Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Crooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord bunberry

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBHibees

Think Super Barry already has.

---

He's been discharged from bankruptcy now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston Ingram

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

---

Too late they can recover them too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jacomo

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazyhorse

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeeKay

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Those were built into the settlement figure that HMRC were pursuing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seveno

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HIGHLANDLEITHER

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HIGHLANDLEITHER

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.