Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[jacomo]

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

But I thought the new club was the old club or something. Didn't somebody rule that the new club was a continuation of the old club? If for example the new club went into admin, would be the first or second offence? Or is it the old club when it suits the Huns but the new one when it doesn't?

It's quite straightforward really. This is the same club, with all its history, and no one walked away... except from the debts, possible tax evasion, and anything else which the current peepul want to forget about.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

But I thought the new club was the old club or something. Didn't somebody rule that the new club was a continuation of the old club? If for example the new club went into admin, would be the first or second offence? Or is it the old club when it suits the Huns but the new one when it doesn't?

The new club took over the old club. (lights blue touch paper, and retires)

However, this is about the old company. It's nothing to do with the company that bought the assets of the old company.

[Tynie01011973]

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

It's starting today, but I don't know how long it will last.

There shouldn't be any implications for the new club. Principally, it's about HMRC establishing a precedent to enable them to deal with other companies in the same situation. The old club has no money, so there is nothing financial in it for HMRC.

The only thing which, although unlikely, might happen, is that HMRC (if they get the result they want) might instigate criminal proceedings against the individuals concerned. Which would be nice.

It started yesterday, and is scheduled to run for 4 weeks.

No witnesses will be called as it is merely HMRC challenging the legal reasons given by the two 'majority' judges in the FTT case.

[nribs]

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

I may be wrong (not unusual) but my understanding of the original case was that two blokes, basically Huns, rubber stamped the case in their teams favour with the dissenting female member of the tribunal producing a very detailed rationale for her rejection of the Huns arguments. Sounds to me like this could very well be overturned in favour of HMRC!!

This rubber stamp has been busy

[s.a.m]

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 2m Imran Ahmad had failed in his attempt at court to arrest £620,000 of money from Rangers he contests is owed to him in bonuses.

[jonty]

Grant Russell @STVGrant
Lord Tyre satisfied case to answer but says insufficient evidence that Rangers' finances have deteriorated to point of near insolvency.

Clearly Lord Tyre needs to start reading hibs.net

[s.a.m]

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 5m Ahmad v The Rangers FC Ltd will be heard in April. Lord Tyre says no evidence to suggest any debt arising from that wouldn't be satisfied.

[Ozyhibby]

Correct decision. Their assets far exceed their liabilities so even if they went into admin, then Ahmed would still get paid.
What they have is a massive cash flow problem and they are trading at a loss. Both fixable.

[AndyM_1875]

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

It's quite straightforward really. This is the same club, with all its history, and no one walked away... except from the debts, possible tax evasion, and anything else which the current peepul want to forget about.

Yep.
As I found out when taking a train to Glasgow one Saturday mid-morning for work purposes and it was populated by currant buns. They're not dead, they are in fact the same if not worse and ever so paranoid.
A truly horrendous bunch of troglodytes.

Apparently their troubles are all he work of Scotland's "fenian team conspiracy" comprising of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs and Dundee United. That was news to me too.

[Alan62]

My recollection on the 'big tax case' was that the two in the 2-1 decision made their choice on very technical legal points rather than the spirit of the law. I think everyone knows that the whole thing was a scam to avoid tax, it's just that the two lawyers who weren't tax experts felt that RFC acted within the letter of the law.

It is entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that the next tier will not agree with that positioning. Where it could get most amusing would be if the 'loans' were recalled. Man, that would almost be as funny as The (New) Rangers entering administration once the Easdale/Laxey Facility has been burned on pre-match luxury hotels ...

[ehf]

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

It's starting today, but I don't know how long it will last.

There shouldn't be any implications for the new club. Principally, it's about HMRC establishing a precedent to enable them to deal with other companies in the same situation. The old club has no money, so there is nothing financial in it for HMRC.

The only thing which, although unlikely, might happen, is that HMRC (if they get the result they want) might instigate criminal proceedings against the individuals concerned. Which would be nice.

If HMRC win, won't they go about collecting the unpaid tax from the "beneficiaries" of the EBT (Billy Dodds et al)?

[green glory]

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

Yep. As I found out when taking a train to Glasgow one Saturday mid-morning for work purposes and it was populated by currant buns. They're not dead, they are in fact the same if not worse and ever so paranoid. A truly horrendous bunch of troglodytes. Apparently their troubles are all he work of Scotland's "fenian team conspiracy" comprising of Celtic, Aberdeen, Hibs and Dundee United. That was news to me too.

In connivance with the 'hidden fenian hand' of Peter Lawwell with the backing of the Vatican, father Dougal McGuire and Bono out of U2?

[ACLeith]

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

It's starting today, but I don't know how long it will last.

There shouldn't be any implications for the new club. Principally, it's about HMRC establishing a precedent to enable them to deal with other companies in the same situation. The old club has no money, so there is nothing financial in it for HMRC.

The only thing which, although unlikely, might happen, is that HMRC (if they get the result they want) might instigate criminal proceedings against the individuals concerned. Which would be nice.

Thanks for clarifying. I kind of thought that there were no direct implications for the current shower. Probably being greedy, but this summer promises to be fun for TRFC and I hoped for a "double whammy" - or "triple" if we include HMFC

[CropleyWasGod]

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

If HMRC win, won't they go about collecting the unpaid tax from the "beneficiaries" of the EBT (Billy Dodds et al)?

No, sadly.

It's an established practice of HMRC that, in instances where a payroll scheme has been operated incorrectly, it always falls on the employer/operator to make good any tax lost; that's even when the employee has benefited.

The only way that HMRC would go after the beneficiaries would be if they thought there was collusion between RFC/the Trusts/ the beneficiaries to evade tax.

That would be very difficult to prove. The basis of the defence would be "Billy Dodds colluding in a tax avoidance scheme? He's thick as pigsht, m'lud. I rest my case."

[ehf]

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

No, sadly.

It's an established practice of HMRC that, in instances where a payroll scheme has been operated incorrectly, it always falls on the employer/operator to make good any tax lost; that's even when the employee has benefited.

The only way that HMRC would go after the beneficiaries would be if they thought there was collusion between RFC/the Trusts/ the beneficiaries to evade tax.

That would be very difficult to prove. The basis of the defence would be "Billy Dodds colluding in a tax avoidance scheme? He's thick as pigsht, m'lud. I rest my case."

OK, thanks - shame. Take your point re Dodds, though

[O'Rourke3]

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

No, sadly.

It's an established practice of HMRC that, in instances where a payroll scheme has been operated incorrectly, it always falls on the employer/operator to make good any tax lost; that's even when the employee has benefited.

The only way that HMRC would go after the beneficiaries would be if they thought there was collusion between RFC/the Trusts/ the beneficiaries to evade tax.

That would be very difficult to prove. The basis of the defence would be "Billy Dodds colluding in a tax avoidance scheme? He's thick as pigsht, m'lud. I rest my case."

Crops, I thought ignorance of the law was no defence. I'm sure under cross examination the answer to "Did you collude on a tax avoidance scheme?" Would be answered by "I didnae collude on anything your worshipfull, aw I did was signed a contract after they explained I widnae need to pay so much tax, sorted eh?"

[JeMeSouviens]

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

In connivance with the 'hidden fenian hand' of Peter Lawwell with the backing of the Vatican, father Dougal McGuire and Bono out of U2?

He's a prod.

[Weststandwanab]

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

OK, thanks - shame. Take your point re Dodds, though

Apart from Dodds saying "it was part of my salary" before he was gagged - if you see what I mean.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Crops, I thought ignorance of the law was no defence. I'm sure under cross examination the answer to "Did you collude on a tax avoidance scheme?" Would be answered by "I didnae collude on anything your worshipfull, aw I did was signed a contract after they explained I widnae need to pay so much tax, sorted eh?"

In some cases, ignorance itself should be a hanging offence.

[Just Alf]

Re that EBT money

If it was a loan, then it still requires repaid?

Would it not be in order for the liquidators to go after it to help repay creditors and, of course, their own fees?

[Stonewall]

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

No, sadly.

It's an established practice of HMRC that, in instances where a payroll scheme has been operated incorrectly, it always falls on the employer/operator to make good any tax lost; that's even when the employee has benefited.

The only way that HMRC would go after the beneficiaries would be if they thought there was collusion between RFC/the Trusts/ the beneficiaries to evade tax.

That would be very difficult to prove. The basis of the defence would be "Billy Dodds colluding in a tax avoidance scheme? He's thick as pigsht, m'lud. I rest my case."

An established legal principle in football circles known as the Redknapp defence.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Re that EBT money

If it was a loan, then it still requires repaid?

Would it not be in order for the liquidators to go after it to help repay creditors and, of course, their own fees?

This is where it gets messy.

The money paid by RFC was a contribution to the Trust(s). In other words, an expense, not a loan, and not recoverable.

The money paid by the Trust(s) to the players etc. was a loan. If there was any recovery in those situations, it would be by the Trustees of each individual Trust.

[Tynie01011973]

Transcript from TSFM of today's proceedings of the UTTT

John Clarke TSFM

ohn clarke says:
February 24, 2014 at 7:32 pm
9 0 Rate This

Nothing of any great substance to report from today’s UTTT hearing.
I was there for 9.30 , but the kick-off wasn’t till 10.00. That gave time for a little bit of socialising: I didn’t meet the Grant Russell chap from STV, but only a chap from the ‘Sun’, and a director from Murray Group, and Mr Thornhill (QC for the respondents,i.e the MG),who came to make himself known to me and another TSFM person.
A big surprise to me was that it was not Lord Bishopp presiding, but Lord Docherty ( which, of course, kept the business within the Scottish house)
Apparently, the respondents had appealed against the time allocation set by Judge Bishopp, and it was reduced from 20 to 10 days, and Judge Bishopp stood down for some reason.
At kick-off, there were ,besides Judge Docherty and the clerical officer, there were 15 persons in the Tribunal room.
On the left, Roderick Thomson QC for HMRC,supported by 6 other lawyers(none of whom actually sat beside him,but behind).
On the right, Andrew Thornhill QC for the respondents, supported by 2 other lawyers (one of whom sat beside him, the other one behind). Behind them was the Finance Director of the Murray group, the chap from the ‘Sun’, and me and a lurker.
On my left were two young women one of whom was there, she told me, as part of her training, as newly qualified and in her first job in a solicitor’s office as a qualified solicitor.
The other took copious notes and was probably a lawyer as well. (Mind you, so did I take copious notes,and I’m no lawyer!) She did not turn up for the second half.
The 17th person must have been Russell of STV, but he was sitting beside the lawyers behind Thomson,QC, so I had clocked him as a lawyer.

Lord Docherty reminded counsel that the names of the HMRC officers who gave evidence at the FTTT should not be disclosed, nor should the names of 3 witnesses who had given evidence on the basis of anonymity. Mr Thomson said he would try to remember that if or when he had occasion to mention their testimony in the course of the hearing.

Mr Thomson invited His lordship
- to overturn the decision of the First Tier Tax Tribunal and uphold HMRC’s assessments. He added that he would later have something to say about ‘unreasonable comments’ made by the FTTT.
or, if His Lordship was not minded to make any additional findings of fact, then to remit the case to a fresh Tribunal.
He gave a very short summary of the background. To wit, that the FTTT had heard evidence for 17 days,
and that the evidence bundles shows that much of the documentation was provided by the MG, and that there had been extensive reference to that documentation.
Put very simply, the MG had argued a) that for earnings to be taxable, there had to be ABSOLUTE legal title to
them, and that under the EBT Trust scheme there was no such absolute title. Payments made under them were something other than bonuses or emoluments and that the recipients of loans had had been no ‘unreserved disposal’ of the money that was on offer as loans.
and b) that the Trust scheme had not been shown to be a sham.
Mr Thomson said that HMRC’s view was that the evidence showed that there had been an underlying tacit agreement between the parties involved that loans would not ever be recalled, that interest due would be rolled up, until death, when the interest and repayment would be able to be offset against inheritance tax.
He said that the idea that the idea that payments under the Trust arrangements were something ‘other’ than taxable earnings was merely an assertion by the MG that did not reflect reality.
The rest of the day was spent by Mr Thomson ripping the FTTT’s whole approach to their hearing apart, and using quite harsh words their failure of duty to examine the evidence, make complete findings of fact, and apply the principles of the Ramsay case and a couple of other relevant cases properly, if at all.
he referred to the minority report of DR Poon as showing how many findings of fact were there to be made, which the majority had missed, and how their understanding and application of the Ramsay and other relevant cases had been erroneous and actually missed the very point of those cases.
He went on to say that the FTTT majority had failed to address the submissions made by HMRC, and that a pattern emerged of the FTTT simply accepting the MG’s submission, and of failing to make findings of fact to support arguments
There was not merely understandable error in law, but deeply flawed submissions by the Majority, wholesale faiure to exercise their judicial duty.

And so on all day till 4.00 pm, with frequent references to the legal authorities and the true interpretation of the case which is, that while there may be all the legal documentation to show that there was a proper, valid Trust, it was necessary to look at whether people in fact worked the Trust properly.
The Trust may be perfectly legal and not a sham, but the Trustees could ( and in this case, did, act beyond their powers) by making loans to people who were not entitled to such under the trust, making loans without requiring evidence of security or requiring repayment or interest payments -and all involved knew this to be the case. And, of course, the Trustees who began to ask for security etc were dismissed and another more compliant lot were brought in.
—–
That all sounds as dry as dust, but I actually quite enjoyed the day, And I’ll be back tomorrow. I still have 18 pages of notes to decipher: I can write legibly, and I can write fast: but not both at the same time!

'Mon the HMRC

[Jack Hackett]

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

Transcript from TSFM of today's proceedings of the UTTT

John Clarke TSFM

ohn clarke says:
February 24, 2014 at 7:32 pm
9 0 Rate This

Nothing of any great substance to report from today’s UTTT hearing.......

(Edited for brevity)

.........I can write legibly, and I can write fast: but not both at the same time!

'Mon the HMRC

That was a good read. Look forward to some more

[grunt]

Interesting!

Who's TSFM?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Interesting!

Who's TSFM?

http://www.tsfm.org.uk/

[CentreLine]

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

http://www.tsfm.org.uk/

Tried to visit the site but looks like they have been subject of a cyber attack. Wonder who that was????

[Bill Milne]

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

I don't think there was any serious suggestion that the two who were in favour of the parts of the finding that favoured RFC were Huns.

However, the type of arguments put forward by the dissenter will form a key part of HMRC's case, I'm sure.

No, CWG, I have no idea if they were but this is Scotland and the vested interests of the Huns are, generally looked after by those in power, giving a reasonable possibility that they were of that ilk. You only have to look at the number of Jambos entrenched in senior positions within Edinburgh Council to realise how likely it is that their counterparts in the West are likely to have similarly vast numbers in HMRC and the judiciary.

[AndyM_1875]

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

No, CWG, I have no idea if they were but this is Scotland and the vested interests of the Huns are, generally looked after by those in power, giving a reasonable possibility that they were of that ilk. You only have to look at the number of Jambos entrenched in senior positions within Edinburgh Council to realise how likely it is that their counterparts in the West are likely to have similarly vast numbers in HMRC and the judiciary.

Bill, no just no.
It's not 1955 and he Rangers are generally looked on with disdain and contempt by those in power in 21st Century Scotland.

Societal and social change over the last few decades has affected Rangers badly. Their inability to tackle the bigotry in their support left Celtic as the trendy establishment club back in the 90s. Without a shadow of a doubt Celtic are the club of the Labour controlled Glasgow City Council, and have benefitted allegedly from both State Aid and definitely from soft loans from the Co-Operative Bank, the Labour Party's bank of choice. BBC Scotland's Sports Department isn't jokingly referred to as PacificQuayCSC#1 for nothing. Rangers are viewed as a stupid anachronism followed by Neanderthals who are presently getting their just desserts.

To try and say that the FTTT went 2:1 against HMRC because of some Rangers influence is frankly ridiculous. HMRC didn't make a good enough case to win outright, plain and simple.

[Jack Hackett]

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

Bill, no just no.
It's not 1955 and he Rangers are generally looked on with disdain and contempt by those in power in 21st Century Scotland.

Societal and social change over the last few decades has affected Rangers badly. Their inability to tackle the bigotry in their support left Celtic as the trendy establishment club back in the 90s. Without a shadow of a doubt Celtic are the club of the Labour controlled Glasgow City Council, and have benefitted allegedly from both State Aid and definitely from soft loans from the Co-Operative Bank, the Labour Party's bank of choice. BBC Scotland's Sports Department isn't jokingly referred to as PacificQuayCSC#1 for nothing. Rangers are viewed as a stupid anachronism followed by Neanderthals who are presently getting their just desserts.

To try and say that the FTTT went 2:1 against HMRC because of some Rangers influence is frankly ridiculous. HMRC didn't make a good enough case to win outright, plain and simple.

Good post. I think the only ones who sympathise with der hun these days, are those who've had their snouts buried in the Rangers trough