Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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 Generally rules exist that do not allow any more than 50% of an individuals allocation to be withdrawn to ensure that any loan is paid back on death etc.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.

[JimBHibees]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[grunt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

[SurferRosa]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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....

[Jack Hackett]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[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.[/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!

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[JeMeSouviens]

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):

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’

[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:

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.

[southsider]

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".

[Ryan91]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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?

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[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.

[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.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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!

[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.

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

Hope they got cash up front for his green fee.

[VickMackie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hope they got cash up front for his green fee.

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

[The Green Goblin]

Is Mr. Red Mr. Green?

[Hibrandenburg]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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

See what you done there

[SurferRosa]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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. "

[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.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[Ozyhibby]

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

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

[JeMeSouviens]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

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.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

I thought they'd admitted the payments, or some of them, were contractual also. If this Nimmo tribunal is trully independent oldcorpse should be stripped. Will they have the bottle to defy the horde and their media is the real question.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

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.

It's not speculation, IMO. The phrase I read (and I'm buggered if I'm going to trawl through the 145 pages to find it) was that the assessments were to be "reduced". In other words, some of them stood as originally set. But, as I say, we don't know which of these are for players.


Cav has been awfully quiet on this. I have a vision of him sitting in a windowless room going through every line of the judgement. I reckon we might hear from him by about the middle of next month.