Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The EBT was a system where they pretended that part of their salary was a loan, thereby not taxable.That means they paid no tax at all on that part of their 'salary'.
So I can't see where you're getting the 'paying it twice' from..
Thanks, just couldn’t see it on their website/twitter accountQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
See they’ve been linked with Jordan Rhodes today, he’ll not come cheap, either as a transfer or a loan
Would mean ta ta to JC if he was to come in
If an employer operates a PAYE scheme wrongly, eg illegally, they normally have to pick up the tab. Which is what they did in this case, albeit HMRC got nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
So the employer in this case picked up the tab but paid nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
So they didn't pay, so haven't been taxed on those earnings, therefore being taxed twice doesn't even come into it.
If somebody had falsified their tax returns, leaving out a large chunk of their income, they couldn't then use the defense that they'd already already paid the tax on what they had declared.
I don't see this as being any different... but then I'm not an Accountant ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
I think that this is about the new disguised remuneration rules (could be wrong) but if so....
1 Employer is in charge of deducting and remitting PAYE to HMRC.
2 Let's say that your employer hasn't been paying it over - well that's hardly your fault and if your employer goes bankrupt HMRC aren't going to knock on your door since you already had it deducted from your wages. If they did, you would end up effectively paying twice. (so PAYE is different from self employed income for example)
3 Companies large and small have been taking the piss a bit with loans and not paying their fair share to HMRC (which is to say hospitals, police, libraries, etc).
4 HMRC decide that since they won't tax someone (either employer or employee) twice and since they can't introduce legislation retrospectively, they will introduce new legislation only to take effect (I think) from April 2019 and will not charge tax on income, but on the outstanding value of the loan at that date.
5 Is it retrospective? Nope - only comes in in 2019. Is it charging tax on the same income twice? Nope. And if you don't like it, simply repay the loan and don't pay any tax. It was a loan after all, wasn't it? It's not like you never ever planned on paying it back, surely?
Disclaimer - this is far from my area of expertise so I could be talking nonsense. Sure someone else will confirm.
My previous post was a bit rushed.....apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
Let's take Billy Dodds.
He has an income of £x, in his hand, from RFC. RFC say it's a loan, so there's no tax implications.
HMRC come along and say.... actually, it's not a loan, it's salary. £x in your hand is equivalent to £y gross. So we want all the PAYE, Employees and Employers NI on the salary of £y. The Courts back them up, and RFC are billed for the PAYE & NI. It's irrelevant that RFC don't actually pay it ( as explained above)
Turning back to Dodds, if his only income is from RFC, then there's nothing further to do. He has the correct net income. However, if he has other income, the likelihood is that that income has been taxed at the wrong rate. That has to be addressed, and he has to pay whatever is required.
I haven't seen any of the new Accelerated Payment Notices which have (allegedly) been issued. If they are for the additional tax due on other income (as above), I'd have no problem with them. However, if this is HMRC trying to tax BD on income that RFC have already been assessed on, that goes against so much precedent, and probably Case Law. In that event, expect lots of challenges.
If HMRC go after the players for the EBT portion of the tax and the players have a letter from the old rangers saying dinny worry about it then the players have a football debt due from old rangers and sevco will be responsible for it?
Yes/No/Nothing is that simple*
* Delete as appropriate.
Square go between Dave King and the Oldco liquidator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Does that need a statement first? Not had one for a couple of hours now.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Didn't Charles Green have a clause in his contract stating that oldco/Sevco would pay any and all legal fees he incurred? IIRC that got flung out in court so likely not a stick on that the EBT mob would be in the clear?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
Wow - everything you need to know about a club and its fans succinctly summed-up in just one tattoo !Quote:
Originally Posted by hibees 7062
That's a f****n' stoater :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by hibees 7062
:faf: A bead-rattling tattoo artist having some fun there.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibees 7062
I'm no accountant and only pick up on what I read in the business sections but is this new aggressive attitude not on individuals who set themselves up as Ltd companies and regarded themselves as self employed ? In this way they "avoided" employee and employers NIC. If found by HMRC to have been employees they will get credit for tax paid through their tax returns but their companies ie them will be due to pay the NIC ?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
For RFC employees who were on the books the employers due to pay any tax and NI they omitted to pay for their employees. In event of employer being liquidated HMRC has to chase liquidator for monies ?
Far from an expert so happy to know if I'm way off track.
Another squirrel
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...9fafa748e2.jpg
From Superscoreboard’s Twitter feed
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...7de749bb26.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Government's attitude towards one-person "contracting" companies has hardened in recent years. Changes to the dividend regime have made it less attractive to go down that route than it once was.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brizo
The new Accelerated Payment Notice approach is (thankfully) not something I have had much experience of, but it seems to be more about targeting beneficiaries of tax-avoidance schemes where no-one (payer or payee) seems to pick up the tab.
That's well overdue, of course, but I can't help thinking that (as ever) HMRC are fighting with a sling against a nuke.
I'm well out of that ****...thankfully... but it rips my knitting when I get wee traders saying to me " but if Rangers can do it, why can't I?".
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...4936ce790e.jpg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They now being linked wi Zidane (As a player again)Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Is it not about time sevco were called up to answer a charge of bringing the game into disrepute?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Ozy/Crops, whats the date that the European license needs to be approved by? And if it was to be refused, would Kilmarnock take their place😁
The SFA have already approved it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
I presume that, if UEFA have an issue, it would have to be sorted by the date of the draw.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
Phil Mac wrote this today and according to this today is the final date for licensing. Does Sir Glib know something we don't? Even by his standards his behaviour has been odd this week.....Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
TodayQuote:
Originally Posted by Billy Whizz
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link missing?Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboHarry
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/0...tement-oclock/Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lee Wallace been fined 4 weeks wages for the dressing roombust up at Hampden. This is the max a club can find a player
Miller also fined