Sums up the last few pages rather well.Quote:
Originally Posted by malcolm
Printable View
Sums up the last few pages rather well.Quote:
Originally Posted by malcolm
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...cQmC1RZXrdG.97
According to the Weegie rag, Hector is going after tax on the EBT money.
I won't hold my breath for any results.
It's the only logical thing to do. There was never any intention of repayment so these sums aren't loans but lump sum payments and are therefore taxable.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
If HMRC go after the players and the players have a letter from the club promising to cover any liability and Rangers don't then is that not a football debt and a remuneration default?
The players deal is with the club?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My take on the latest headline.
When an employer is in default of PAYE regulations, it's the employer's responsibility to cough up the tax etc. That holds, even where the employee has gained. In RFC's case, the current position (albeit, to be challenged once more) is that they are liable for everything.
That said, if HMRC can prove that there was collusion between employer and employee, then the recipients have a problem.
IMO, though, the stuff about new regulations coming in is irrelevant. That can only apply to new cases, and not ones that existed previously.
If some of the EBT benefitting players are landed with a tax bill and they have a letter from the Club ( Oldco Rangers ) promising to cover their liabilities then , because of the football creditors rule and the 5-way agreement promising that Newco Rangers would cover the Oldco football creditors , it could just be that some bills arrive at the door of Rangers 2012 formerly known as Sevco Ltd.
We can but hope ! :agree:
There's so many "if's" in that scenario....:greengrin... it would take years to sort out, probably through the Courts. Again.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Be interesting to see all the leg ends of the now defunct Glasgow rangers running to the new team to get them to indemnify them and the new team to say we can't because we're not that team any more. [emoji1]Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Maybe, but could cause problems for the new entity in a shorter time scale.
Player gets notice of tax due from HMRC.
Player digs out letter of indemnity from Oldco and informs SFA/SPFL he considers himself a football creditor to be reimbursed by Newco Rangers.
Accountants have to put a note of contingent liability and Going Concern warning on end of year accounts.
This could result in refusal of UEFA License. Result, much nashing of teeth and burning of effigies of former heroes down Govan way.
Brilliant :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Someone mentioned John Grisham earlier. I think this saga is more Dostoevsky. Crime and (some) Punishment.
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...5a3660201b.jpg
Does indeed say that the club will indemnify the player.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wow, is that one of the sneaky side letters?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Cheating barstewards.:cb
Here's £2.8m. Oh and by the way, this is not an inducement to sign a contract.
Right.
Seems a bit sneaky of George Osborne to turn all this money into football debts that have to be paid. [emoji3]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ooer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Where'd you get that from, Oz?
Reason I ask is that I've seen a few instances of fake documents being spread about on Twitter etc.
Bloody hell, the "hordes" are going to love Flo, aren't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
How much did he rinse them for in terms of transfer fee, wages etc when he "played" for them?
Now he's providing the written evidence that could bring the whole house down?
Ouch. I guess that's what they refer to as an "enemy of Rangers".
£1.9m for Flo alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
And that's just the tax. Penalties and interest would be added on top.
However, we should calm our jets. I'm still not sure that the guy in the Record has it right.
It was released by Charlotte Fakes which have now been passed as admissible in court, so good chance it's genuine.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Trying to find link for it now.
The "Club" indemnifies, not the "company that owns the club". :wink:
Hoist them with their own petard. :cb
(Sometimes it's a pity it's all just made up rubbish. :rolleyes:)
Shirley they can just get LNS back in to make it all go away, no?
https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/...il.html?id=320
10. Rangers had benefited in terms of player recruitment from the adoption of a scheme designed to minimise the payment of tax. The Court of Session had subsequently found the club was not entitled to operate this scheme lawfully without paying the higher rate of tax due. The Committee noted the arguments put forward by the complainant, including the opinion of a QC specialising in tax law. However, the article in question was a broad-ranging opinion piece on Scottish football, not a technical legal analysis of the Court of Session’s decision. The article did not say that the activities of Rangers were criminal or fraudulent in nature; it said that the club had gained an advantage from the use of Employee Benefit Trusts which was described variously as “illegal” and “unlawful”. In that sense, the term “illegal” was not inaccurate; there was no breach of Clause 1.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com...-ending-story/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Penalties as high as 100% and 4% interest per annum being quoted?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
3% is the official HMRC interest rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Penalties can be 100%, yeah :greengrin
Had some more thoughts about this.
Not sure that it's quite the killer that we thought it might be.
If RFC Oldco lose the BTC, they will be held liable for all the tax and NI that should have been deducted from the recipients. It's irrelevant that HMRC can't be paid all of it; they will just join the queue of creditors.
Turning to the recipients.... they will then be assessed to tax for all of the income that they should have declared in each of the years affected. That will include "normal" salaries, private income and the EBT's. Their tax bill will be calculated on that basis, BUT they will receive credit for the tax that RFC Oldco should have deducted. In some cases, the recipient will have additional tax to pay (plus interest and penalties, as mentioned), but in others there may be nothing further to pay as everything has already been dealt with by way of PAYE and/or RFC's share of the EBT tax.
And, if RFC win the BTC.... they're in the clear, and I think the recipients would be also.
I've always enjoyed his blog posts. That one is a classic. It should be reproduced by every SPFL club in match programmes until the issue is dealt with by the authorities. And until the authorities themselves are dealt with. IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
It's the clubs that are blocking the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Love this line:-Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
In the spleen venting and venom spitting that accompanied Rangers’ collapse, anger and rage has been sprayed in every direction except where it properly belongs.
Indeed. Confusing, isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...b31a370da1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod