Printable View
We really should be releasing a statement.
The financial doping in Scottish football has hurt us as much as any club in Scottish football. We shouldn't just shrug our shoulders when we have a chance to send a clear message that it can't happen again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
interesting comment from a fan of the vile bigoted hun
You could always contact the club via email, might not get a reply but if enough fans make enquiries regarding it who knows...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/contact?selected=enquiry
Thanks for that Michael, us hibs supporters might never have found that page without youQuote:
Originally Posted by MichaelTheCelt
:hilariousQuote:
Originally Posted by livi hibs 1875
Hey look it was only for the posters on here not good at the whole internet google searching thingy ma bob :wink:
[QUOTE=Smartie;5091457][QUOTE=livi hibs 1875;5091439]
Heads held high but with a reduced bank balance because of the Hun cheating. We can take the moral high ground but without punishment they won't give a damn. The EBT's have been shown to be a flawed attempt to boost the earnings of players without paying the appropriate taxes. Would these players have signed on for the Hun for less money? I doubt it and that's why they won their trophies. Players who they wouldn't have attracted without dubious financial practice, including failing to properly register contracts. The whole thing stinks and until there is a reckoning Scottish Football will forever be tainted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
And once again thanks for the helpQuote:
Originally Posted by MichaelTheCelt
[QUOTE=Geo_1875;5091549][QUOTE=Smartie;5091457]Spot on. SFA would rather sweep this murk under the carpet as it was on their watch and they lack the balls to take Sevco, their "peepul" and their media pals on. The correct result would be to acknowledge the probable outcome of the Hun's financial doping and simply strip them of the titles gained during that whole period a la Lance Armstrong. You don't have to pass the titles to the runners up.Quote:
Originally Posted by livi hibs 1875
SFA have released a statement but I can't get onto it. Probably high traffic.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...wsCategoryID=1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And they are saying no further action.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What an absolute joke. A team have been found to have dodged tax on £49 million worth of players salaries (players who they clearly would not have been able to afford otherwise) and the SFA say they will take no further action.
That is beyond belief.
Exactly. Nothing to see here. Move along.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
They did finish second - but not to the hun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Guilt by association. These turkeys simply can't vote for Xmas by taking retrospective action against the dead club as they run the risk of their own shortcomings (or worse) being exposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since90+2
Scotland's shame.
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk
SFA say the Huns can get away with it:
Scottish FA statement on Supreme Court ruling
Wednesday, 05 July 2017
The Board of the Scottish FA notes the judgment of the Supreme Court and wishes to clarify the implications of this final legal decision from a football regulatory perspective.
In light of the Inner House of the Court of Session decision, the Board of the Scottish FA sought external senior counsel opinion to ensure a robust and independent consideration of all implications of today’s judgment.
The Board received written advice from Senior Counsel, amplified when the QC attended a full meeting of the Board to discuss his conclusions.
Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments.
The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would also be limited in their scope.
Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time.
Hunbelievable.
Nothing to see here...move along.
By making an immediate decision they may have underestimated the feelings across football. Chief Exec position untenable.
Just award all the titles to Hibs and we'll say no more about it.
The SFA cannot strip the titles.
It was the SPFL who ran the league so its they who decide what punishment should be handed down surely ?
Good point. There's still hope for justice!Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveSo
Whitewash. Corrupt. Morally bankrupt. Biased. Whatever you want to call it Scottish football governance is not fit for purpose and is run purely for the benefit of powerful agendas. Rod Petrie is complicit in this statement and proves how much his 'sporting integrity' statement was utter hypocricy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Up to the fans now to hold these governing bodies to account but I fear this time the various football Chairmen have theier season ticket money in and will ride out any upsurge in fan outrage.
Scottish football doesn't deserve our hard earned cash. It's a fake competition.
Sporting integrity was just a slogan for Petrie. When it comes down to it, he won't stand up and be counted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is the SPFL board. It's down to them now.
Peter Lawwell (Celtic) Ann Budge (Hearts) Ian Maxwell (Partick) Leeann Dempster (Hibs) Eric Drysdale (Raith) Ken Ferguson (Brechin
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eric Drysdale's an interesting one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I can't see many people on that board who would take the same attitude as the SFA have (not that I know anything about either Maxwell or Ferguson).
I knew the GFA would sweep it under the carpet. Scottish Football is rotten to the core and changes are long overdue
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Are they scheduled to meet, in light of the Supreme Court ruling?
Don't forget Neil Doncaster and Ralph Topping a couple of grovelling toads that will do anything to smooth Rangers ascent to prominence and protect them from pesky things like rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Those have been targets for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-statement-74/Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
"The Board of the SPFL notes today's judgement of the Supreme Court. We will now take time to examine the judgement in detail and to consider any implications for the SPFL."
It's difficult to see what the SFA could do here. Who would they take action against, and how? That's clearly at the heart of the legal advice they have been given.Quote:
Originally Posted by kaimendhibs
The only option I could see would be to strip them of Cup wins, since that is the only competition run by them.
It's more of an SPL/SPFL issue IMO.
Regan out!
So, not that difficult to see after all! :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Rather than stripping titles and awarding them to other clubs, wouldn't it easier for the SPFL and SFA to accept that the club who cheated their way to those titles is now dead and that the new club which is 5 years old have won nothing more than the championship, division 1, division 2 and the petrofac cup? They can get rid of one of those stars on their shirts and each of the 4 stars remaining can refer to the illustrious aforementioned titles.
Joke of a response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40501361
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40510207
Today's BBC articles note 'between 2001 and 2010'
So, assuming that is the relevant time period for their 'EBT years', here's what they 'won' :-
(season)-(trophy)-(runner-up)
2001/2002 - Scottish Cup - Celtic
2001/2002 - League Cup - Ayr United
2002/2003 - SPL - Celtic
2002/2003 - Scottish Cup - Dundee
2002/2003 - League Cup - Celtic
2003/2004 - nothing
2004/2005 - SPL - Celtic
2004/2005 - League Cup - Motherwell
2005/2006 - nothing
2006/2007 - nothing
2007/2008 - Scottish Cup - Queen of the South
2007/2008 - League Cup - Dundee United
2008/2009 - SPL - Celtic
2008/2009 - Scottish Cup - Falkirk
2009/2010 - SPL - Celtic
2009/2010 - League Cup - St Mirren
2010/2011 - SPL - Celtic
2010/2011 - League Cup - Celtic
It would appear from articles published that £47m was paid in EBTs between 2001-2010. OldCo will be liable for the employer National Insurance on this number with a penalty interest rate (I think 5%-7%) per annum for each year of non payment so HMRC will become a preferred creditor. The employee is responsible for making sure they have declared the correct amount of income and paid the correct amount of tax and NI. I have checked this with of couple of accountants today but stand to be corrected. Using Alex Rae as an example, he was paid £569k in 2 seasons and left in 2006. The tax now due is £227k plus a late payment fee of at least 10 years which could amount to another £227k meaning that his total tax liability as a result of todays ruling of £454k. The National Insurance liability and subsequent penalty would be extra!! Barry Ferguson was paid £2.5m under the EBT so his tax liability will almost certainly be in excess of £2m!! I would have said HMRC are almost certain to go after the individuals given the amounts involved and there will be a few very nervous ex-Rangers players tonight.
Then they need the opinion of a different "Senior Council". Had HMRC not taken this all the way up to the Supreme Court, and just accepted the opinion of the lower courts, the Huns would have been exonerated. And, if the SFA/SPFL stripped titles from the Dead Rangers, who is there left to object and defend Dead Rangers ? Sevco have no money and would bankrupt themselves if they took it to court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Have to disagree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Is It On....
At the time of the "offences", HMRC's policy was to hold an employer responsible for the faulty operation of its PAYE & NI system. Indeed, that's the approach they took in arriving at the amount due to them by Oldco. They have "grossed-up" net payments made to the recipients for tax and NI, and assessed the employer accordingly.
As mentioned earlier, there is draft legislation proposed to hold recipients responsible for a "loan charge" on any un-repaid EBT payments. It's still not clear how that charge will be calculated, so it's very difficult to say how the likes of Ferguson will be affected. Indeed, reading Deloitte's comments just now, they think it will be difficult to enforce for payments made prior to 2010.
With little success I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
What punishment should the SFA be handing out? What would make everyone think, aye, good, they've done the right thing at last?
I'd disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
The introduction of IR35, the change in legislation surrounding dividend payments, and better-targeted inquiries into "status", have all been positive from an HMRC point of view.
Also, the negative publicity surrounding "contractors" has led the likes of the BBC to review its own use of such staff.
Against that, though, the slashing in HMRC staff numbers has meant that the enquiries are less-well managed than they should be.
Would be a nice reprisal for all the BS levelled at us after THE cup finalQuote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Quote:
Originally Posted by MileHighBees
As others have said, just void them. Like the Tour did with Lance Armstrong.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomo
It's an old club anyway so it doesn't affect any existing football team.
There isn't any need for anything vindictive, given that oldco is long dead. All that is needed is a fair, proportionate reaction, and the only one that meets that criterion is to strip the titles that were won by cheating. The prize money they won, and the resultant income from euro campaigns they cheated their way to, should just be written off. It would be unfair to pursue newco for that money, given they are a different club.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhileTheChief..
Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news the noo. He's hatred of the Huns goes back a long way :greengrin
Indeed he isn't letting it lie. His utter contempt for the Scottish msm goes back a long time too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
Last nights embarrassment in Europe is maybe evidence of Karma and an indication how far they have fallen as. Club since going down to the Third division and trying to pretend they are back They have a long way to go and don't think there is the appetite in the Hierarchy to inflict further pain or sanctions , even if it was within their power
Their Titles and Cups won during the E B T years are Tainted They may be in denial , but everyone else knows and lets not let them forget it Their arrogance knows no bounds and the way they as a Club Treated us after the Cup Final will also not be forgotten They made a fool of themselves yet again
King is not that well liked and he will now come back under scrutiny from the support
They have reaped what they sowed
Hope we hump them in second game of Season
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, you're right.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
People have been talking about stripping of "titles", which I equated with the League.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
What is bordering on the ridiculous are the statements (from Murray etc) that somehow todays ruling is flawed. How on earth did these, supposedly intelligent men, think that they were going to receive large amounts of money for services rendered and somehow not have to pay tax on it? Murray said that “the decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers.” . It would appear, Sir David, that the legal advice you recieved was sheite so good luck sueing them.
It was greed pure and simple. Whether it was the individuals receiving payment (and Murray was good to himself here) or the club pursuing success on the field they thought they had found a wee loophole, however nonsensical that might appear, and tried to exploit it to the nth degree. It seems clear now, some would argue it has always been thus, that on field success was intrinsically linked to the avoidance/evasion of tax and todays decision, and the information that became public in the Whyte trial, just confirms this.
Shysters the lot of them.
I'd let Murray keep his K, but all the rest should be gone by Monday morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Murray is the biggest shark in the bog. He should be title stripped, publicly flogged, hung, drawn and quartered... just for startersQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
I'm wondering if SDM is positioning himself, in case of potential criminal charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Neither Murray or MIM could produce any legal advice at the hearings because they didn't have any.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That was my thoughts too. I cannot get my head around why SDM and his people thought they would get away with it? It's them pesky hibs fans isn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Ach, you've won me over. Head on a spike outside Ipox anaw!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I have no doubt SDM is primarily concerned with himself. Habit of a lifetime I suppose.
Todays ruling just set in stone and confirmed what everyone already knew - that Rangers used seedy deals, underhand tactics and just blatant cheat tactics to get an advantage on everybody else. There has been no real new revelations, its simply made their cheating past "official" if you like. However, it has now cemented what they did and they deserve punishment, not only for cheating but for (once again) embarrassing Scottish football and bringing the game into disripute.
If Sevco are not liable for the debts of the past then they can't claim the glories of the past. They can't have it both ways. They want nothing to do with the debts, the seedy past etc but they are happy to lap up the prizes they gained from it.
A deplorable club has just become even more deplorable (yes I know, I didn't think it was possible either!). A club that has sunk to lows in every possible area.
... While it burns :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Rangers are a shower of dirty underhanded cheating *******s. I've known that for the last 44 years of watching Hibs. But now it is official as decided by the highest court in the land. They have had referees and the SFA/SPFL/SPL etc helping them and they still found new ways to cheat. They should have some of those poxy stars removed from that hideous blue rag they wear.
Big bugbear of mine those stars. They had to invent a reason to have them. Now time for some to be whipped off.Quote:
Originally Posted by weecounty hibby
I love the stars on their shirts.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamig
They've won dozens of league titles fair and square and those titles are tarnished by the fact that they are hell bent on hanging onto the dodgy ones.
The fact that they feel the need to put stars on their shirts just makes a further mockery of the whole already-ludicrous institution.
The stars are a permanent, shameful reminder of their disgraceful recent past that they must wear for every game.
ThisQuote:
Originally Posted by 21.05.2016
I would think that is quite likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Although a scheme that pays £6m to a company that then loans you it back and you dont have to either pay tax on it (going out or coming in) and neither do you have to repay the loan. What could possibly go wrong wiith such a bullet proof scheme?
I know i simplify things quite considerably but Murray was considered to be one of the foremost businessmen in the country, you would think that he, or some of his people (not to be confused with THE people) would see a potential flaw in the plan.
Now that is interesting. I presume there's no way he could be in possession of said "legal advice" and not disclosing it at the hearing to be produced later when its his get out jail card? That would be contempt would it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
What I've said from day 1. The 1 thing they fear, hugely! The 1 thing that should be done. The 1 thing that (listen GFA) will appease. They did NOT win anything then fairly because they paid more for better players because they were breaking tax rules, but it is irrelevant! That club is FINISHED DEAD done, due to their huge debts.Quote:
Originally Posted by allezsauzee
Now not into all this accountancy and legal stuff and I might be totally off the boil by my thought on it BUT WHAT IF?
1 because these are loans a court decides that they have to pay the money back to Rangers ( they players and managers that were involved inEBT's )
2 the money paid back then went towards the debt that Rangers left all the creditors with including the tax man.
I would guess that the tax man would be happy to chase the players etc for the tax that was avoided but what would happen if another creditor decided to take the players managers to court who benefited and asked for the money to be paid back to Rangers as it wasn't wages according to Rangers but loans, so that it could then be divided between creditors? Or if it was wages then that means that the deliberately avoided tax and were breaking the law.
GGTTH
Not sure if HMRC are up for pursuing it but the concealment of the side letters from HMRC would surely be fraud?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wasn't it revealed that the guy they got their 'Advice' from is now working in the 'Porn Industry' ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Anyway, couple of points from his statement in 'The Scotman' -
'............ the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such'
So what were they then ? Can CWG or any other of the accounting/business-types on here say what these 'contributions' could be considered as ??
'.......... the liquidation of the club, which occured during the ownership of Craig Whyte'
DESPICABLE - the only word I can think of to describe Murray right now !. Found guilty of cheating yet still tries to use that poor dupe to try and deflect from the fact were it not for him - and him alone - the Hun would not have been in the position they ended-up in !
They thought they would get away with it because hundred of companies throughout the U.K. were doing it.Thet's why the taxman kept appealing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSmith
The "loans" didn't come from Rangers. The club made payments to trusts, which then made the loans to the players etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by southern hibby
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
The contributions to the trusts were exactly that. They were not earnings. He is right about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
However, he is blowing smoke about the actual issue. It is the payments BY the trusts that are the earnings.
The adviser, by the way, was in the adult industry before he became a tax specialist. Just another way of ****ing people for money.....
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Cheers CWG - sorry, but can you clarify the 'contributions' point -Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
1) WHO actually contributed ?
2) And what could/would be their answer when asked WHY they made these contributions - what were they expecting or hoping to get out of it ?
The club made the contributions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
What they got out of it were players at a lower cost than if they had paid them in the conventional way. Or, conversely, players that they wouldn't have been able to afford had they paid them in the conventional way.
Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
And, crucially, it was clearly understood as part of their contract.
Cheers CWG - I realise now asking that question made me look a bit stupid but I DID know that's why they did it but wasn't the Huns argument that it WASN'T so they could get players they couldn't afford ?. They've never explained what it was for I'm just trying to put myself in Murray's shoes and I'd made that statement -Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
'............ the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such'
And then someone asked me to explain exactly WHAT these contributions were for then - what could/would my answer be ?
Ah, I get you.:aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
Like I say, though, he is correct in what he says. The "contributions" were not earnings. But he's deflecting.
The follow-up question should be "but, SDM, it's not the contributions TO the trusts that are the issue here. Would you now agree with the Court that the payments BY the trusts are earnings?"
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...tles-1-4496082
SFA quick to try and airbrush over the implications of the Supreme Court ruling.
A succinct summary from CA Tax magazine. Much better than the nonsense in the Record today.
Tax advisers generally, together with employers with similar Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangements, have been waiting for seven years for this final judgement to emerge. It is therefore pleasing to have a final, binding decision which can now be relied upon by employers and their tax advisers. Having followed the debate through two tribunal hearings and a Court of Session hearing, it is clear that the unanimous Supreme Court judgement handed down by Lord Hodge, which has been the best part of four months in the making, has also been a difficult and complicated process.
The three key issues being reviewed by the Supreme Court were whether the £47+ million paid from offshore EBTs to over 80 players and staff did in fact constitute earnings under ICTA 1988 and ITEPA 2003; whether the deeming provisions within the legislation were sufficient to capture the payments as earnings and whether each recipient was sufficiently close to the funds that this meant they had been placed unreservedly at their disposal.
Lord Hodge agreed with the First Tier Tribunal dissenting judge Dr Poon’s assessment that “the legislative code for emoluments has primacy over the benefits code in relation to loans”. This appears to have been a crucial deciding factor in this case, and the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision that the three key issues pointed towards earnings from an employment, making the payments liable to PAYE and NICs.
It now appears that BDO, liquidators to Rangers Football Club, will be liable for any taxes deemed to be due under this ruling. It is unclear whether the players who were the original beneficiaries of the EBT could be asked to pay any back taxes by HMRC.
It is important to note that since the 'Rangers' EBT was first set up, tax practice and attitudes to tax avoidance have moved on. The introduction of the DOTAS (Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes) rules, changes to penalty regimes and more recently the introduction of accelerated payment notices and follower notices have changed the climate. Additionally, all the main professional bodies for tax advisers have agreed to revised Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation rules, which establish standards in relation to tax planning.
And was it not also confirmed in writing (the undeclared side letters). Or have I misunderstood their function?Quote:
Originally Posted by jacomo
Apparently Paul Baxendale-Walker, the guy who introduced the concept of EBTs to the Murray Group and Rangers has had a change of career.
He's now a Porn Star!
I know I should be surprised but......
Petrie is on SFA board so is he in agreement with their statement that they will do nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
Dempster is on the League board who will look into it.
Celtic the only club so far to comment - does anyone expect Hibs to make a public comment, and do you think they should?
He was a "porn-baron" (Whatever TF that is... perhaps 1 rank below a Porn-Duke) before his name surfaced in the RFC case. He also owned Loaded for a while.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keekaboo
There's plenty goss on him out there. eg...Struck off as a solicitor for impersonating an HMRC officer. :rolleyes:
I don't expect a comment from Hibs again. Despite us losing out to financially doped teams the whole decade I expect us to do absolutely nothing about it. And there are still no FFP rules in Scottish football and is happening again right now with the new Rangers currently racking up the debts again who will likely take a European spot from us this season but we will just doff our cap to them again.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerry70
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, you're correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
When players were signing for Rangers FC (in liquidation), they were told they were getting x amount as a basic salary, plus all this extra cash going into this trust (EBT).
Understandably the agents for these players said we'll need that in writing; the so called 'side letters' that explicitly stated the player will have money placed into their trust.
These letters have lead to the 'imperfectly registered' players at the SFA, as this income was known about but not part of the contract lodged (pun intended) with the SFA. These signed letters though are a written contract, so in effect the old Rangers were playing players who were not properly registered. Punishments for this vary across different leagues and footballing authorities. For league matches it's generally loss of points, cup competitions it's disqualification or replay the game.
CWG and the other CAs on here can correct any inaccuracies, bit I think that's the gist of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Maybe it's a strict hierarchy.
Porn Star, Porn Duke, Porn Baron... Knight to King Porn, etc.
Thanks for this article CWG. But I don't understand the part in bold. Why would BDO be liable here??Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think it means BDO as the organisation responsible for distributing the liquidated Rangers FC 's creditors pot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Offside Trap
Means creditors will get about 5p in the £, instead of 10p .
Still its 5p more than poor sods who were ordinary Yam creditors.
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/ale...ent-silverware
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, BDO are in charge of the liquidation of Oldco Rangers and the distribution of the remaining assets between all Creditors of the Oldco.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
HMRC were already the largest creditor but now the SC ruling now adds the Big Tax Case liability to the debt due to them. This will probably result in no other creditors getting any money, just like UKIO with HMFC.
All ordinary creditors, including HMRC, will get the same p/£ dividend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynie01011973
The only way they will get nothing is if the Wavetower case goes against BDO, and the legal action against Duff & Phelps fails.
(For reference, the last BDO report showed £15m in the pot. There's a legal action against Duff & Phelps for £28m. Wavetower's claim is £18m. )
Ordinary creditors are, IIRC, around £160m, including the EBT tax.
Should BDO not be trying to recover the tax amount from the players via the trusts? Presumably the trusts still exist and they do have the power to recall the loans either in full or part?
If that money can't be recovered, or if HMRC can't go after the individuals involved for unpaid tax then would that mean that the ruse of using a trust to protect income from tax could still be used?
... he featured in one of Mark Daly's BBC documentaries and revealed that the Huns went against his specific advice, which was that nothing should be written down that would make the payments seem contractual. Of course, football agents were never going to go on a nod and a wink ...Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's worth remembering that Lord Nimmo-Smith's inquiry didn't punish Rangers for not paying tax, but did find that they had fielded players who were "imperfectly registered". As you correctly remark the penalty is generally loss of points. LNS decided just to impose a fine, stating that EBT schemes were available to all clubs so Rangers had not gained a sporting advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSauzee
In 2014 Livingston were penalised 5 points for non-payment of tax on bonus payments. The amount involved was trivial compared to the sums systematically concealed by Rangers. The punishment for Rangers seemed very slight at the time and now that their EBT scheme has been declared invalid the case should be revisited as the premise on which the punishment was based has been shown to be incorrect. I hope Hibs will back Celtic's call for the SPFL to re-examine the case.
The loans weren't from the company, though. They were from the Trusts. In that light, BDO have no power to recall them. As I understand the set-up, the loans are only repayable to the Trusts when the recipient wants to repay it, or when they die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan62
On your last point, there is new legislation proposed which would prevent that.
Good statement from Aberdeen fans. The sentence in bold is the nub of the issue: it's called cheating:
Dons Supporters Together have urged those in power to punish the Glasgow giants after the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favour of HRMC over the Ibrox club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).
Celtic later that day released a statement that called on league chiefs to review their initial ruling which in 2013 found no further action should be taken because the use of EBTS did not give Rangers any "unfair competitive advantage".
The SFA then put out a statement of their own that said "no further disciplinary action should be taken".
However, Aberdeen fans groups Dons Supporters Together are not satisfied and have called for the Ibrox side to be stripped of the 14 trophies the club won during the EBT years of 2001 to 2010.
A statement read: "Dons Supporters Together aim to represent the Aberdeen FC supporting community and have done since their inception. Those supporters that travel home and away, week-in, week-out and spend a fortune while doing it.
"We all appreciate that the Scottish Football League has its faults and its critics. But, we fully expect, and it is our absolute right, that the sport we love and invest in is fair and honest.
The Ibrox club lost the ruling at the Supreme Court (Photo: Getty Images Europe)"On 5th July 2017 the Supreme Court backed HM Revenue and Customs in its fight with Rangers FC over their use of Employee Benefit Trusts between 2001 and 2010. This allowed Rangers FC to recruit members of staff of a certain quality that they could not ordinarily afford. Rangers FC undisputedly cheated the taxman to win 14 trophies.
"Dons Supporters Together share the view with supporters who have invested in the Scottish game, that Rangers FC should be stripped of the 14 trophies won during these EBT years.
"We now appeal to the Scottish football authorities, media, supporters and clubs in Scotland to review this matter and re-instate our trust in those running the game."
The SPFL, which later took over the running of the league after the merge of the SFL and SPL, said on Wednesday they "consider any implications for the SPFL".
Yes I do. If we agree that Rangers gained an unfair sporting advantage/mis-registered players then not to do so would be to condone their cheating/rule breaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerry70
Can anyone put the case to me for Hibs remaining silent on this?
I'd like to see every club in Scotland release a joint statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
I think there may be more mileage in going down the "fans' voice" route, as Aberdeen have. IIRC, it was the combined voice of supporters that forced the clubs' hands when voting on the RFC/SPL membership back in 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
(disclaimer; I'm not volunteering to organise it....)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
against the wind of views here...but my view is that this is a retrospective decision. What was viewed as acceptable tax / benefits handling has now been declared unlawful. Therefore, I find it hard to view that it was "cheating"...aggressive tax and benefits handling yes - but until yesterday it was not illegal.
I feel it's a bit weird that HMRC can win a case that results in change on things that have already happened...that is a big can of worms for many businesses and individuals..
There isn't one but I think it might be wise to see what action the SPFL take. Petrie is one of the board members (?) and maybe it's not great timing,if the SPFL are going to take action, for Hibs to get in first?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
Having said that I expect it to be covered up in some way that the vast majority of us won't like.
Maybe another pet QC'S opinion to hide behind like the sfa
Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk