Printable View
Hell mend them. The purchase of their comfort blanket (in the form of a big win over us last year) effectively means nowt as they slip into the abyss. Their arrogance has probably cost them their club..................Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
so..........let them sneer all they want. They're headed only one way......and we're going the other way.
:flag:
Tom English webchat on Hearts at midday if anyone is interested .
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/webchats
love it! :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadstone
I don't think the money is to pay HMRC but as working capital to keep them going till something turns up.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
By the time you add interest and penalties, HMRC will be after much more than £1.7m and it will likely take a few months for the Tribunal decision to be announced.
i can't wait till wages day this month to see what happens next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treadstone
Had a look at that doc - laughed where it says that the pulling power of the club was best demonstrated when Hearts entertained Barcelona at Murrayfield in 2007 in a crowd of 57k :crazy:
haha yeah no one was there to see messi, Xavi and Ineista.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
Its a joke they use 1914 as a marketing tool in their packages of shares. The 1914 package costs £10,000. I doubt anyone will take them up.
Packages
Maroon package- £110
Tynecastle £ 275
1874 £550
Robbo £1100
Tommy Walker £2750
Terrible Trio £5500
1914- £11000
Heart of Midlothian- £25000
A bit more detail on the tax case (from the HMFC point of view)
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...ania-1-2605333
Problem still remains of how they can justify that 50/50 split of wages being taxed in Lithuania and UK, when the two clubs have common ownership.
Does that dilute the HMRC case and strengthen the yams hand, in your opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
.Net resident financial whizzkids :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey
This thread would not be the same without their knowledgable input
Same for the Huns thread as well of course
The Revenue will have a watertight case. they usually always do. Hertz better be ready!
IMO, it adds nothing to anyone's case. The journalist is guessing at what the exact issue is. "an outstanding amount of £1.75m in unpaid tax, which may relate to other benefits given to any of the 19 players loaned from Kaunas ".... means nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
HMRC will not say what the issue is. HMFC will make (probably biased) statements as to what it is. The rest of us (myself included) will speculate on what it is.
What Mrowiec says (about who is responsible for the tax) is contrary to what Robertson said at the weekend. And both are reasonable stances to take. I'll therefore reserve judgement.... and continue to speculate :greengrin
I almost fell off my chair there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia Na Eir
Sorry, that's just not the case.
Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I forgot it was BAnderson who wrote that article so that eliminates any possible journalistic integrity attached to it.
I guess I'll sit back and watch what happens. Seems to be all anyone can do.
you forgot laugh :hilariousQuote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Im no expert at all in regards to this and all i am basining my post on is guessing what I think might have happened here.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Hearts pay half wages through hearts
Kaunas pay half wages through Kaunas
the case which im guesing hmrc are chasing is this bit - 'which may relate to other benefits given to any of the 19 players loaned from Kaunas'
I wonder if any bonuses, win bonus, goal bonuses, clean sheet bonuses etc have been paid into the kaunas side of things therefore avoiding the UK tax on such earnings. I do belive that alot of there players wages and the reason the wage bill was so high was due to bonuses so I guess my question to the experts (cav/cropley) on here is - If hearts players loaned from kaunas were paid any additonal income through there Lith banks is this illeagal and does it sound plausable as to what the bill is for?
What an cutting edge piece that was....dig up an ex loanee and take his word for it that tax was paid on his wages. I don't think it even addresses the point in that HMRC are saying UK tax is due on all wages not just the UK paid piece. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Vlad must be really really tempted just to pull the plug and bolt.....
I assumed all Hibbies were on automatic laugh :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
If they get hit with the tax bill they should make Campbell Ogilvie pay it.
It's not illegal. However, if these players were HMFC employees (and I am still not convinced that they were) then any bonuses etc would be subject to UK tax (however and wherever they were paid) and should be put through the PAYE system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
It's not as blatant as I thought it might be, but it's the same problem. What rationale was there for having HMFC pay half the wages, rather than a lesser or greater share?Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveF
Hearts have to prove (IMO) that the deals with Kaunas were done at arm's length. That's going to be very difficult, particularly in the cases where Kaunas signed a player and then immediately "loaned" him to HMFC. Protesting that they have all this paperwork documenting how the payments were made isn't going to cut it.
I'm still hoping they don't bill us for the Huns threadQuote:
Originally Posted by poolman
Ah right bang goes my theory, cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
So if a player is loaned to hearts via kaunas say roman bednar for example, I dont think he ever set foot in lithuania but was signed for then and immediatly loaned to hearts would hmrc have a case about his earnings being half paid in lithuania?
HMRC have all the rules on their side. They wrote them after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
This scheme that they dreamt up to register the players in Kaunus before being loaned to the Yams has to be shown to be for " commercial reasons " not just a tax saving device.
If it can't be shown there was sound commercial reasons for operating the scheme, the HMRC have the power to set aside the scheme and apply the tax rules as if the scheme never existed.
In other words tax, NI on the lot with interest and penalties as far back as 2006. There has been notes on the Yam accounts going back to 2008 about this investigation.
If he was loaned to Hearts, then he isn't their employee. They have no responsibility in PAYE terms; they would pay Kaunas a fee per month. Which is where my confusion arises. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibee87
However, HMRC may have concluded that he IS an employee. Such decisions aren't up to the employer or employee... they are often decided on the basis of a number of facts. If that is the case, then all of the loaned players would be subject to PAYE.
If that is HMRC's position, and it is supported by the FTT, that could have serious implications for all cross-border loans.
I've been assuming the tax case was a twist on the transfer pricing operation - e.g. V owns company Y in Scotland and company K in Lithuania. Tax rates are lower in Lithuania so K sell goods to Y at inflated prices to reduce Y's profits and increase K's making V's overall tax bill lower than it should have been. The same principle can be applied to wages so that V pays less for employees working in Scotland by paying them through K rather than Y. Neither arrangement is legal and the onus is on the taxpayer rather than HMRC to prove that such an arrangement didn't exist.
I don't log on often, normally lurching in the background as a guest, but these few days I feel the need to contribute to what I have no doubt will become the longest thread in hibs.net history over the coming months, dwarfing the already legendary Rangers thread.
This is history in the making for our city rivals. Unfortunately for them it's soon to be the end of their history.
It's going to be a long slow death over the next few months. I'm afraid (not!) that the cancer is terminal for Jambos. :na na:
I'm off to get a huge bag of pop corn and watch this unfold.
This is undoubtedly the start of the end. GIRUY!
Especially considering some of these players never played or even trained with Kaunas for the duration of their contract. Loans are legitimate means of getting players off the wage bill, or giving players game time before they either return to the parent club or get sold on. Either way it is ultimately the parent club which has the benefit of reduced wage bill for a period, improved player returning to them or an improved transfer fee at the end. How did Kaunas benefit from any of this? Reduced wage bill - No, increased because of the new player they signed. Player returns better - No. Increased transfer fees at the end - Unclear where these went. They got player "registration fees," whatever they are, but I struggle to see how they made any money out of it. The question HMRC will be asking is "Why didn't hearts just pay the transfer fee and sign the players themselves and save going through a 3rd party?" If Kaunas benefited and Hearts benefited, then surely Hearts would have been better off just removing the 3rd party and buying the player themselves. Unless there was some sort of tax benefit to buying the players through the Lithuanian club and loaning them to Hearts.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
As an aside, did anyone notice this photo in the share brochure?
Attachment 8779
Can anyone explain the reason behind putting this picture into the section for the terms and conditions? Other than the obvious "5-1" hand signal the ref is giving.....:rolleyes:
My opinion is about as inexpert as it gets, but I'm assuming that HMRC have taken the view that Hearts are at it, in claiming that some of their players are employed by Kaunas. Some of them are quite clearly Hearts' players alone, and have no involvement (other than their wages) with Kaunas. If you add to their obvious non-employment at Kaunas the advantage that is gained by the owner of both clubs, there is surely at least room for suspicion that they are avoiding paying UK taxes by employing people through kid-on loans.:dunno:
Claros, and the many other foreign loanees plying their trade here, look like genuine loans because they have an employment history at the club that claims to employ them, and they generally go back there.
No?
[Edit: and Sergio Sledge has beaten me to it....:greengrin]
I can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
They are 110% obsessed with us. Nothing matters during the season as long as they beat us. Small minds have small pleasures. They are far too busy with pictures of various coppers, refs and former players doing the 5-1 thing to notice that are on the way out of the SPL very soon.
I truly hope the taxman and the SPL bosses absolutely bury this club, the 3rd division isn't just punishment for them, they need a Gretna type expulsion.
That is correct. The share offer brochure specifically states the tax dispute is to do with players "loaned" from Kaunas to Hearts. They have signed several players on loan from other foreign clubs since Romanov took over (eg1 Skacel in his first spell there, eg2 Pinilla) and they aren't subject to this action.Quote:
Originally Posted by s.a.m