Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greenfly

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smartie

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancient hibee

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancient hibee

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby

The most annoying thing about this is the Oxford comma.

---

:greengrin:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancient hibee

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancient hibee

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancient hibee

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by majorhibs

When WHO died?

---

Ian Ferguson

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancient hibee

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liberal Hibby

The most annoying thing about this is the Oxford comma.

---

Oxford commas RULE!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jack

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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

---

There'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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

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