Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

From what I've read it summarises as club in the clear, individuals liable and possibly to be pursued. So it's still guilty, as the tax should have been paid, albeit the individuals responsibility to repay the loan or pay the tax.

For the period it was used an unfair advantage was still gained through it's use though.

---

Not how I read it, GG. It does say that the assessments have to be reduced substantially... not removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevie Reid

Can we speculate on what may happen with regards to the Hearts case based on this verdict? I appreciate that Hearts didn't use EBTs.

---

Naw :greengrin

HMRC on Rangers tax case

"We are disappointed that we have lost this stage of the court process and we are considering an appeal."

Good-oh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Naw :greengrin

---

:greengrin

Does this mean that they can't be considered to have used dual contracts by the SPL?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevie Reid

Does this mean that they can't be considered to have used dual contracts by the SPL?

---

That's my question - even though the EBTs were loans and not payments, did Rangers still use dual contracts and therefore illegally register players or does this even matter any more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevie Reid

Does this mean that they can't be considered to have used dual contracts by the SPL?

---

That's not clear.

The Tribunal say that there are some payments that are liable to PAYE & NI. Unfortunately, though, it's not clear who received those payments.

That will have to be clarified before the SPL can go any further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YehButNo But

On STV news just now that Green intends to impose a stringent wage cap at Rangers so that Rangers wages will never be more than 33% of their turnover.

Much lower than current SPL clubs which is around 61% (apart from Hearts that is who are around 120%).

This would obviously mean little or no chance of glamour signings in the future.

He has said that the players and staff can forget about "crazy" wages in the future.

---

charles greene kills me he really does, the boy that just couldn't stop lying, comical charlie

:fibber:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's bloody hard going.

At first sight, this is the most significant paragraph:-

Accordingly, the assessments made fall to be reduced substantially. It was
conceded that advances in favour of certain players are taxable and liable to NIC, and
35 we have found that in certain other limited instances, there may be a similar liability.
To that extent the assessments should stand. In these circumstances we expect that it
is sufficient that we allow the Appeal in principle

That suggests that some of the payments from the EBT are indeed taxable. Given the curious way of naming the witnesses, one can't tell who got what, and what is taxable. That may be significant when the SPL make their decision.

For the most part, though, it looks as if the payments have been treated as loans. That means they are recoverable. I am not sure, though, whether that is recoverable by the Trust(s), or by the company. If the latter, that will have a positive effect on the dividend to creditors.

However, the recovery of the loans is not straightforward, IMO. Given that we are talking about some foreign-based players, as well as events that happened some years ago, there will be resistance. Expect long Court cases.

---

Good luck getting Billy Dodds to pay up.

:greengrin

Glamour signings in Scottish division three was never feasible any way!

Edited: due to reading more. Titles still to be stripped fae oldco.

Suppose the good thing is that no-one would touch Rangers whilst the Big Tax Case was outstanding. There is every likelihood that they could have been saved rather than sold to Whytie. Shame eh! :faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby

Not a good result for justice and fair play. You can bet the ex Rangers FC 1872-2012 (rip) players and office bearers won't have to pay back the loans and will have clauses inserted in their dodgy deals, and the dual contracts will be shelved.

---

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

If they had such clauses in the loan agreements, then they wouldn't be classed as loans. That is what the FTT has been deliberating this past two years.

Whatever happens, Scottish football has permanently been disfigured by this episode.

Gutted is the wrong adjective but safe to say that it's going to be hard to stomach the club and their fans for the forseeable future.

A potentially significant section?:

Quote:

---

161. Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL. The spirit of their rules was that the whole contract terms should be registered. Suspiciously, no evidence was led as to who decided that the benefits in terms of the side-letters should not be registered. Non-registration of side-letters was
40 incompatible with both authorities’ policing and disciplinary powers. For example any fines imposed on players would customarily reflect the disclosed wage. Non- disclosure would thwart the authorities’ powers.
162. Mr Grey had indicated correctly that payments from promotional and other
commercial bodies need not be registered, but the side-letter payments, Mr Thomson 45 argued, were not from such a third party but from the Club and for playing football.
38
The Rules required the widest declaration of benefits, he submitted. It seemed that Mr Grey was unaware of the trust being used for “appearance money”, he observed.
163. On any view, Mr Thomson argued, Rangers could have sought a ruling from
the SFA or SPL about disclosure of side-letters but, clearly, they had chosen not to do 5 so. There was a conscious decision to conceal their existence, and that extended even to the Club’s auditors. The nature and arrangements under the Remuneration Trust had not been disclosed in full to the auditors. In the “key issues document” for 2004 they indicate that they have not reviewed the Trust’s operation and receipts in detail. Mr Thomson noted in particular payments made relating to Mr Purple’s contract in 10 relation to disclosure. Significantly, while Rangers granted numerous indemnities in respect of players’ potential tax liabilities, these documents did not refer expressly to
side-letters, Mr Thomson added.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

A potentially significant section?:

---

Could be very damaging, if they are talking about payments that were ultimately deemed to be earnings rather than loans.

Given what was in public I'm surprised by the verdict. Could we see court cases where HMRC try to recover 100% of loans from ex-players while these ex-players argue that the EBT money was contractual despite the FTTT verdict so only liable to 40% tax?

I had a brief look at a few pages on RM. The usual triumphalism and vitriol. Predictably lacking was any sign of concern about their former heroes who're likely to find very large tax demands in the mail some day. Perhaps Sportsound will ask Billy Dodds when he plans to repay his loan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

Given what was in public I'm surprised by the verdict. Could we see court cases where HMRC try to recover 100% of loans from ex-players while these ex-players argue that the EBT money was contractual despite the FTTT verdict so only liable to 40% tax?

I had a brief look at a few pages on RM. The usual triumphalism and vitriol. Predictably lacking was any sign of concern about their former heroes who're likely to find very large tax demands in the mail some day. Perhaps Sportsound will ask Billy Dodds when he plans to repay his loan.

---

It's not up to HMRC to try and recover the loans. The loans were from the trust(s), and so the Trustees will have to do it.

Good luck with that, though :greengrin.... there will, as you say, be many Court cases.

You raise an interesting point about the 100% vs 40%. Indeed, if the recipients claim the latter, they might be liable for interest and penalties on the tax that should have been paid years ago...... :cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's not up to HMRC to try and recover the loans. The loans were from the trust(s), and so the Trustees will have to do it.

---

Is the trust a part of the liquidated company? If not, can the trustees simply continue the present arrangement that no money will be recovered during the recipient's lifetime? What could HMRC do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

Is the trust a part of the liquidated company? If not, can the trustees simply continue the present arrangement that no money will be recovered during the recipient's lifetime? What could HMRC do?

---

The trust is separate.

This is where my lack of Trust tax law shows its ugly head. I know that, in a Limited Company situation, where a loan to a "participator" is written off or remains unpaid for more than 9 months, HMRC deem that to be a taxable advance. They then recover the tax from the company.

I don't know if that applies in a Trust situation, though. Indeed, it's likely that the Trust(s) won't have any cash anyway, so it would be a futile exercise. Having said that, they were never going to get much cash out of OldHun anyway; it was more about the principle.

HMRC have the option of an appeal, of course. I think they will consider that as their first step. If that fails, you may see them issuing tax assessments on all of those who haven't repaid the loans. That would twist Dodds' melon :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moff1875

Whatever happens, Scottish football has permanently been disfigured by this episode.

Gutted is the wrong adjective but safe to say that it's going to be hard to stomach the club and their fans for the forseeable future.

---

I'm not sure why you're gutted (or whatever adjective you decide to use) . It was never going to affect the new club. Any feeling of triumphalism amongst the hordes is misguided and, indeed, may be short-lived. The double-contracts have still to be investigated, and that was always going to be more important for the new club.

CWG, if the trust doesn't call in the loan will the loan need to be repaid upon death and be counted in their assets and liabilities?

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that the BTC figure was used in the liabilities total that gave HMRC 75%+ of the total debt and used it to force them into liquidation?

:faf:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not sure why you're gutted (or whatever adjective you decide to use) . It was never going to affect the new club. Any feeling of triumphalism amongst the hordes is misguided and, indeed, may be short-lived. The double-contracts have still to be investigated, and that was always going to be more important for the new club.

---

Yep fully aware that the contract issue remains.

Gutted (or whatever) because I've been sparring in online debates with a current bun mate of mine since this kicked off! If the joy is short lived, tomorrow is a new day haha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VickMackie

Am I the only one who finds it hilarious that the BTC figure was used in the liabilities total that gave HMRC 75%+ of the total debt and used it to force them into liquidation?

:faf:

---

I think that the small tax case and the withheld PAYE and VAT gave HMRC the 25% they needed to block the cva regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

I think that the small tax case and the withheld PAYE and VAT gave HMRC the 25% they needed to block the cva regardless.

---

Aw well. Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Suppose the good thing is that no-one would touch Rangers whilst the Big Tax Case was outstanding. There is every likelihood that they could have been saved rather than sold to Whytie. Shame eh! :faf:

---

****in hilarious by my reckoning :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The trust is separate.

This is where my lack of Trust tax law shows its ugly head. I know that, in a Limited Company situation, where a loan to a "participator" is written off or remains unpaid for more than 9 months, HMRC deem that to be a taxable advance. They then recover the tax from the company.

I don't know if that applies in a Trust situation, though. Indeed, it's likely that the Trust(s) won't have any cash anyway, so it would be a futile exercise. Having said that, they were never going to get much cash out of OldHun anyway; it was more about the principle.

HMRC have the option of an appeal, of course. I think they will consider that as their first step. If that fails, you may see them issuing tax assessments on all of those who haven't repaid the loans. That would twist Dodds' melon :greengrin

---

Neil Patey of Ernst & Young on Sportsound just now has given an opinion that there's no way for HMRC to get anything out of the trust or people it's shelled out to. Dodds is safe:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

Neil Patey of Ernst & Young on Sportsound just now has given an opinion that there's no way for HMRC to get anything out of the trust or people it's shelled out to. Dodds is safe:confused:

---

Same Neil Patey who said that HMRC would vote for the CVA proposal.

:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I'm not sure why you're gutted (or whatever adjective you decide to use) . It was never going to affect the new club. Any feeling of triumphalism amongst the hordes is misguided and, indeed, may be short-lived. The double-contracts have still to be investigated, and that was always going to be more important for the new club.

---

I think that the dual contract situation is now a given. If the tax authorities have determined that EBT payments were loans then these payments can hardly be considered by the SPL to be a contractual payment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

I think that the dual contract situation is now a given. If the tax authorities have determined that EBT payments were loans then these payments can hardly be considered by the SPL to be a contractual payment.

---

They didn't determine that they were all loans. Some were deemed to be taxable . It's not clear which these are....and that will be important for the SPL .

See also JMS post above

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

Neil Patey of Ernst & Young on Sportsound just now has given an opinion that there's no way for HMRC to get anything out of the trust or people it's shelled out to. Dodds is safe:confused:

---

Surely the liquidators will take an interest in this trust and it's 'loans'.:confused:

This bit 100% confirms the illegal, from a football association point of view, side letters. So they are still going to be stripped, oldco that is, of the tainted titles. :agree:




Rangers Tax Result Para 161 p38:

Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL. The spirit of their rules was that the whole contract terms should be registered. Suspiciously, no evidence was led as to who decided that the benefits in terms of the side-letters should not be registered. Non-registration of side-letters was incompatible with both authorities’ policing and disciplinary powers. For example any fines imposed on players would customarily reflect the disclosed wage. Non- disclosure would thwart the authorities’ powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby

This bit 100% confirms the illegal, from a football association point of view, side letters. So they are still going to be stripped, oldco that is, of the tainted titles. :agree:


Rangers Tax Result Para 161 p38:

Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL. The spirit of their rules was that the whole contract terms should be registered. Suspiciously, no evidence was led as to who decided that the benefits in terms of the side-letters should not be registered. Non-registration of side-letters was incompatible with both authorities’ policing and disciplinary powers. For example any fines imposed on players would customarily reflect the disclosed wage. Non- disclosure would thwart the authorities’ powers.

---

:agree:

Nae luck zombies!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby

This bit 100% confirms the illegal, from a football association point of view, side letters. So they are still going to be stripped, oldco that is, of the tainted titles. :agree:




Rangers Tax Result Para 161 p38:

Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL. The spirit of their rules was that the whole contract terms should be registered. Suspiciously, no evidence was led as to who decided that the benefits in terms of the side-letters should not be registered. Non-registration of side-letters was incompatible with both authorities’ policing and disciplinary powers. For example any fines imposed on players would customarily reflect the disclosed wage. Non- disclosure would thwart the authorities’ powers.

---

Whilst I agree with you, playing devils advocate here - this ruling does not give any obligation to the SPL's ruling. I would strongly suspect that they would (as they said) be taking the lead from this, but Doncaster is a slimey little basturd.

Is it worth remembering what happened with John Terry?

Although cleared in a court of law, he was still banned by the FA. Could the SPL take a similar approach and say that there is enough evidence for a conviction under their rules regarding dual contracts even if no tax is due?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuanH78

Whilst I agree with you, playing devils advocate here - this ruling does not give any obligation to the SPL's ruling. I would strongly suspect that they would (as they said) be taking the lead from this, but Doncaster is a slimey little basturd.

---

I wouldn't put anything past zombie helpers Regan or Doncaster, you are correct, but it isn't their call. It's meant to be an independent tribunal. Surely they have to get on with it and apply the sanctions on oldco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

Is it worth remembering what happened with John Terry?

Although cleared in a court of law, he was still banned by the FA. Could the SPL take a similar approach and say that there is enough evidence for a conviction under their rules regarding dual contracts even if no tax is due?

---

Let us hope so. But of course McCoist, Green etc will demand to know the names of the people who make this decision so that their loyal(ist) fans can terrorise them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby

This bit 100% confirms the illegal, from a football association point of view, side letters. So they are still going to be stripped, oldco that is, of the tainted titles. :agree:




Rangers Tax Result Para 161 p38:

Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL. The spirit of their rules was that the whole contract terms should be registered. Suspiciously, no evidence was led as to who decided that the benefits in terms of the side-letters should not be registered. Non-registration of side-letters was incompatible with both authorities’ policing and disciplinary powers. For example any fines imposed on players would customarily reflect the disclosed wage. Non- disclosure would thwart the authorities’ powers.

---

That, for me, doesn't prove anything.

If the side-letters refer to payments that were deemed by the FTT to be loans, then there is no problem.All that is required to be lodged with the SPL/SFA is the contract that sets out the player's wages. They are not interested in anything else.

If, however, they refer to those payments that were deemed to be wages, then there is a problem.

This is only a First Tier tribunal decision and the BBC reports HMRC saying: "We are disappointed that we have lost this stage of the court process and we are considering an appeal. The decision was not unanimous..."

I expect that there will be many other companies with similar schemes so perhaps HMRC will not be able to leave matters as they are. If there is an appeal it goes to a Second Tier Tribunal where the result could be completely overturned. There are then further avenues of appeal so this may run and run .....

If I supported deadhun I would not get overly excited just yet.:cb

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by banchoryhibs

This is only a First Tier tribunal decision and the BBC reports HMRC saying: "We are disappointed that we have lost this stage of the court process and we are considering an appeal. The decision was not unanimous..."

I expect that there will be many other companies with similar schemes so perhaps HMRC will not be able to leave matters as they are. If there is an appeal it goes to a Second Tier Tribunal where the result could be completely overturned. There are then further avenues of appeal so this may run and run .....

If I supported deadhun I would not get overly excited just yet.:cb

---

If you supported DeadHun, you'd be having a boring old season, eh no?:greengrin

Actually, Hector was asked if he would appeal, and he was heard to mumble..... "Too right.....Chucky Ar La!!!"


(our day will come)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

If you supported DeadHun, you'd be having a boring old season, eh no?:greengrin

---

I'd also be doing my nut at this decision and greeting about how HMRC royally shafted the loyal ones:greengrin :greengrin Entertaining times:thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That, for me, doesn't prove anything.

If the side-letters refer to payments that were deemed by the FTT to be loans, then there is no problem.All that is required to be lodged with the SPL/SFA is the contract that sets out the player's wages. They are not interested in anything else.

If, however, they refer to those payments that were deemed to be wages, then there is a problem.

---

I guess this is the big frustration - we all know these loans are salary payments in disguise as the club never had any intention of seeking repayment. I just get the feeling they are going to be ok in terms of the SPL investigation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moff1875

I guess this is the big frustration - we all know these loans are salary payments in disguise as the club never had any intention of seeking repayment. I just get the feeling they are going to be ok in terms of the SPL investigation

---

The club is irrelevant. The loans were from the Trust(s).

But..... have faith. There are some shrewd legal brains on the SPL commission. :agree:

I can't see HMRC letting this go too easily :wink: Still a few miles left in this one, Me thinks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They didn't determine that they were all loans. Some were deemed to be taxable . It's not clear which these are....and that will be important for the SPL .

See also JMS post above

---

They paid some bonuses (eg Champions League qualification) through the Trusts as well, which even the majority verdict is admitting were emoluments. Some of the detail talks about a Rangers official moaning that Barry Ferguson ("Mr Ipswich") was a greedy barsteward, demanding £25K in a trust payment for beating some Cypriot team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

They paid some bonuses (eg Champions League qualification) through the Trusts as well, which even the majority verdict is admitting were emoluments. Some of the detail talks about a Rangers official moaning about how Barry Ferguson ("Mr Ipswich") is such a greedy barsteward and demanding £25K in a trust payment for beating some Cypriot team.

---

Is that for sure? Interesting if so.....did you pick that up somewhere in the 145 pages, or elsewhere?

Maybe you'll know this.... somewhere amongst all the Reservoir Dogs nom-de-plumes, they almost let slip someone's identity. They talked about Mr "whatever colour", and then "his son". Any clues who that might be?

I know they were not 'loans', the club when making the payment knew it was not a 'loan', the players when receiving the cash knew it was not a 'loan'. So pretty much everybody knew it was not a loan in the sense that everyone else recognises a loan i.e you take the cash and pay it back over an agreed period of time with a rate of interest.

Legally I am guessing it was classed as a loan, hence the finding in their favor. But where does someone take a look at this shambles and say "hang on a minute" and look at what was actually happening?

Seems like a total shambles. I am going to ask my employer to stop paying me my monthly salary now and just ask for a loan instead. Save a fortune on income tax and NI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnbc70

I know they were not 'loans', the club when making the payment knew it was not a 'loan', the players when receiving the cash knew it was not a 'loan'. So pretty much everybody knew it was not a loan in the sense that everyone else recognises a loan i.e you take the cash and pay it back over an agreed period of time with a rate of interest.

Legally I am guessing it was classed as a loan, hence the finding in their favor. But where does someone take a look at this shambles and say "hang on a minute" and look at what was actually happening?

Seems like a total shambles. I am going to ask my employer to stop paying me my monthly salary now and just ask for a loan instead. Save a fortune on income tax and NI.

---

The practice has been stopped now.

BTW, the reason it "worked" was because Trusts were used. It wouldn't work between employers and employees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Is that for sure? Interesting if so.....did you pick that up somewhere in the 145 pages, or elsewhere?

Maybe you'll know this.... somewhere amongst all the Reservoir Dogs nom-de-plumes, they almost let slip someone's identity. They talked about Mr "whatever colour", and then "his son". Any clues who that might be?

---

Page 85 leaves it in little doubt. It refers to "Mr Ipswich" as being Rangers captain during the 2005/06 season, which was Ferguson. "Mr Violet" is also referred to as the manager, which was McLeish.

From reading the findings, I would be amazed if HMRC don't appeal to the second tier tribunal. The dissenting opinion goes into far more detail about the payments and their nature. I think it's significant that the majority verdict comes from two qualified solicitors, whereas the dissenting opinion comes from a tax professional (CTA qualified). The two judges from a legal background have (partially) accepted the legalistic argument that these payments were loans and therefore not taxable, whereas the judge from the tax background has seen through the legal form.

ps "Mr Purple" is Neil McCann. Page 95 talks about Mr Purple being sold for £1.75M on 5 August 2003, which was the date McCann was sold to Southampton. McCann received £500,000 in a trust payment relating to his departure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

Page 85 leaves it in little doubt. It refers to "Mr Ipswich" as being Rangers captain during the 2005/06 season, which was Ferguson. "Mr Violet" is also referred to as the manager, which was McLeish.

---

If I'm reading that correctly, though, that was based on Mr. Scarlet's recollection of events. The judgement goes on to doubt Scarlet's reliability as a witness.

I find this the most compromising account to Mr Scarlet’s own credibility as a witness.

So... Bazza could just say.... he wiz lyin' aboot the 25 grand. The judge says so.

Or have I read it wrongly?

However, reading on a few pages:-

In the end, only 9 out of 29 players received their UEFA bonus through the trust arrangements, with some
new sub-trusts being created for this occasion.

Now that does suggest remuneration, eh no??

I agree with you about the appeal, especially given the dissenting voice and the fact that there are more cases pending, IIRC. The only thing that may stop it is cost.

"Mr Evesham" (page 103 onwards) is Stefan Klos. Signed for Rangers in 1998, left them during the 2006/07 season - findings says that Evesham signed in 1998, spent "eight and half years with Rangers", was injured during the later part of his time there (Klos broke his leg during the 2004/05 season) and the initial negotiating figures are in "DM" (German Marks). The findings note that Rangers claimed insurance on the full amount paid to Klos, including the "loans", while he was injured.

Just finished watching Newsnight Scotland with the Ian Davidson, the Labour MP for the constituency Ibrox is in, the journalist Tom English and some guy from Ernst and Young. Well worth looking up on IPlayer if you've been following the case.

Ernst and Young guy looked like he was about to start laughing at the verdict! Davidson obv a bluenose and not happy about how long the whole case took but having a pop at Murray and immoral tax avoidance in general.

Nothing to stop Hibs setting up legal EBT schemes for our players. Might not be moral but if it meant we kept Griffiths would it be worth looking into :stirrer::tin hat::devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bishop Hibee

Just finished watching Newsnight Scotland with the Ian Davidson, the Labour MP for the constituency Ibrox is in, the journalist Tom English and some guy from Ernst and Young. Well worth looking up on IPlayer if you've been following the case.

Ernst and Young guy looked like he was about to start laughing at the verdict! Davidson obv a bluenose and not happy about how long the whole case took but having a pop at Murray and immoral tax avoidance in general.

Nothing to stop Hibs setting up legal EBT schemes for our players. Might not be moral but if it meant we kept Griffiths would it be worth looking into :stirrer::tin hat::devil:

---

Outlawed by 2011 Finance Bill (Budget).

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers/emp...fit-trusts.htm

The thing is, Rangers would have got away with a massive tax saving and no HMRC investigation, assessment and tribunal if they hadn't made a mess of administering their EBT scheme. Shame (not).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

That, for me, doesn't prove anything.

If the side-letters refer to payments that were deemed by the FTT to be loans, then there is no problem.All that is required to be lodged with the SPL/SFA is the contract that sets out the player's wages. They are not interested in anything else.

If, however, they refer to those payments that were deemed to be wages, then there is a problem.

---

Surely the spirit of the rule is they have to lodge players contracts, and they clearly had two, or dual, contracts for a decade. So they misled the SFA, tried and succeeded in destroying evidence, obstructed investigation at every turn, cheated the other SPL clubs who paid their taxes. Punishment on oldco has to be meted out. If not then no member club need take any heed of association rules again as they will be proven optional.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeithenHibby

I can't see HMRC letting this go too easily :wink: Still a few miles left in this one, Me thinks...

---

HMRC might not be of a mind to go for a costly appeal when there is no chance of recouping any more money from Oldco.

Just a wee reminder of what Dodds stated in the Herald article;

"The full story is that David Murray came to me and asked if I would receive a payment that was due to me, after tax, through the EBT trust. And I said that I would. It was money that was owing to me when I had six months left on my contract and I moved to Dundee United. After the tax was deducted, that money was put in the trust fund."


Now how the **** is that a loan? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

HMRC might not be of a mind to go for a costly appeal when there is no chance of recouping any more money from Oldco.

---

Although most of the trust payments were made from Rangers (£36M), over £10M was paid from Murray's other companies. An appeal to upper tribunal wouldn't fully re-open the case, basically a new set of judges would consider the same evidence.

On reflection, the front page of the verdict is both inaccurate and unhelpful. It suggests that Rangers have unreservedly won the case. They haven't as the details show that there are over 30 individuals who did receive remuneration via EBTs and are due tax. If I was in court facing 110 charges and was found guilty on 35 of them I wouldn't see that as a triumph. It probably means that HMRC were still due £20-30 million in unpaid income tax.

The MSM don't seem to have picked up on the subtleties of the judgment. As might be expected the "Rangers were innocent and it's all Craig Whyte's fault" campaign is in full swing. Never mind the facts when a fresh supply of succelent lamb is on the horizon.

I hope that both BDO and Lord Nimmo-Smith possess a greater degree of intellectual subtlety than our sports journalists. It's not much to hope for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby

Surely the spirit of the rule is they have to lodge players contracts, and they clearly had two, or dual, contracts for a decade. So they misled the SFA, tried and succeeded in destroying evidence, obstructed investigation at every turn, cheated the other SPL clubs who paid their taxes. Punishment on oldco has to be meted out. If not then no member club need take any heed of association rules again as they will be proven optional.

---

It's not just the spirit, it's the letter.

However, my point is that, as I understand it, it's only "contracts for wages" that have to be lodged. "Contracts for loans" don't have to be.

From my reading of the 145 pages (admittedly very broadly), RFC did purposely not lodge those side-letters. However, given that most of those have been held to be "loans", they may have inadvertently got themselves off the hook.

It comes back, though, to a point I have made a few times. The judgement isn't clear which payments have been held to be "wages". If any of these relate to players (ie not directors) wages, then they are in trouble. But... at this stage we cannot tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

HMRC might not be of a mind to go for a costly appeal when there is no chance of recouping any more money from Oldco.

---

Fair point but, IIRC, there are other cases waiting in the wings which might be worth the outlay; HMRC's success in them may depend on their getting a positive result in the RFC case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kaiser1962

Just a wee reminder of what Dodds stated in the Herald article;

"The full story is that David Murray came to me and asked if I would receive a payment that was due to me, after tax, through the EBT trust. And I said that I would. It was money that was owing to me when I had six months left on my contract and I moved to Dundee United. After the tax was deducted, that money was put in the trust fund."


Now how the **** is that a loan? :confused:

---

Dodds' payment may be one of those that has been deemed to be wages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ballengeich

On reflection, the front page of the verdict is both inaccurate and unhelpful. It suggests that Rangers have unreservedly won the case. They haven't as the details show that there are over 30 individuals who did receive remuneration via EBTs and are due tax. If I was in court facing 110 charges and was found guilty on 35 of them I wouldn't see that as a triumph. It probably means that HMRC were still due £20-30 million in unpaid income tax.

The MSM don't seem to have picked up on the subtleties of the judgment. As might be expected the "Rangers were innocent and it's all Craig Whyte's fault" campaign is in full swing. Never mind the facts when a fresh supply of succelent lamb is on the horizon.

I hope that both BDO and Lord Nimmo-Smith possess a greater degree of intellectual subtlety than our sports journalists. It's not much to hope for.

---

It did tickle me last night to see and hear so many people speaking knowledgeably about a case which took 2 years to complete, whose judgement runs to 145 pages, and whose verdict had only been known a few hours.

Watching the penny drop (Admittedly with a little nudging from me) with the huns at my work that they may not have needed to be liquidated is ****in amazing :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuanH78

Watching the penny drop (Admittedly with a little nudging from me) with the huns at my work that they may not have needed to be liquidated is ****in amazing :thumbsup:

---

:agree:

I don't get the disappointment with the decision. The Huns (original) are dead. The Huns (new) are consigned to the lower divisions with a total chancer at the helm ... and it might all have been avoided. :greengrin

What's not to like? :aok:

Priceless! Still them and green are a perfect match, they will feed off his paranoia for years to come

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

Outlawed by 2011 Finance Bill (Budget).

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers/emp...fit-trusts.htm

The thing is, Rangers would have got away with a massive tax saving and no HMRC investigation, assessment and tribunal if they hadn't made a mess of administering their EBT scheme. Shame (not).

---

Thanks for that. Strange that the Ernst and Young rep seemed to be talking about future legislation to close this loophole. I can only assume he was meaning other existing methods of tax avoidance :confused:

The whole judgement smacks of the rich looking after the rich.

just shows you how difficult it is to stop the tax avoiders...the ****s

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20417221


The National Audit Office said HMRC was dealing with a backlog of 41,000 cases involving individuals and small companies, with up to £10.2bn at stake

But according to the NAO, between 2004 and 2011 about 2,300 avoidance schemes were disclosed to the tax authorities, with more than 100 new schemes emerging in each of the past four years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

:agree:

I don't get the disappointment with the decision. The Huns (original) are dead. The Huns (new) are consigned to the lower divisions with a total chancer at the helm ... and it might all have been avoided. :greengrin

What's not to like? :aok:

---

And FTTT make it clear that they were deliberately deceiving the football authorities by hiding payments to players.
Should make Lord Nimmo Smiths job a lot easier.

Was at the supermarket and today's headline in the Scottish Sun was "Rangers died for nothing".

Untrue. Think of all the joy their demise has brought to fans of other teams.

But there are some interesting snippets. Had a quick look at the judgement and I noticed this in s28 about our old friend Ginger Judas
..... had advised Mr Violet to seek a tax indemnity from Rangers in
respect of trust benefits, which was granted.
Now if I'm reading that correctly, then if 35 individuals are due tax to HMRC they will have to pay up in full and then join the ordinary creditors of OldHuns to try to claim some money back under the indemnities.

I suppose it all depends if the EBT still exists and has funds. As an independent trust it is separate from Rangers. Generally rules exist that do not allow any more than 50% of an individuals allocation to be withdrawn to ensure that any loan is paid back on death etc. If that is the case then the tax man cannot seek tax from the individual because they have complied with the rules of the trust which would have to have been approved by HMRC in the first place.

In effect this is how these trusts actually get HMRC approval:

1 It is a loan that has to be paid back in the lifetime of the employee/former employee
2 The employee can only ever see 50% of it in his/her lifetime
3 The loan coupon is based on a commercial rate
4 The balance of the trust allocation is used to pay off any loan on death and any surplus is subject to inheritance tax, if appropriate.

There are simple EBT's like the above and more racy ones that HMRC go over with a fine tooth comb. If it were approved in the first place then any action would be for a breach of the rules of the trust. This initial judgement appears to suggest there has been no breach - subject to appeal. We have seen HMRC waste money on other appeals and ultimately lost.

If they lose an appeal then Rangers are vindicated and they in effect have not cheated and used a legal vehicle to fund their various campaigns. That is that!

THEN we move onto what actually brought them down:

1 They ran out of money and owed the Bank a shed load
2 They failed to pay HMRC tax on salaries paid - HMRC took their time bringing this to light as a normal employer only gets 42 days
3 They couldn't get creditors to agree a voluntary arrangement.

They then were dealt with under the normal rules (?) of the SPL/SFA/SPL (?) and demoted to the third division - insolvency and potentially irregular contracts.

Take the emotion out then that is that.

However, this was a train crash a long time in coming and one wonders what could have been done before football was plunged into its latest crisis.

Is the league better for it? It would appear so.

Zombie Huns have just made a booking through my work. Is it petty that I've ensured that they are referred to as 'The Rangers' on our system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oregonhibby

I suppose it all depends if the EBT still exists and has funds. As an independent trust it is separate from Rangers. Generally rules exist that do not allow any more than 50% of an individuals allocation to be withdrawn to ensure that any loan is paid back on death etc. If that is the case then the tax man cannot seek tax from the individual because they have complied with the rules of the trust which would have to have been approved by HMRC in the first place.

In effect this is how these trusts actually get HMRC approval:

1 It is a loan that has to be paid back in the lifetime of the employee/former employee
2 The employee can only ever see 50% of it in his/her lifetime
3 The loan coupon is based on a commercial rate
4 The balance of the trust allocation is used to pay off any loan on death and any surplus is subject to inheritance tax, if appropriate.

There are simple EBT's like the above and more racy ones that HMRC go over with a fine tooth comb. If it were approved in the first place then any action would be for a breach of the rules of the trust. This initial judgement appears to suggest there has been no breach - subject to appeal. We have seen HMRC waste money on other appeals and ultimately lost.

If they lose an appeal then Rangers are vindicated and they in effect have not cheated and used a legal vehicle to fund their various campaigns. That is that!

THEN we move onto what actually brought them down:

1 They ran out of money and owed the Bank a shed load
2 They failed to pay HMRC tax on salaries paid - HMRC took their time bringing this to light as a normal employer only gets 42 days
3 They couldn't get creditors to agree a voluntary arrangement.

They then were dealt with under the normal rules (?) of the SPL/SFA/SPL (?) and demoted to the third division - insolvency and potentially irregular contracts.

Take the emotion out then that is that.

However, this was a train crash a long time in coming and one wonders what could have been done before football was plunged into its latest crisis.

Is the league better for it? It would appear so.

---

Thanks for clarification on the Trusts aspect.

FWIW, I absolutely agree with you about what actually brought them down. Without the BTC, HMRC would still have opposed the CVA and we would have had liquidation. It is ripping my knitting that so many people are out there are saying that liquidation would not have happened (including, it has to be said, Graham Spiers, who I thought had a better handle on things than most.) However, we should be used to slavers from people who don't know the difference between CVA's and IUD's.

One pedantic point. Although some employers pay their PAYE quarterly, most (including Rangers and Hearts) have to pay theirs within 22 days (19, if they pay manually) of the end of the month in which the salaries are paid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LancashireHibby

Zombie Huns have just made a booking through my work. Is it petty that I've ensured that they are referred to as 'The Rangers' on our system?

---

Yes you should use the name you used in bold. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It is ripping my knitting that so many people are out there are saying that liquidation would not have happened (including, it has to be said, Graham Spiers, who I thought had a better handle on things than most.)

---

I think Spiers' point is that if they hadn't had the BTC looming over them, Murray could have sold the club to someone more suitable, who would have had some funds and wouldn't have hit the rails so soon.

On a related matter, I liked Tom English' article in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...-one-1-2650192

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LancashireHibby

Zombie Huns have just made a booking through my work. Is it petty that I've ensured that they are referred to as 'The Rangers' on our system?

---

That`s leniant. 'SevCo' would have been more appropriate....:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LancashireHibby

Zombie Huns have just made a booking through my work. Is it petty that I've ensured that they are referred to as 'The Rangers' on our system?

---

It would be a real shame should that booking mysteriously disappear from the system.... Especially if they've paid in advance :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grunt

I think Spiers' point is that if they hadn't had the BTC looming over them, Murray could have sold the club to someone more suitable, who would have had some funds and wouldn't have hit the rails so soon.

On a related matter, I liked Tom English' article in the Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...-one-1-2650192

---

Okay, that's a fair point. He's back on my good-guy list.

That said, and I'm going to keep banging the drum on this until someone in the MSM hears it, the assessments have to be "reduced", not "removed". The BTC still cost RFC millions.

One pedantic point. Although some employers pay their PAYE quarterly, most (including Rangers and Hearts) have to pay theirs within 22 days (19, if they pay manually) of the end of the month in which the salaries are paid.[/QUOTE]



I may be wrong on that and stand to be corrected. I thought chasing an employer starts 42 days after default? In anycase it certainly wouldn't be 6 - 9 months! With real time filing starting that should also bring an end to that!

As to whether they would have survived had this case been resolved earlier it is an academic question, it would have given the supporters the chance to throw good money after bad, as they will at Tynecastle. In the end the owner may have always wanted this outcome!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oregonhibby

One pedantic point. Although some employers pay their PAYE quarterly, most (including Rangers and Hearts) have to pay theirs within 22 days (19, if they pay manually) of the end of the month in which the salaries are paid.

---

I may be wrong on that and stand to be corrected. I thought chasing an employer starts 42 days after default? In anycase it certainly wouldn't be 6 - 9 months! With real time filing starting that should also bring an end to that!

As to whether they would have survived had this case been resolved earlier it is an academic question, it would have given the supporters the chance to throw good money after bad, as they will at Tynecastle. In the end the owner may have always wanted this outcome![/QUOTE]

Ah, I see what you're saying. It's not about when the payment is due, it's about when HMRC start chasing that payment.

HMRC have become much more bullish about chasing up overdue payments in recent years. I have had clients being phoned by them less than a week after the due date, looking for payment. Their attitude is also coloured by the employer's history. For example, if HMFC don't pay up today, the wheels will start turning very quickly.

btw, remember all that pish from Hun apologists about how even if the BTC went against them, they weren't cheating because Murray would've bought the players anyway?

From the horse's mouth (Mr Black is a knight of the realm and scrap metal trader):

Quote:

---

As for Mr Black,
he denied that the scheme was for tax avoidance in cross-examination, though he went on to describe the scheme as ‘a method of us acquiring, especially football wise, better players in a more cost effective manner than we would be able to do so’; that the club had been ‘very ambitious at that time’; and ‘it was seen as a correct and proper way for us to proceed’; that Rangers ‘have been very successful, because
we’ve been able to attract players of a certain standard that, perhaps, we may not have been able to otherwise’

---

btw2, all this excruciatingly pish pish now emanating from bowels of organs such as the Record about HMRC incompetence etc.

1. They only got a 2-1 verdict and the dissenting opinion is from the tax specialist on the tribunal.

2. The Huns granted several players indemnity should tax be payable on the "loans" in future.

3. as per Tom English, the main reason the tax enquiry took so long was the attempted Hun cover up:

Quote:

---

The protracted and chequered course of the enquiry was largely due to a lack of candour and co-operation from Mr Red, who was the chief officer dealing with the enquiry. Key documents such as the side-letters, calculations of figures of contributions, emails and memorandums related directly to the trust’s operation were not disclosed, despite repeated requests and statutory demands for information. From the enquiry correspondence, the tone in Mr Red’s response suggests a degree of hostility, and his remarks were at times aggressive. With his background as a former Inspector of Taxes, and with his professional knowledge as a Chartered Tax Adviser, it is judicious to infer that Mr Red’s attitude and his non-disclosure of key documents did not spring from a lack of understanding of what was being requested, but was informed by a wish to withhold documents which might implicate the operation of remuneration trust as falling outwith the legitimate scope even by his own understanding. It was informative that Mr Red refused any meetings with HMRC in the course of the enquiry, for the likely reason that face-to-face interviews could lead more readily to unintended evidence being divulged.

---

Having read a good chunk of the document, at best the Huns are portrayed as ruthlessly immoral exploiters of a tenuous loophole.

This makes my blood boil as now we have the ex-directors of zombie-huns demanding compensation from HMRC or the uk taxpayer now they have "won" the case where as had they lose then the liquidated club would have paid zilch. What about the other tax bills and all the other creditors they robbed. Obtaining goods and services without paying for them is theft just like robbing a bank. "one robs you with a six-gun the other with a rountain pen".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

btw2, all this excruciatingly pish pish now emanating from bowels of organs such as the Record about HMRC incompetence etc.

1. They only got a 2-1 verdict and the dissenting opinion is from the tax specialist on the tribunal.

2. The Huns granted several players indemnity should tax be payable on the "loans" in future.

3. as per Tom English, the main reason the tax enquiry took so long was the attempted Hun cover up:



Having read a good chunk of the document, at best the Huns are portrayed as ruthlessly immoral exploiters of a tenuous loophole.

---

So are HMRC appealing the decision? Not seen anything definite, but why was the Tribunal panel not made up entirely of Tax Specialists, it is a taxation matter after all.

English's article mentions the fact that it took 5 and a half years for the documents requested by HMRC to be released, why are they not pursuing the Huns for that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryan91

So are HMRC appealing the decision? Not seen anything definite, but why was the Tribunal panel not made up entirely of Tax Specialists, it is a taxation matter after all.

English's article mentions the fact that it took 5 and a half years for the documents requested by HMRC to be released, why are they not pursuing the Huns for that?

---

There will be no decision on an appeal yet. They will have to consider the verdict first, as well as other things like the cost and the public interest.

As for the make-up of the panel, when a tax case gets to this stage it becomes less about "tax" and more about "law"; in particular, it is about the interpretation of law, as well as the application of decisions in previous cases. Therefore it is not surprising to have more lawyers than tax specialists.

Even by the standards of many of the tubes in their support, this is ridiculous: -

http://www.causes.com/causes/803037-...&utm_source=fb

We call for a full and transparent public enquiry into the whole process with emphasis on the decision makers at HMRC and their motives and also a full criminal investigation into the steady flow of confidential information that made its way from HMRC into the media and onto faceless online blogs.

Rangers have suffered great damage as a result of the chain of events sparked by a "fishing-trip" by HMRC - their behaviour and that of several other parties - Lloyds Bank, the Murray Group, Duff & Phelps and the SPL - should now be examined by the relevant authorities.

People should be focusing on the the 30 odd cases they lost. The verdict is still guilty albeit on a smaller scale that still runs into millions.

Dual contract use was proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

People should be focusing on the the 30 odd cases they lost. The verdict is still guilty albeit on a smaller scale that still runs into millions.

Dual contract use was proven.

---

And we can assume HMRC will appeal to a second tier on the basis that the most learned tax judge said the oldco huns were 100% guilty. 50m worth of undeclared "loans" my jacksie!

Can somebody who has read the judgement give us lazy sods a quick list of paragraph references that highlight the fact that the tribunal only partly sided with deadco. and that there are still sums due for their EBT adventure. Also the para that suggests deadco misled the SFA/SPL.

I was golfing with a bluenose yesterday and it was 18 holes of how badly they had been treated and people should loose their jobs for it.

Needless to say the tosser beat me, its hard to concentrate with steam coming out your ears. :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

Can somebody who has read the judgement give us lazy sods a quick list of paragraph references that highlight the fact that the tribunal only partly sided with deadco. and that there are still sums due for their EBT adventure. Also the para that suggests deadco misled the SFA/SPL.

I was golfing with a bluenose yesterday and it was 18 holes of how badly they had been treated and people should loose their jobs for it.

Needless to say the tosser beat me, its hard to concentrate with steam coming out your ears. :greengrin

---

Hope they got cash up front for his green fee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiberlin

Hope they got cash up front for his green fee.

---

They'll all be paying Green fees for years to come!

Is Mr. Red Mr. Green?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VickMackie

They'll all be paying Green fees for years to come!

---

:agree: See what you done there :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevie Reid

Even by the standards of many of the tubes in their support, this is ridiculous: -

http://www.causes.com/causes/803037-...&utm_source=fb

We call for a full and transparent public enquiry into the whole process with emphasis on the decision makers at HMRC and their motives and also a full criminal investigation into the steady flow of confidential information that made its way from HMRC into the media and onto faceless online blogs.

Rangers have suffered great damage as a result of the chain of events sparked by a "fishing-trip" by HMRC - their behaviour and that of several other parties - Lloyds Bank, the Murray Group, Duff & Phelps and the SPL - should now be examined by the relevant authorities.

---

Doesn`t it just turn your stomach. Here`s another one....

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143

" We the undersigned request that questions from the government are asked of HMRC over their handling of the " investigation" into Rangers Football Club.
Over the last three years, HMRC have pursued Rangers Football Club for " unpaid" taxes in relation to several EBT schemes operated by the club. These schemes were present in all of the clubs annual accounts for the years in which they operated.
The conclusion on the three year investigation was found on 20/11/12 stating that Rangers Football Club were indeed not liable nor had broken any law.
Throughout this " investigation" there have been several leaks of confidential information relating directly to sensitive information about the club, the employees and the current state of play within the " investigation".
The source of this leak must be identified and dealt with accordingly due to the serious breach of protocols and completely undermining the role in which HMRC are charged facilitating. "

Chris Jack‏@Chris_Jack89 SPL commission into #Rangers EBTs will sit on Tuesday 29 January 2013 and is expected to last for the remainder of that week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s.a.m

Chris Jack‏@Chris_Jack89 SPL commission into #Rangers EBTs will sit on Tuesday 29 January 2013 and is expected to last for the remainder of that week.

---

Were the EBT payments contractual and were they hidden?



Tick and Tick.


Strip the titles or face ridicule.

When, if ever, will we know how much tax the FTTT did find that Rangers were liable for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby

Were the EBT payments contractual and were they hidden?



Tick and Tick.


Strip the titles or face ridicule.

---

From the FTT judgement, we don't know that. We know that some of the payments from the EBT were remuneration, but we don't know whether any related to players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

When, if ever, will we know how much tax the FTTT did find that Rangers were liable for?

---

It's none of our business, TBH. It's between HMRC and RFC, and only the latter have the right to disclose it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

From the FTT judgement, we don't know that. We know that some of the payments from the EBT were remuneration, but we don't know whether any related to players.

---

Quote:

---

In five instances involving footballers (Messrs Selby, Inverness, Doncaster, Barrow and Furness) it was accepted that the guaranteed bonus had been paid through the Remuneration Trust.

---

Best guesses for Selby and Inverness are Dado Prso and Nacho Novo.

There is also considerable speculation around that some cases in HMRC's original assessment were accepted by the Hun and not part of the appeal. Can't find anything substantive on that though.