It's the only logical thing to do. There was never any intention of repayment so these sums aren't loans but lump sum payments and are therefore taxable.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
View Poll Results: What is your attitude to a new "Rangers" entering at Div1?
- Voters
- 1016. You may not vote on this poll
-
Opposed - and will walk away from Scottish professional football
537 52.85% -
Opposed - but will continue to support the game.
454 44.69% -
In favour.
25 2.46%
Results 34,591 to 34,620 of 45185
-
31-03-2016 07:55 AM #34591
-
31-03-2016 08:38 AM #34592
If HMRC go after the players and the players have a letter from the club promising to cover any liability and Rangers don't then is that not a football debt and a remuneration default?
The players deal is with the club?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
31-03-2016 08:48 AM #34593
My take on the latest headline.
When an employer is in default of PAYE regulations, it's the employer's responsibility to cough up the tax etc. That holds, even where the employee has gained. In RFC's case, the current position (albeit, to be challenged once more) is that they are liable for everything.
That said, if HMRC can prove that there was collusion between employer and employee, then the recipients have a problem.
IMO, though, the stuff about new regulations coming in is irrelevant. That can only apply to new cases, and not ones that existed previously.
-
31-03-2016 09:00 AM #34594
If some of the EBT benefitting players are landed with a tax bill and they have a letter from the Club ( Oldco Rangers ) promising to cover their liabilities then , because of the football creditors rule and the 5-way agreement promising that Newco Rangers would cover the Oldco football creditors , it could just be that some bills arrive at the door of Rangers 2012 formerly known as Sevco Ltd.
We can but hope !
-
31-03-2016 09:11 AM #34595This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
... it would take years to sort out, probably through the Courts. Again.
-
31-03-2016 10:38 AM #34596This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
"I did not need any persuasion to play for such a great club, the Hibs result is still one of the first I look for"
Sir Matt Busby
-
31-03-2016 11:34 AM #34597This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Maybe, but could cause problems for the new entity in a shorter time scale.
Player gets notice of tax due from HMRC.
Player digs out letter of indemnity from Oldco and informs SFA/SPFL he considers himself a football creditor to be reimbursed by Newco Rangers.
Accountants have to put a note of contingent liability and Going Concern warning on end of year accounts.
This could result in refusal of UEFA License. Result, much nashing of teeth and burning of effigies of former heroes down Govan way.
-
31-03-2016 12:15 PM #34598This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Someone mentioned John Grisham earlier. I think this saga is more Dostoevsky. Crime and (some) Punishment.
-
31-03-2016 12:33 PM #34599
Does indeed say that the club will indemnify the player.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
31-03-2016 12:42 PM #34600This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Cheating barstewards.
-
31-03-2016 12:46 PM #34601
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 9,485
Here's £2.8m. Oh and by the way, this is not an inducement to sign a contract.
Right.
-
31-03-2016 12:47 PM #34602
Seems a bit sneaky of George Osborne to turn all this money into football debts that have to be paid.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
31-03-2016 12:49 PM #34603This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Where'd you get that from, Oz?
Reason I ask is that I've seen a few instances of fake documents being spread about on Twitter etc.
-
31-03-2016 12:51 PM #34604This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
How much did he rinse them for in terms of transfer fee, wages etc when he "played" for them?
Now he's providing the written evidence that could bring the whole house down?
Ouch. I guess that's what they refer to as an "enemy of Rangers".
-
31-03-2016 12:53 PM #34605This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
And that's just the tax. Penalties and interest would be added on top.
However, we should calm our jets. I'm still not sure that the guy in the Record has it right.Last edited by CropleyWasGod; 31-03-2016 at 12:57 PM.
-
31-03-2016 01:19 PM #34606
Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Trying to find link for it now.
-
31-03-2016 02:20 PM #34607
The "Club" indemnifies, not the "company that owns the club".
Hoist them with their own petard.
(Sometimes it's a pity it's all just made up rubbish.)
-
-
31-03-2016 02:34 PM #34609
Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread
https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/rulings/...il.html?id=320
10. Rangers had benefited in terms of player recruitment from the adoption of a scheme designed to minimise the payment of tax. The Court of Session had subsequently found the club was not entitled to operate this scheme lawfully without paying the higher rate of tax due. The Committee noted the arguments put forward by the complainant, including the opinion of a QC specialising in tax law. However, the article in question was a broad-ranging opinion piece on Scottish football, not a technical legal analysis of the Court of Session’s decision. The article did not say that the activities of Rangers were criminal or fraudulent in nature; it said that the club had gained an advantage from the use of Employee Benefit Trusts which was described variously as “illegal” and “unlawful”. In that sense, the term “illegal” was not inaccurate; there was no breach of Clause 1.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
31-03-2016 02:38 PM #34610
https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com...-ending-story/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
31-03-2016 02:43 PM #34611This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
31-03-2016 03:01 PM #34612This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Penalties can be 100%, yeah
-
31-03-2016 03:10 PM #34613
Had some more thoughts about this.
Not sure that it's quite the killer that we thought it might be.
If RFC Oldco lose the BTC, they will be held liable for all the tax and NI that should have been deducted from the recipients. It's irrelevant that HMRC can't be paid all of it; they will just join the queue of creditors.
Turning to the recipients.... they will then be assessed to tax for all of the income that they should have declared in each of the years affected. That will include "normal" salaries, private income and the EBT's. Their tax bill will be calculated on that basis, BUT they will receive credit for the tax that RFC Oldco should have deducted. In some cases, the recipient will have additional tax to pay (plus interest and penalties, as mentioned), but in others there may be nothing further to pay as everything has already been dealt with by way of PAYE and/or RFC's share of the EBT tax.
And, if RFC win the BTC.... they're in the clear, and I think the recipients would be also.Last edited by CropleyWasGod; 31-03-2016 at 03:30 PM.
-
31-03-2016 03:19 PM #34614
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 9,485
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
31-03-2016 03:22 PM #34615This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
31-03-2016 03:23 PM #34616This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
In the spleen venting and venom spitting that accompanied Rangers’ collapse, anger and rage has been sprayed in every direction except where it properly belongs.
-
31-03-2016 03:23 PM #34617
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 9,485
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
-
31-03-2016 04:33 PM #34619This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
12-04-2016 12:33 PM #34620
Still no contrition, just the opposite in fact. A timely reminder that new rangers are just as horrible as oldco.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36025815#PERSEVERED
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks