

GGTTH

Have you ever seen Spock and Iain Ferguson in the same room? :greengrin

[Deansy]

There are 2 basic holes in HMRC's case for doing this, and I suspect any decent adviser will be making that point:-

1. by the Court finding in HMRC's favour, they have deemed Oldco to be the employer, and thus responsible for paying the tax and NI. It's irrelevant that they can't pay it. Oldco should be treated as any other employer that has gone into liquidation; after all, no-one expects the employees of any such company to pay the tax company's debts.

2. the assessment that HMRC made of Oldco's liability made the assumption that the payments to the players were net of PAYE and NI. In other words, that the players had already paid their dues. They can't be taxed twice.

This won't be as easy as that piece suggests.

You've been a constant blight on this thread since it began !. Rather than letting folk get carried away and being all happy and cheerful, you've been an ever-present with your professional know-how, facts and truth - constantly bursting people's balloons !.

21190

Victor Meldrew/CWG ??

[Ronniekirk]

On the flip side - by Sunday they could be out of Europe, 4 points behind Celtc and sitting in the bottom 6.

Well that would bring a smile to my face .I think Gerrard will look at the biggar picture and put everything into getting to Group Stages Hence I would expect Celtic to beat them

[CropleyWasGod]

Just to pour some more urine on people's chips, I've done a wee bit more digging here.......

The "Follower Notices", that were referred to in the BBC piece, have to be issued within 12 months of the relevant Judicial Ruling. The Rangers case was decided by the Supreme Court on 7th July 2017.

So, if no FN's have been issued by now, they won't be at all.

I'm not saying they haven't been.... we can't know that.... but it does undermine the BBC piece a bit. It looks as if the writer hasn't even read his own article, which says this very thing in the last paragraph. :rolleyes:

"Follower notice (FN) legislation says that HMRC has 12 months to issue FNs following a final decision. The final decision in Rangers was on 5 July 2017. We have looked at a range of schemes where the principles at stake were similar, and follower notices have been issued where appropriate."

[Crazyhorse]

You've been a constant blight on this thread since it began !. Rather than letting folk get carried away and being all happy and cheerful, you've been an ever-present with your professional know-how, facts and truth - constantly bursting people's balloons !.

21190

Victor Meldrew/CWG ??

You could read CWG's notes another way. They constantly remind us that we have a society where the legislation and the legal system itself ensures that everything works in the favour of the rich and powerful. Who was it who said 'the rich get the law and the poor get prison'?

[Smartie]

Just to pour some more urine on people's chips, I've done a wee bit more digging here.......

The "Follower Notices", that were referred to in the BBC piece, have to be issued within 12 months of the relevant Judicial Ruling. The Rangers case was decided by the Supreme Court on 7th July 2017.

So, if no FN's have been issued by now, they won't be at all.

I'm not saying they haven't been.... we can't know that.... but it does undermine the BBC piece a bit. It looks as if the writer hasn't even read his own article, which says this very thing in the last paragraph. :rolleyes:

"Follower notice (FN) legislation says that HMRC has 12 months to issue FNs following a final decision. The final decision in Rangers was on 5 July 2017. We have looked at a range of schemes where the principles at stake were similar, and follower notices have been issued where appropriate."

That must go down as pretty poor stuff from the BBC then?

A speculative piece like that might be ok from a "keyboard bampot" but you would expect the BBC to have carried out a check like that first, would you not?

[HIGHLANDLEITHER]

Just to pour some more urine on people's chips, I've done a wee bit more digging here.......

The "Follower Notices", that were referred to in the BBC piece, have to be issued within 12 months of the relevant Judicial Ruling. The Rangers case was decided by the Supreme Court on 7th July 2017.

So, if no FN's have been issued by now, they won't be at all.

I'm not saying they haven't been.... we can't know that.... but it does undermine the BBC piece a bit. It looks as if the writer hasn't even read his own article, which says this very thing in the last paragraph. :rolleyes:

"Follower notice (FN) legislation says that HMRC has 12 months to issue FNs following a final decision. The final decision in Rangers was on 5 July 2017. We have looked at a range of schemes where the principles at stake were similar, and follower notices have been issued where appropriate."


Pretty sure the IR don't make it public when they issue notices. Given the way they have pursued the case, it would be highly unlikely that the notices were not issued within the timescale.
Jabba would have ensured a total news blackout.

[CropleyWasGod]

Pretty sure the IR don't make it public when they issue notices. Given the way they have pursued the case, it would be highly unlikely that the notices were not issued within the timescale.
Jabba would have ensured a total news blackout.

Of course they don't.

My point, though, was the poor reporting. The journalist didn't even twig that we are past the deadline for issuing the notices.

(P.S. it's nothing to do with Traynor.)

[Tomsk]

Just to pour some more urine on people's chips, I've done a wee bit more digging here.......

The "Follower Notices", that were referred to in the BBC piece, have to be issued within 12 months of the relevant Judicial Ruling. The Rangers case was decided by the Supreme Court on 7th July 2017.

So, if no FN's have been issued by now, they won't be at all.

I'm not saying they haven't been.... we can't know that.... but it does undermine the BBC piece a bit. It looks as if the writer hasn't even read his own article, which says this very thing in the last paragraph. :rolleyes:

"Follower notice (FN) legislation says that HMRC has 12 months to issue FNs following a final decision. The final decision in Rangers was on 5 July 2017. We have looked at a range of schemes where the principles at stake were similar, and follower notices have been issued where appropriate."

That final sentence states that follower notices have been issued. I can't read it any other way.

[CropleyWasGod]

That final sentence states that follower notices have been issued. I can't read it any other way.I read it as FN have been issued in similar cases. That firm (Trident) can't know whether they have been issued in the RFC case.

The article itself has been poorly edited. That quote should be from Trident; HMRC wouldn't say such a thing. The last paragraph should probably be "we have contacted HMRC".

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Greenfly]

Nobody ever claimed that the loans didn't need to be repaid. Had the Courts decided that they were indeed loans, they would have been repayable from the recipient's estates.

The Courts decided that they were net payments of salaries, which means the onus falls on the employer to make good the PAYE and NI that has been lost.


Yes they did - according to the BBC anyway who reported on last night's news that some of the recipients were led to believe that they were being given loans which they did not have to repay.

[ancient hibee]

Yes they did - according to the BBC anyway who reported on last night's news that some of the recipients were led to believe that they were being given loans which they did not have to repay.


Well they're hardly likely to say anything else are they?The BBC have got a non story based on a firm fishing for business.

[HIGHLANDLEITHER]

Of course they don't.

My point, though, was the poor reporting. The journalist didn't even twig that we are past the deadline for issuing the notices.

(P.S. it's nothing to do with Traynor.)

Not sure, Traynor is over every bit of news re oldco and newco. He would be aware of notices issued to EBT recipients and maybe knows the game is up for them. He controls the west coast media and might think a slow release of the issue is required.
Obviously EBT's arose before his watch.
I don't buy into the story that HMRC can't go after the employees of failed employers. If you were told you could have half your earnings untaxed and it was a loan you would not have to repay you deserve to be chased for tax. Murray said his company would cover the tax if it went wrong, so there was doubt No sympathy even though he had the best advice from a porn movie making defrocked solicitor!

[Greenfly]

Well they're hardly likely to say anything else are they?The BBC have got a non story based on a firm fishing for business.


Sure but the point refers to the one I made in my earlier post - there is no such thing as a loan which isn't meant to be repaid. That's a payment, not a loan. The folk who received these payments must have known that.

[ancient hibee]

Not sure, Traynor is over every bit of news re oldco and newco. He would be aware of notices issued to EBT recipients and maybe knows the game is up for them. He controls the west coast media and might think a slow release of the issue is required.
Obviously EBT's arose before his watch.
I don't buy into the story that HMRC can't go after the employees of failed employers. If you were told you could have half your earnings untaxed and it was a loan you would not have to repay you deserve to be chased for tax. Murray said his company would cover the tax if it went wrong, so there was doubt No sympathy even though he had the best advice from a porn movie making defrocked solicitor!


So if a company you worked for went bust and it was discovered that all the tax deducted from your salary had not been paid to the Revenue you would be quite happy for the Revenue to come after you to pay it?

[Michael]

So if a company you worked for went bust and it was discovered that all the tax deducted from your salary had not been paid to the Revenue you would be quite happy for the Revenue to come after you to pay it?

It happens. If the company screws up you still have to pay unfortunately.

[CropleyWasGod]

Sure but the point refers to the one I made in my earlier post - there is no such thing as a loan which isn't meant to be repaid. That's a payment, not a loan. The folk who received these payments must have known that.The point about the loans is that the recipients themselves wouldn't be repaying them. Their estates would.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

The point about the loans is that the recipients themselves wouldn't be repaying them. Their estates would.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

What exactly does this mean?

[CropleyWasGod]

What exactly does this mean?When they died, the repayment would have been made to the trust that made the loan.. The money would come out of whatever assets they had.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Liberal Hibby]

"Follower notice (FN) legislation says that HMRC has 12 months to issue FNs following a final decision. The final decision in Rangers was on 5 July 2017. We have looked at a range of schemes where the principles at stake were similar, and follower notices have been issued where appropriate."
The most annoying thing about this is the Oxford comma.

[greenginger]

When they died, the repayment would have been made to the trust that made the loan.. The money would come out of whatever assets they had.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


And what was the trust meant to do with the money ?

[Keith_M]

So if a company you worked for went bust and it was discovered that all the tax deducted from your salary had not been paid to the Revenue you would be quite happy for the Revenue to come after you to pay it?


That's not a fair comparison. The situation is that the Employees evaded tax on income, by participating in a scheme where they pretended it wasn't taxable income.

Let's not pretend they were innocent victims.

[Ozyhibby]

So if a company you worked for went bust and it was discovered that all the tax deducted from your salary had not been paid to the Revenue you would be quite happy for the Revenue to come after you to pay it?

This is different. HMRC view the players as having been party to the withholding of the tax.
This was done with the players full knowledge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

The most annoying thing about this is the Oxford comma.
:greengrin:

[Spike Mandela]

In the murky world of UK businesss and taxation is anybody ever held to account, EVER. Does anyone ever have to pay back what they cheated people out of?

Seems to be so much there to protect the financially cavalier and those that can afford expensive accountants.

[Ozyhibby]

In the murky world of UK businesss and taxation is anybody ever held to account, EVER. Does anyone ever have to pay back what they cheated people out of?

Seems to be so much there to protect the financially cavalier and those that can afford expensive accountants.

White collar crime mostly goes unpunished in the uk. Very little resources are employed to detect it for a start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HIGHLANDLEITHER]

So if a company you worked for went bust and it was discovered that all the tax deducted from your salary had not been paid to the Revenue you would be quite happy for the Revenue to come after you to pay it?
We are not talking about normal employees of ordinary companies. Even Hector wouldn't go after them. As I stated we are talking about highly paid players with advisers. I tried to make it as clear as possible that at least half there wages were not taxed, hardly the situation that applies to most people. I get you point and agree with your principles, but the situation with EBT'S is entirely different and were always dubious and were used to benefit those who were highly paid in the first place.

[Eyrie]

So if a company you worked for went bust and it was discovered that all the tax deducted from your salary had not been paid to the Revenue you would be quite happy for the Revenue to come after you to pay it?

It's not about tax deducted from salary. It's about evading tax on money that the players got in addition to their salaries.

You do a job for cash in hand and it's you that has to pay the Inland Revenue if they find out, not the person who paid you.

[Brizo]

So if a company you worked for went bust and it was discovered that all the tax deducted from your salary had not been paid to the Revenue you would be quite happy for the Revenue to come after you to pay it?

Where a company goes bust and its discovered they haven't been remitting the PAYE and NIC due to the taxman, its generally the case that the employees payslips will have shown that PAYE and NIC has been deducted, which is part of the employers scam. In these circumstances I doubt HMRC could go after the individuals as the employees could be shown to have been taking reasonable care by checking their payslips which showed said deductions.

My understanding is the EBTs weren't treated as salary and didn't appear on payslips so your comparison doesn't apply. Happy to be corrected if that's wrong.

The individuals are ultimately responsible for their own tax affairs and ignorance / bad advice wont reduce the amounts of PAYE and NIC due , although they might reduce any penalties HMRC chooses to add on.

[majorhibs]

When they died, the repayment would have been made to the trust that made the loan.. The money would come out of whatever assets they had.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

When WHO died?

[CropleyWasGod]

When WHO died?Ian Ferguson

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

And what was the trust meant to do with the money ?Whatever they wanted. It would have been their money. [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

So if a company you worked for went bust and it was discovered that all the tax deducted from your salary had not been paid to the Revenue you would be quite happy for the Revenue to come after you to pay it?

In this case though, the tax wasn't deducted at all. The employees kept it (albeit through disguised payments via a trust).

[CropleyWasGod]

In this case though, the tax wasn't deducted at all. The employees kept it (albeit through disguised payments via a trust).

The essence of the HMRC case against Oldco was that the payments were salaries, net of tax. They won the case.

The recipients, through their advisers, will argue that (as the employer has been held to be liable), they can't also be.

The only recipients any HMRC action should, in their opinion, affect will be those who had other income (such as property) in those years. That other income may be liable for tax at higher rates than was originally assessed.

[Juice-Terry]

The most annoying thing about this is the Oxford comma.

Oxford commas RULE!

[JeMeSouviens]

The essence of the HMRC case against Oldco was that the payments were salaries, net of tax. They won the case.

The recipients, through their advisers, will argue that (as the employer has been held to be liable), they can't also be.

The only recipients any HMRC action should, in their opinion, affect will be those who had other income (such as property) in those years. That other income may be liable for tax at higher rates than was originally assessed.

I'm not particularly disagreeing with you, but it's much less of an open and shut case than an employee whose tax was deducted in the normal way by their employer but not handed over to the revenue.

[CropleyWasGod]

I'm not particularly disagreeing with you, but it's much less of an open and shut case than an employee whose tax was deducted in the normal way by their employer but not handed over to the revenue.

It's definitely not open and shut, I agree on that. The BBC piece that kicked off this debate suggests that it will be, in HMRC's favour.

It's not about "not handing it over". That's a bit of a red-herring in this case. However, it is another battle-ground, not unlike the EBT case, where HMRC's new powers will be tested. IMO, they have a much weaker case here than they did with the EBT's.

[Ozyhibby]

It's definitely not open and shut, I agree on that. The BBC piece that kicked off this debate suggests that it will be, in HMRC's favour.

It's not about "not handing it over". That's a bit of a red-herring in this case. However, it is another battle-ground, not unlike the EBT case, where HMRC's new powers will be tested. IMO, they have a much weaker case here than they did with the EBT's.

Although the players won’t have the money BDO had to throw at a defence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jack]

If the players do have to stump up will it be classed as a football debt?

[CropleyWasGod]

If the players do have to stump up will it be classed as a football debt?

We can only hope.

But that would go to Court as well. There's no way Newco would roll over and accept it.

[Ozyhibby]

We can only hope.

But that would go to Court as well. There's no way Newco would roll over and accept it.

The thought of Walter Smith and co taking Sevco to court to cover their tax bill makes me feel all warm inside. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

The thought of Walter Smith and co taking Sevco to court to cover their tax bill makes me feel all warm inside. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThere'll probably have to be another vote by the now SPFL chairmen to decide it's time to "move on" from this one as well.



Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

I don’t think the players can take secco to court? I though it would be those handling the administration into liquidation or BDO? It all belongs to David Murray and Rangers RIP.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don’t think the players can take secco to court? I though it would be those handling the administration into liquidation or BDO? It all belongs to David Murray and Rangers RIP.

You're right, from a strictly pedantic point of view.

But, as Ozy is suggesting, it would be the former staff suing BDO , and BDO suing Newco for payment of the former staff's tax bills. In a roundabout way, big Walter and wee Barry suing the club.

[Bostonhibby]

You're right, from a strictly pedantic point of view.

But, as Ozy is suggesting, it would be the former staff suing BDO , and BDO suing Newco for payment of the former staff's tax bills. In a roundabout way, big Walter and wee Barry suing the club.Now there's a paradoxical crowd funding opportunity if ever I saw one ☺

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

Didn't Barry Ferguson declare bankruptcy fairly recently? Was he being cute and getting ahead of the game? Afraid I don't really understand the murky goings on of rich people fleecing everyone else and getting away with it

[CropleyWasGod]

Didn't Barry Ferguson declare bankruptcy fairly recently? Was he being cute and getting ahead of the game? Afraid I don't really understand the murky goings on of rich people fleecing everyone else and getting away with itHe was made bankrupt last year because of his investment in the film scam that trapped a lot of players.

He was discharged last month.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[bookert]

He was made bankrupt last year because of his investment in the film scam that trapped a lot of players.

He was discharged last month.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Did he not transfer his assets to wife then declare himself bankrupt?

[southsider]

Did he not transfer his assets to wife then declare himself bankrupt?

All she needs to do is trade him for a younger model & keep all the money.

[Jack Hackett]

Did he not transfer his assets to wife then declare himself bankrupt?

The transfer was made 6 years before he declared, and the time limit for considering it to be his asset is 5 years... nice timing Barry. £1.5m debt cleared in a few months. Nice work if you can get it

[lapsedhibee]

All she needs to do is trade him for a younger model & keep all the money.

Nah, there'll have been a side letter to prevent anything untoward.

[CropleyWasGod]

The transfer was made 6 years before he declared, and the time limit for considering it to be his asset is 5 years... nice timing Barry. £1.5m debt cleared in a few months. Nice work if you can get itHe hasn't cleared his debt. The recovery of that may take years.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[majorhibs]

He hasn't cleared his debt. The recovery of that may take years.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Got it! Your no Ian or indeed Dunc, your the crab’s accountant, & as such you’ve been policing on here for 5+ years looking out for Barry & your EBTs. All makes sense now!

[CropleyWasGod]

Got it! Your no Ian or indeed Dunc, your the crab’s accountant, & as such you’ve been policing on here for 5+ years looking out for Barry & your EBTs. All makes sense now!And I would've gotten away with it....etc etc....

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[majorhibs]

And I would've gotten away with it....etc etc....

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I’m as much ae a “smart kid”... as you are a disliker ae EBTs & the zombies that cheated Hibs (undebatable) outtae multiple honours (debatable) wi an illegal scheme not used by Hibs or ANY competitors for 10 yrs minimum. But pesky thick kids like me find it difficult sometimes to “move on”. Must be cos we’re slow or summat!

[jacomo]

So the zombies are through to the Europa League group stage.

A nice little earner for them and means their crazy business plan is somehow on track.

:grr:

[allezsauzee]

So the zombies are through to the Europa League group stage.

A nice little earner for them and means their crazy business plan is somehow on track.

:grr:

Not sure they'll earn enough to bankroll their current level of spending unless they progress from the league stage. Looking forward to seeing them get a proper pumping from some decent teams. Hopefully the strain of playing twice a week is detrimental to their league form too.

[majorhibs]

So the zombies are through to the Europa League group stage.

A nice little earner for them and means their crazy business plan is somehow on track.

:grr:

Yet still some admire this abomination, how it was, (disgusting, hugely) & obviously now under Lying newest King, there is no hope. Liar like that, taking piss out of the vaunted ancient Scottish Legal system, then doing the same to the alleged league we are all supposed to be “competing” in- just dinnae eh? No funny any more that they did & do illegally cheat Hibernian FC. Shame on you’se self aware long time apologists as well!

[CropleyWasGod]

Not sure they'll earn enough to bankroll their current level of spending unless they progress from the league stage. Looking forward to seeing them get a proper pumping from some decent teams. Hopefully the strain of playing twice a week is detrimental to their league form too.The business plan was based on reaching the group stages in 3 out of 5 seasons. They've managed 1 out of 2 so far.

The vote on the new share issue is tomorrow. If it goes ahead, much will depend on how much is used to pay off loans and how much goes to trading.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

The business plan was based on reaching the group stages in 3 out of 5 seasons. They've managed 1 out of 2 so far.

The vote on the new share issue is tomorrow. If it goes ahead, much will depend on how much is used to pay off loans and how much goes to trading.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


Yes indeed but the Lying King will have been cracking open a nice bottle from his cellar tonight, feeling utterly vindicated.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes indeed but the Lying King will have been cracking open a nice bottle from his cellar tonight, feeling utterly vindicated.Yup. We might have to close this thread and move on [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Jack Hackett]

Mini statement to be followed up with a full on Jabba communique... once he's had someone explain the 40 page judgement to him :greengrin

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45425906

[Smartie]

Mini statement to be followed up with a full on Jabba communique... once he's had someone explain the 40 page judgement to him :greengrin

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45425906

In fairness to Sevco (yes, I know) does this sort of thing REALLY need a 40 page document to communicate the findings?

[Chic Murray]

All she needs to do is trade him for a younger model & keep all the money.

Providing the new husband is called Barry, she can keep the kids, but will not have to pay anything towards their upkeep.

[BSEJVT]

White collar crime mostly goes unpunished in the uk. Very little resources are employed to detect it for a start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry but the first sentence is absolute nonsense.

Batter someone in the street and if you have no previous you wont get near jail.

Steal money from anyone and even if its first offence you are extremely likely to do time.

I knew a young woman who had a young family and they were struggling a bit financially, she borrowed money from one of the internal (non customer) accounts of the bank for whom she worked and effectively used that account as her overdraft.

She got caught and sentenced to 14 months, even though all the money was repaid (I think at its worst she had "borrowed" about £300.

The papers are littered with folk who have defrauded charities, vulnerable people and others who go to jail.

I am not saying that they shouldn't, but crimes of breach of trust are often deal with far more severely than acts of violence.

[aljo7-0]

Sorry but the first sentence is absolute nonsense.

Batter someone in the street and if you have no previous you wont get near jail.

Steal money from anyone and even if its first offence you are extremely likely to do time.

I knew a young woman who had a young family and they were struggling a bit financially, she borrowed money from one of the internal (non customer) accounts of the bank for whom she worked and effectively used that account as her overdraft.

She got caught and sentenced to 14 months, even though all the money was repaid (I think at its worst she had "borrowed" about £300.

The papers are littered with folk who have defrauded charities, vulnerable people and others who go to jail.

I am not saying that they shouldn't, but crimes of breach of trust are often deal with far more severely than acts of violence.

I think you are right and wrong in a way. There is no doubt breach of trust crimes, when prosecuted, do result in pretty stiff sentences compared to others. But I do think they are more difficult to get a conviction in and strongly suspect there are cases the Fiscal decides not to prosecute due to a combination of the difficulty in proving the crime, the huge volume of paper and other evidence needed and the cost the trial would have to the public purse.

Now I am purely guessing but in this day and age of restricted budgets and the fact that the Fiscal's decision has to consider if a prosecution is in the public interest I am sure a part of that consideration is the cost of the trial.

Also the vast amount of evidence needed for some fraud trials and the danger of Joe Public in the jury not following the evidence must mean a lower chance of conviction. The defence only has to get a reasonable doubt to succeed and jurors not understanding or following evidence can easily lead to a doubt and a not guilty verdict

[itslegaltender]

Something is strange this year with Rangers, spending a lot on transfers, wages. Have they a new funding source?

[CropleyWasGod]

Something is strange this year with Rangers, spending a lot on transfers, wages. Have they a new funding source?Not sure that they do. Their funding is coming from the EL and the new share issue.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[BSEJVT]

I think you are right and wrong in a way. There is no doubt breach of trust crimes, when prosecuted, do result in pretty stiff sentences compared to others. But I do think they are more difficult to get a conviction in and strongly suspect there are cases the Fiscal decides not to prosecute due to a combination of the difficulty in proving the crime, the huge volume of paper and other evidence needed and the cost the trial would have to the public purse.

Now I am purely guessing but in this day and age of restricted budgets and the fact that the Fiscal's decision has to consider if a prosecution is in the public interest I am sure a part of that consideration is the cost of the trial.

Also the vast amount of evidence needed for some fraud trials and the danger of Joe Public in the jury not following the evidence must mean a lower chance of conviction. The defence only has to get a reasonable doubt to succeed and jurors not understanding or following evidence can easily lead to a doubt and a not guilty verdict

I don't think there is any doubt that after the collapse of a few high profile complex fraud cases that you are correct in that regard, that this is the case is utterly wrong as such cases undoubtedly harm more people than the example I used.

[aljo7-0]

I don't think there is any doubt that after the collapse of a few high profile complex fraud cases that you are correct in that regard, that this is the case is utterly wrong as such cases undoubtedly harm more people than the example I used.

Absolutely. The clever bad guys get away with it. I think these days even with crimes relating to drugs etc the fiscal/police are just as likely to go after the lead bad guys for more minor crimes (than ones they could possibly convict) but go after them hard re proceeds of crime as that is more likely to be successful and hits the bad guy where they hurt more.

[Inconsequential]

Something is strange this year with Rangers, spending a lot on transfers, wages. Have they a new funding source? Situation normal for Glasgow Rangers/Sevco I would say. Have posted a combined loss 0f 13 million over the last two financial years. Where is the money coming from?

[Crazyhorse]

[QUOTE=aljo7-0;5544231]Absolutely. The clever bad guys get away with it.

I would say the rich and powerful can afford to employ the clever bad guys to get away with. Either through behind the scenes lobbying or through the legal system.
The woman who stole a few hundred quid is in jail because she has no resources.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180908/905e1368cc196e3d5902f506a457c16e.pnghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180908/abaa30ae978b94a71af1a4a6b493a6ad.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blackpoolhibs]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180908/905e1368cc196e3d5902f506a457c16e.pnghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180908/abaa30ae978b94a71af1a4a6b493a6ad.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course he would have signed for sevco for £10 a week, he's a clown. :confused:

He sits in amongst that lot while they all sing hate songs about his faith. Perhaps because he sells a few pints to them in his new bar, he has decided to ignore the blatant bigotry because he's nothing to gain from actually standing up and saying its wrong?

[Jack Hackett]

Of course he would have signed for sevco for £10 a week, he's a clown. :confused:

He sits in amongst that lot while they all sing hate songs about his faith. Perhaps because he sells a few pints to them in his new bar, he has decided to ignore the blatant bigotry because he's nothing to gain from actually standing up and saying its wrong?


100% :agree:

FUD!

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180908/905e1368cc196e3d5902f506a457c16e.pnghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180908/abaa30ae978b94a71af1a4a6b493a6ad.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is this the clearest indication yet that HMRC have indeed served the players with a bill?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Is this the clearest indication yet that HMRC have indeed served the players with a bill?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkIt may be.

But there's a long way between being assessed and actually accepting it.

Some may think that they can't afford to fight it, so will accept it and let events take their course. Someone, though... and not necessarily one of the Rangers EBT recipients, perhaps one of the English ones.... will take on HMRC and establish precedent. That may need some recipients to pool their resources to fund one appeal.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[green day]

Of course he would have signed for sevco for £10 a week, he's a clown. :confused:

He sits in amongst that lot while they all sing hate songs about his faith. Perhaps because he sells a few pints to them in his new bar, he has decided to ignore the blatant bigotry because he's nothing to gain from actually standing up and saying its wrong?

And I will bet my bottom dollar that any of Nachos new business ventures are not in his own name, and we can expect him to do the "I am potless and bankrupt" thing if HMRC bill him - despite giving the appearance of a man with some cash.

I doubt that any of these EBT recipients will actually lose much real money given the time they have had to prepare.

[Spike Mandela]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180908/905e1368cc196e3d5902f506a457c16e.pnghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180908/abaa30ae978b94a71af1a4a6b493a6ad.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nothing sweeter than the sound of those who dodge paying tax squealing when they’re squeezed to pay what they’re due.

[Ozyhibby]

It may be.

But there's a long way between being assessed and actually accepting it.

Some may think that they can't afford to fight it, so will accept it and let events take their course. Someone, though... and not necessarily one of the Rangers EBT recipients, perhaps one of the English ones.... will take on HMRC and establish precedent. That may need some recipients to pool their resources to fund one appeal.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Haven’t all the English clubs accepted their liability and settled with HMRC? I think it will only be Rangers players who will be left twisting in the wind because their club died. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Haven’t all the English clubs accepted their liability and settled with HMRC? I think it will only be Rangers players who will be left twisting in the wind because their club died. [emoji3]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThe clubs ( and other companies in other industries) may have done, on the back of the test case that was RFC. I'm not sure about the recipients, though.

That's the next battleground, IMO. It is likely that that battle has already begun.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

The clubs ( and other companies in other industries) may have done, on the back of the test case that was RFC. I'm not sure about the recipients, though.

That's the next battleground, IMO. It is likely that that battle has already begun.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

But if the clubs have settled the bill, surely HMRC won’t go after the players?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.lastditchtackle.com/blog/nacho-novo-claims-hmrc-tax-bill-is-just-not-fair


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

But if the clubs have settled the bill, surely HMRC won’t go after the players?




Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkRFC have settled their bill, in that they have been held liable for it. It's irrelevant that only part of it will get paid.

But it seems that HMRC are still likely to pursue the players. So it follows that they will go after players of other clubs.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[tamig]

https://www.lastditchtackle.com/blog/nacho-novo-claims-hmrc-tax-bill-is-just-not-fair


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was going to mention Novo’s claim about not speaking English earlier. Stupid hun plum.

[Ozyhibby]

RFC have settled their bill, in that they have been held liable for it. It's irrelevant that only part of it will get paid.

But it seems that HMRC are still likely to pursue the players. So it follows that they will go after players of other clubs.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

But if their bills have been settled in full? Is it not only because old Rangers have not been able settle their bill that HMRC are coming after them instead?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

But if their bills have been settled in full? Is it not only because old Rangers have not been able settle their bill that HMRC are coming after them instead?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThat's not why HMRC would go after the players. If that were the case, they would be pursuing House of Fraser staff for the company's unpaid PAYE debt.

HMRC will go after the players because they think they have avoided tax. If they do it for Rangers, they will do it for other clubs.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

That's not why HMRC would go after the players. If that were the case, they would be pursuing House of Fraser staff for the company's unpaid PAYE debt.

HMRC will go after the players because they think they have avoided tax. If they do it for Rangers, they will do it for other clubs.


Might not the settlement that Hector has reached with English clubs include those clubs paying the players' contributions as well as the clubs' own contributions (and the players' interest, and the players' penalties)? The clubs might have promised, like Rongers, to take care of any future problems for players.

[CropleyWasGod]

Might not the settlement that Hector has reached with English clubs include those clubs paying the players' contributions as well as the clubs' own contributions (and the players' interest, and the players' penalties)? The clubs might have promised, like Rongers, to take care of any future problems for players.If that's the case, there's precedent set. The RFC recipients can simply say "You did it for them, so do it for us. Go and try to get your money from the liquidator."

It would make sense in some ways. After all, it is PAYE and NIC that HMRC have lost out on.......which is where we were about 5 pages ago [emoji16]



Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

If that's the case, there's precedent set. The RFC recipients can simply say "You did it for them, so do it for us. Go and try to get your money from the liquidator."

In which case Hector can then say "We tried to get it from the liquidator and couldn't. Therefore, we're getting it from you. And don't give me any of that House of Fraser pish - you and your highly paid advisers knew your employers were at it, HoF staff didn't."

[CropleyWasGod]

In which case Hector can then say "We tried to get it from the liquidator and couldn't. Therefore, we're getting it from you. And don't give me any of that House of Fraser pish - you and your highly paid advisers knew your employers were at it, HoF staff didn't."And then we'll be on to Series 9 with another tribunal [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[chinaman]

Of course he would have signed for sevco for £10 a week, he's a clown. :confused:

He sits in amongst that lot while they all sing hate songs about his faith. Perhaps because he sells a few pints to them in his new bar, he has decided to ignore the blatant bigotry because he's nothing to gain from actually standing up and saying its wrong?
or maybe hes just a xxxxwit
like most of sevcos pond life

[lapsedhibee]

And then we'll be on to Series 9 with another tribunal [emoji16]


I look forward most to Hector going after Mrs The Crab, even if that's against current rules.

[CropleyWasGod]

I look forward most to Hector going after Mrs The Crab, even if that's against current rules.Mr The Crab is out of bankruptcy, so he's fair game. [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[O'Rourke3]

Mr The Crab is out of bankruptcy, so he's fair game. [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A520F using TapatalkDoes his previous take him out? I thought declaring bankruptcy cleared existing debt. Could he not claim it had gone with the rest or does Her Majesty have a special rule?

Sent from my KFTBWI using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Does his previous take him out? I thought declaring bankruptcy cleared existing debt. Could he not claim it had gone with the rest or does Her Majesty have a special rule?

Sent from my KFTBWI using Tapatalk

His previous debt will take a while to clear. His bankruptcy stopped the clock on being sued or taking on any more debt.

Now that he's out of it, he can take on more debt.... such as any new action by HMRC.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[O'Rourke3]

His previous debt will take a while to clear. His bankruptcy stopped the clock on being sued or taking on any more debt.

Now that he's out of it, he can take on more debt.... such as any new action by HMRC.

Sent from my SM-A520F using TapatalkExcellent..

Sent from my F8331 using Tapatalk

[Moulin Yarns]

Looks like HMRC are going after loads of others for earning 'loans'


On @BBCBreakfast (https://twitter.com/BBCBreakfast) 0845 Up to 50,000 IT workers, nurses, teachers, face back tax payments to 1999. Some say they will have to sell their homes or go bankrupt. They were partly paid by a loan rather than wages to reduce tax, as advised by accountants and agencies.

[CropleyWasGod]

Looks like HMRC are going after loads of others for earning 'loans'I haven't seen the full report, but I would doubt that nurses and teachers (most of whom are public employees) would be involved. If they are, they've been badly advised.

As for IT workers, many of whom will be paid through personal service companies and hence already paying less tax and NI than they would as employees.... If they're trying to reduce their tax even further..... hell mend 'em [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Prof. Shaggy]

I haven't seen the full report, but I would doubt that nurses and teachers (most of whom are public employees) would be involved. If they are, they've been badly advised.

As for IT workers, many of whom will be paid through personal service companies and hence already paying less tax and NI than they would as employees.... If they're trying to reduce their tax even further..... hell mend 'em [emoji3]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

I don't think there are teachers in Scotland in this position. England, however, is a horse of an altogether different hue...

The nurses might refer to some of the dodgy agencies you hear about.

[Keith_M]

I haven't seen the full report, but I would doubt that nurses and teachers (most of whom are public employees) would be involved. If they are, they've been badly advised.

As for IT workers, many of whom will be paid through personal service companies and hence already paying less tax and NI than they would as employees.... If they're trying to reduce their tax even further..... hell mend 'em [emoji3]



I've mentioned this on here before, but anyway.

I work in IT and went to work in Austria for a couple of years, as a Contractor. The Agency I was working with proposed a Contract whereby roughly 70% of my payment would go through standard channels, with all Taxes and Health Insurance paid, while the rest would be an 'Interest Free Loan', to be paid into a Bank Account in Switzerland.

My immediate thought was that it sounded dodgy as hell, and I said no. "Too good to be true", you might say.

Sounds very much like the scheme used to 'pay' the Rangers Employees, which makes me wonder how it never occurred to any of them that it just didn't sound right.

[Newry Hibs]

I was an IT contractor back in 1999. The 'scam'then was to get paid a low wage and then take a company dividend which was taxed at 10% I think. I didn't hear of anyone taking a loan.

[Hibrandenburg]

I've mentioned this on here before, but anyway.

I work in IT and went to work in Austria for a couple of years, as a Contractor. The Agency I was working with proposed a Contract whereby roughly 70% of my payment would go through standard channels, with all Taxes and Health Insurance paid, while the rest would be an 'Interest Free Loan', to be paid into a Bank Account in Switzerland.

My immediate thought was that it sounded dodgy as hell, and I said no. "Too good to be true", you might say.

Sounds very much like the scheme used to 'pay' the Rangers Employees, which makes me wonder how it never occurred to any of them that it just didn't sound right.

I know a friend of a friend who was working for a UK airline whilst living in the EU. Their taxes were all paid through the UK and deducted on a monthly basis. He used to claim all his taxes back at the end of the year on the basis of non residence. Due to the badly worded double taxation agreement between the UK and his country of residence the tax authorities there couldn't touch him because the agreement basically said that someone paying tax in another EU nation couldn't be taxed again in another. They closed the loophole back in 2009 and tried to get the money taxed retrospectively but that would be like trying to fine someone for doing 30 in a 30 zone before changing it to 20. Luckily my friend's friend kept all the money he'd received in rebates until after the courts decided in his/their favour, a lot of his colleagues who had spent all their money were sweating for a while. Unfortunately his wife made him spend that money on a nice wee house instead of the 12m yacht he'd had his eye on.

[Mcpakeisgod]

I was an IT contractor back in 1999. The 'scam'then was to get paid a low wage and then take a company dividend which was taxed at 10% I think. I didn't hear of anyone taking a loan.

Heehaw wrong with that !

[jacomo]

I was an IT contractor back in 1999. The 'scam'then was to get paid a low wage and then take a company dividend which was taxed at 10% I think. I didn't hear of anyone taking a loan.


I think this was a similar arrangement that many NHS agency workers took in the 1990s / early 2000s.

Since tightened up, but rather different to the EBTs. No ‘side letters’ and no pretend loans.

[CropleyWasGod]

I was an IT contractor back in 1999. The 'scam'then was to get paid a low wage and then take a company dividend which was taxed at 10% I think. I didn't hear of anyone taking a loan.That's not a scam.

It's quite acceptable to do that, although the tax on dividends has been amended in recent years to bring in more revenue.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Newry Hibs]

That's not a scam.

It's quite acceptable to do that, although the tax on dividends has been amended in recent years to bring in more revenue.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

IR35 came in to say earnings should be treated as an employee as I suspect 99% of people only worked for one company at the same desk. Although I benefited from dividends, it was just a way of avoiding tax.

[CropleyWasGod]

IR35 came in to say earnings should be treated as an employee as I suspect 99% of people only worked for one company at the same desk. Although I benefited from dividends, it was just a way of avoiding tax.Ir35 was a way of recouping National Insurance rather than tax.

I say "was" as, although it still exists, it is largely a dead duck. I haven't known of a single contractor who has been challenged on their IR35 status in over 10 years. The recent changes to the taxation of dividends have made it virtually redundant.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[ScottB]

Dividends are now £2k tax free, then 7%, then 33% above £30-£40k ish I think.

Wasn’t that long ago that it was £40k tax free mind you!

[Ozyhibby]

Sevco buying their own kit from the markets in Turkey?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180922/18be208fdcd7e7d186058c6e4b30e939.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibby70]

Sevco buying their own kit from the markets in Turkey?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180922/18be208fdcd7e7d186058c6e4b30e939.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Villareal should be awarded a 3-0 win

[Keith_M]

I know a friend of a friend who was working for a UK airline whilst living in the EU. Their taxes were all paid through the UK and deducted on a monthly basis. He used to claim all his taxes back at the end of the year on the basis of non residence. Due to the badly worded double taxation agreement between the UK and his country of residence the tax authorities there couldn't touch him because the agreement basically said that someone paying tax in another EU nation couldn't be taxed again in another. They closed the loophole back in 2009 and tried to get the money taxed retrospectively but that would be like trying to fine someone for doing 30 in a 30 zone before changing it to 20. Luckily my friend's friend kept all the money he'd received in rebates until after the courts decided in his/their favour, a lot of his colleagues who had spent all their money were sweating for a while. Unfortunately his wife made him spend that money on a nice wee house instead of the 12m yacht he'd had his eye on.



Did this "friend of a friend" buy a house in Brandenburg, by any chance?

[Hibrandenburg]

Did this "friend of a friend" buy a house in Brandenburg, by any chance?

Funnily enough he did. 4 years to the day today. :greengrin

In his defence he did lead the way to force his company to issue local contracts insuring the treasury there profits to the sum of around €20 million a year.

[Future17]

I know a friend of a friend who was working for a UK airline whilst living in the EU. Their taxes were all paid through the UK and deducted on a monthly basis. He used to claim all his taxes back at the end of the year on the basis of non residence. Due to the badly worded double taxation agreement between the UK and his country of residence the tax authorities there couldn't touch him because the agreement basically said that someone paying tax in another EU nation couldn't be taxed again in another. They closed the loophole back in 2009 and tried to get the money taxed retrospectively but that would be like trying to fine someone for doing 30 in a 30 zone before changing it to 20. Luckily my friend's friend kept all the money he'd received in rebates until after the courts decided in his/their favour, a lot of his colleagues who had spent all their money were sweating for a while. Unfortunately his wife made him spend that money on a nice wee house instead of the 12m yacht he'd had his eye on.

12 million? That's some amount of tax! :-)

[Smartie]

Sevco buying their own kit from the markets in Turkey?
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180922/18be208fdcd7e7d186058c6e4b30e939.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm obviously being really dim here, but what exactly is wrong with that kit?

[Keith_M]

This thread has being ongoing for six years, seven months and nine days.

It has over forty two thousand posts, and more than six million, three hundred thousand views... so far.


Is this a world record for a football related thread, on one club's forum where the theme is a completely different club?*



* Or two clubs depending on your point of view

[Keith_M]

I'm obviously being really dim here, but what exactly is wrong with that kit?


Which colour of stripe is on top on his shirt, and which colour on the rest of them?

[grunt]

I'm obviously being really dim here, but what exactly is wrong with that kit?

Look at the order of the colours in the “sash”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This thread has being ongoing for six years, seven months and nine days.

It has over forty two thousand posts, and more than six million, three hundred thousand views... so far.


Is this a world record for a football related thread, on one club's forum where the theme is a completely different club?*



* Or two clubs depending on your point of view

Nope, the yam one on this subject on Kickback is bigger


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fuzzywuzzy]

Nope, the yam one on this subject on Kickback is bigger


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pie and bovril 203,000 replies and nearly 14,000,000 views of the topic

[Keith_M]

Nope, the yam one on this subject on Kickback is bigger


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Honestly? They just have to prove they're so much bigger than us!


:greengrin



Pie and bovril 203,000 replies and nearly 14,000,000 views of the topic

TBF, that's not actually a website of a single club.

[Lendo]

Look at the order of the colours in the “sash”.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

How the **** is that even possible.

[Keith_M]

How the **** is that even possible.


He wasn't wearing the same strip as his team-mates, so the other side should be awarded all three points.


Or the picture was actually photo-shopped :wink:

[Ozyhibby]

He wasn't wearing the same strip as his team-mates, so the other side should be awarded all three points.


Or the picture was actually photo-shopped :wink:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180922/8f5dd8a3d1d4e53db3c15f9d36917f6e.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[superfurryhibby]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-old-billy-boys-club/#more-105951

Nice wee article which doesn’t pull punches when identifying corruption.

[Prof. Shaggy]

He wasn't wearing the same strip as his team-mates, so the other side should be awarded all three points.


Or the picture was actually photo-shopped :wink:

So, they get away with fiddling their accounts to several league championships, various cup wins, progress in European competition, including reaching the final of the UEFA Cup - but the same authorities are going to get excited by a stripe on a top?

Could happen....!

[Deansy]

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-old-billy-boys-club/#more-105951

Nice wee article which doesn’t pull punches when identifying corruption.


'In issuing angry (https://twitter.com/susaninlangside/status/1035873409127903232) allegations of bias around the issue, the club has strenuously rejected the claim that it’s seeking to stoke sectarianism by pandering to the prejudices of the large Loyalist-bigot element (https://twitter.com/snpdavid/status/1035914225946902533) of its support'


The neck of the Hun, denying using a tatic that everyone knows has their stench/DNA all over it !. In my dreams/fantasy-world they get permanently closed down for continuously and deliberately causing social unrest by stoking sectarian fires - all to get their own way like a spoiled-brat who stamps his feet in a tantrum!

[Keith_M]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180922/8f5dd8a3d1d4e53db3c15f9d36917f6e.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Right, that's enough evidence, somebody report it to UEFA and get the the result overturned.


3-0 to Villareal

[Pescarese]

You could read CWG's notes another way. They constantly remind us that we have a society where the legislation and the legal system itself ensures that everything works in the favour of the rich and powerful. Who was it who said 'the rich get the law and the poor get prison'?

Looks like Dave King is one of the poor and not keen on prison food.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-chairman-dave-king-fights-against-contempt-of-court-bid-1-4809249

[brog]

Looks like Dave King is one of the poor and not keen on prison food.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-chairman-dave-king-fights-against-contempt-of-court-bid-1-4809249


I believe King lost his attempt to halt proceedings by the TAB & will be back in court late November. I've only been told this & really surprisingly, nothing in MSM Hopefully someone can confirm.

[Springbank]

I believe King lost his attempt to halt proceedings by the TAB & will be back in court late November. I've only been told this & really surprisingly, nothing in MMS. Hopefully someone can confirm.

what you say here is what is being "reported" on the John James Site today

[brog]

what you say here is what is being "reported" on the John James Site today

Thanks, that's probably where he got it from.

[Ozyhibby]

https://amp.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/rangers-and-sports-direct-back-at-high-court-over-merchandise-deal-874927.html?__twitter_impression=true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/10/10/dave-scores-a-legal-own-goal/#more-12416


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/10/10/dave-scores-a-legal-own-goal/#more-12416


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk"My information is that the case will be back in Court in November".

That's because that's when the judge set it for. [emoji1782]

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[ancient hibee]

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/10/10/dave-scores-a-legal-own-goal/#more-12416


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pompous ass regurgitates public knowledge as inside info.

[Keith_M]

"My information is that the case will be back in Court in November".

That's because that's when the judge set it for. [emoji1782]




Straight from the horse's mouth!

[Ozyhibby]

https://stv.tv/amp/1431764-rangers-in-fresh-row-with-sports-direct-owner-ashley/?__twitter_impression=true


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://stv.tv/amp/1432153-rangers-lose-merchandise-deal-with-sports-direct/?__twitter_impression=true

Sevco racking up the court losses now. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

A Summary if what happened was posted on SFM.



Requests for two injunctions were granted, unchanged, by the court:

i) "an injunction that until the further agreement between rangers and sdir arising pursuant to sdir's exercise of its matching right under paragraph 5.7 of schedule 3 to the agreement on 25 july 2018 is in effect, and recognised by both parties as being so in effect, rangers shall not approach, solicit, tender for, negotiate with or enter into any agreement with any third party in respect of any of the offered rights (for the avoidance of doubt, whether on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis)."

ii) "an injunction that until 31 july 2020 if rangers receives an offer from a third party ("third party offer") to enter into an agreement with rangers for any of the offered rights or all or any combination of the offered rights (for the avoidance of doubt, whether the offered rights are offered on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis), rangers shall provide sdir with written notice ("notice of offer") of the terms of the third party offer (and a copy of any written third party offer that is not subject to restrictions on its disclosure) within 5 days of receipt by rangers of the third party offer, and rangers shall not enter into any agreement with the said third party without first going through the matching right provisions under paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the agreement."
A third injunction was granted on an amended basis:

"rangers shall:
(1) not perform the elite agreement;
(2) not assist elite to perform the elite agreement; and
(3) inform elite that it will not perform the elite agreement."


It reads that Rangers have lost on all counts and will face a further claim for damages at a later date.

Judgement is here:-

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2018/2772.html




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

So Sevco have been hit with a £427k legal bill and pay damages that have still to be decided. That’s on top of the £500k legal bill from a couple of months back.
And they have to stop selling shirts again.
I’m beginning to like Mike Ashley.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

Ashley really has sent the legal the dogs of war after Sevco....... :greengrin :aok:

[Hibs4185]

But they were selling shirts last month from JD sports and their own website? I’m sure king will hope by breaking the law and selling them, the money they’ve made illegally will pay the legal fees!

Hopefully big mike hits them for lost sales totalling millions!

[Winston Ingram]

How amateur are Sevco.

The agreement was water tight and they still ignored it and then fought it in the courts racking up £000's on a fight they were never winning.

[Ozyhibby]

But they were selling shirts last month from JD sports and their own website? I’m sure king will hope by breaking the law and selling them, the money they’ve made illegally will pay the legal fees!

Hopefully big mike hits them for lost sales totalling millions!

That’s what this case was about. Damages are still to be set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Billy Whizz]

That’s what this case was about. Damages are still to be set.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What was the deal worth in the 1st place to The Rangers

[Ozyhibby]

What was the deal worth in the 1st place to The Rangers

Not sure. I’m sure if you read the Daily Record the day it was announced it was likely gazillions but the reality was probably a lot less. It will be affecting their deal with Hummel as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BILLYHIBS]

So Sevco have been hit with a £427k legal bill and pay damages that have still to be decided. That’s on top of the £500k legal bill from a couple of months back.
And they have to stop selling shirts again.
I’m beginning to like Mike Ashley.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Aw! Ah wiz wantin a new orange wan? Ah will just have to wait until Wee Billy goes tae Thailand noo!
By the way! :greengrin