Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Billy Whizz]

See they’ve been linked with Jordan Rhodes today, he’ll not come cheap, either as a transfer or a loan
Would mean ta ta to JC if he was to come in

[CropleyWasGod]

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

The EBT was a system where they pretended that part of their salary was a loan, thereby not taxable.That means they paid no tax at all on that part of their 'salary'.

So I can't see where you're getting the 'paying it twice' from..

If an employer operates a PAYE scheme wrongly, eg illegally, they normally have to pick up the tab. Which is what they did in this case, albeit HMRC got nothing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Future17]

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

If an employer operates a PAYE scheme wrongly, eg illegally, they normally have to pick up the tab. Which is what they did in this case, albeit HMRC got nothing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

So the employer in this case picked up the tab but paid nothing?

[Keith_M]

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

If an employer operates a PAYE scheme wrongly, eg illegally, they normally have to pick up the tab. Which is what they did in this case, albeit HMRC got nothing.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

So they didn't pay, so haven't been taxed on those earnings, therefore being taxed twice doesn't even come into it.

If somebody had falsified their tax returns, leaving out a large chunk of their income, they couldn't then use the defense that they'd already already paid the tax on what they had declared.

I don't see this as being any different... but then I'm not an Accountant ;-)

[Mellow Hibee]

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

So they didn't pay, so haven't been taxed on those earnings, therefore being taxed twice doesn't even come into it.

If somebody had falsified their tax returns, leaving out a large chunk of their income, they couldn't then use the defense that they'd already already paid the tax on what they had declared.

I don't see this as being any different... but then I'm not an Accountant ;-)

I think that this is about the new disguised remuneration rules (could be wrong) but if so....

1 Employer is in charge of deducting and remitting PAYE to HMRC.

2 Let's say that your employer hasn't been paying it over - well that's hardly your fault and if your employer goes bankrupt HMRC aren't going to knock on your door since you already had it deducted from your wages. If they did, you would end up effectively paying twice. (so PAYE is different from self employed income for example)

3 Companies large and small have been taking the piss a bit with loans and not paying their fair share to HMRC (which is to say hospitals, police, libraries, etc).

4 HMRC decide that since they won't tax someone (either employer or employee) twice and since they can't introduce legislation retrospectively, they will introduce new legislation only to take effect (I think) from April 2019 and will not charge tax on income, but on the outstanding value of the loan at that date.

5 Is it retrospective? Nope - only comes in in 2019. Is it charging tax on the same income twice? Nope. And if you don't like it, simply repay the loan and don't pay any tax. It was a loan after all, wasn't it? It's not like you never ever planned on paying it back, surely?

Disclaimer - this is far from my area of expertise so I could be talking nonsense. Sure someone else will confirm.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

So they didn't pay, so haven't been taxed on those earnings, therefore being taxed twice doesn't even come into it.

If somebody had falsified their tax returns, leaving out a large chunk of their income, they couldn't then use the defense that they'd already already paid the tax on what they had declared.

I don't see this as being any different... but then I'm not an Accountant ;-)

My previous post was a bit rushed.....apologies.

Let's take Billy Dodds.

He has an income of £x, in his hand, from RFC. RFC say it's a loan, so there's no tax implications.

HMRC come along and say.... actually, it's not a loan, it's salary. £x in your hand is equivalent to £y gross. So we want all the PAYE, Employees and Employers NI on the salary of £y. The Courts back them up, and RFC are billed for the PAYE & NI. It's irrelevant that RFC don't actually pay it ( as explained above)

Turning back to Dodds, if his only income is from RFC, then there's nothing further to do. He has the correct net income. However, if he has other income, the likelihood is that that income has been taxed at the wrong rate. That has to be addressed, and he has to pay whatever is required.

I haven't seen any of the new Accelerated Payment Notices which have (allegedly) been issued. If they are for the additional tax due on other income (as above), I'd have no problem with them. However, if this is HMRC trying to tax BD on income that RFC have already been assessed on, that goes against so much precedent, and probably Case Law. In that event, expect lots of challenges.

[Jack]

If HMRC go after the players for the EBT portion of the tax and the players have a letter from the old rangers saying dinny worry about it then the players have a football debt due from old rangers and sevco will be responsible for it?

Yes/No/Nothing is that simple*

* Delete as appropriate.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

If HMRC go after the players for the EBT portion of the tax and the players have a letter from the old rangers saying dinny worry about it then the players have a football debt due from old rangers and sevco will be responsible for it?

Yes/No/Nothing is that simple*

* Delete as appropriate.

Square go between Dave King and the Oldco liquidator.

[Topographic Hibby]

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

Square go between Dave King and the Oldco liquidator.

Does that need a statement first? Not had one for a couple of hours now.

[hibees 7062]

[HoboHarry]

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

If HMRC go after the players for the EBT portion of the tax and the players have a letter from the old rangers saying dinny worry about it then the players have a football debt due from old rangers and sevco will be responsible for it?

Yes/No/Nothing is that simple*

* Delete as appropriate.

Didn't Charles Green have a clause in his contract stating that oldco/Sevco would pay any and all legal fees he incurred? IIRC that got flung out in court so likely not a stick on that the EBT mob would be in the clear?

[Deansy]

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

Wow - everything you need to know about a club and its fans succinctly summed-up in just one tattoo !

[Jack Hackett]

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

That's a f****n' stoater

[lapsedhibee]

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

A bead-rattling tattoo artist having some fun there.

[Brizo]

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

Ohhhh it's not cut and dried.... nothing in this saga ever is

What I'm getting at is that RFC should have deducted tax and NI from the payments to the players. The fact that they didn't is their fault, and they have been assessed on that.

There is a basic principle.... or, at least, there used to be... that HMRC couldn't go after the employer and the employee for the same tax. It was always the employer that was held responsible. Even in cases (like this) where the tax wasn't actually paid because the employer had gone bust.

That all said, there is a new aggressive attitude from HMRC, which is targetting recipients of tax-avoidance schemes as well as the employers. I am sure that there will be many test-cases being lined up, both by HMRC and recipients' advisers, to test the legality of the HMRC action.

Get out in the sun....

I'm no accountant and only pick up on what I read in the business sections but is this new aggressive attitude not on individuals who set themselves up as Ltd companies and regarded themselves as self employed ? In this way they "avoided" employee and employers NIC. If found by HMRC to have been employees they will get credit for tax paid through their tax returns but their companies ie them will be due to pay the NIC ?

For RFC employees who were on the books the employers due to pay any tax and NI they omitted to pay for their employees. In event of employer being liquidated HMRC has to chase liquidator for monies ?

Far from an expert so happy to know if I'm way off track.

[Radium]

Another squirrel




From Superscoreboard’s Twitter feed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

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

I'm no accountant and only pick up on what I read in the business sections but is this new aggressive attitude not on individuals who set themselves up as Ltd companies and regarded themselves as self employed ? In this way they "avoided" employee and employers NIC. If found by HMRC to have been employees they will get credit for tax paid through their tax returns but their companies ie them will be due to pay the NIC ?

For RFC employees who were on the books the employers due to pay any tax and NI they omitted to pay for their employees. In event of employer being liquidated HMRC has to chase liquidator for monies ?

Far from an expert so happy to know if I'm way off track.

The Government's attitude towards one-person "contracting" companies has hardened in recent years. Changes to the dividend regime have made it less attractive to go down that route than it once was.

The new Accelerated Payment Notice approach is (thankfully) not something I have had much experience of, but it seems to be more about targeting beneficiaries of tax-avoidance schemes where no-one (payer or payee) seems to pick up the tab.

That's well overdue, of course, but I can't help thinking that (as ever) HMRC are fighting with a sling against a nuke.

I'm well out of that ****...thankfully... but it rips my knitting when I get wee traders saying to me " but if Rangers can do it, why can't I?".

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[A Hi-Bee]

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

See they’ve been linked with Jordan Rhodes today, he’ll not come cheap, either as a transfer or a loan
Would mean ta ta to JC if he was to come in

They now being linked wi Zidane (As a player again)

[Jack]

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

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is it not about time sevco were called up to answer a charge of bringing the game into disrepute?

[Billy Whizz]

Ozy/Crops, whats the date that the European license needs to be approved by? And if it was to be refused, would Kilmarnock take their place😁

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Ozy/Crops, whats the date that the European license needs to be approved by? And if it was to be refused, would Kilmarnock take their place

The SFA have already approved it.

I presume that, if UEFA have an issue, it would have to be sorted by the date of the draw.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[HoboHarry]

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

The SFA have already approved it.

I presume that, if UEFA have an issue, it would have to be sorted by the date of the draw.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

Phil Mac wrote this today and according to this today is the final date for licensing. Does Sir Glib know something we don't? Even by his standards his behaviour has been odd this week.....

[Ozyhibby]

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

Ozy/Crops, whats the date that the European license needs to be approved by? And if it was to be refused, would Kilmarnock take their place

Today


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Phil Mac wrote this today and according to this today is the final date for licensing. Does Sir Glib know something we don't? Even by his standards his behaviour has been odd this week.....

Link missing?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

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

Link missing?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/0...tement-oclock/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Billy Whizz]

Lee Wallace been fined 4 weeks wages for the dressing roombust up at Hampden. This is the max a club can find a player
Miller also fined

[CropleyWasGod]

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

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/0...tement-oclock/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ta

I'm reading that differently. The UEFA email says "final dates to be communicated to UEFA by 31st May" whatever that means.

I don't think it means that today is the deadline for reviewing licenses. For one thing, we still don't know all the participants yet.

Rangers have their licence, as I say. But whether it has been rejected by UEFA might not be known until closer to the draw.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Captain Trips]

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

Ta

I'm reading that differently. The UEFA email says "final dates to be communicated to UEFA by 31st May" whatever that means.

I don't think it means that today is the deadline for reviewing licenses. For one thing, we still don't know all the participants yet.

Rangers have their licence, as I say. But whether it has been rejected by UEFA might not be known until closer to the draw.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

We live in hope.