Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[SS-18 ICBM]

What sad mad bad raging poor excuse for a man would stoop so low as to demand that this historical (often hysterical) thread is closed down and binned, Kincardine?

Eh?

Eh?

[ThirdrockfromtheSon]

1353450812[/url]' post='6826861']

Not being a fan of either dirty arse cheek, I found this very funny. Have a greenie.

[T_S_A_R]

Well that was why I was asking really... from what I caught on the radio they said some cases had gone against them but they didn't say which people, plus they said the original loans themselves can only be repaid to the trust (although presumably the individuals could still be pursued for some of the tax?). But on Reporting Scotland they were talking about players and the liquidator - though again, no examples given.

i'm not sure the sfa will be able to find out who falls into what camp.

the report is full of stupid names like mr barrow, mr furness, miss scarllet and mr magenta because the individuals involved have a right to privacy. the sfa can't make people tell them their personal financial details.

[HibeeJibee]

You also said, "Materially, it should make no difference to the 'title stripping' debate at all." I would disagree. The SPL could, of course, pursue us for the stripping of titles. This would show hubris in the extreme if they did so.

From what I've gathered - is reality not most likely somewhere between the 2? Clearly today must make a material difference to the case, since had it gone for HMRC it'd be very difficult to argue that for football purposes they were not contracts. But it hasn't, 2-1 verdict + Rangers won the majority of cases.

Equally, it's not definite that being OK in tax law means OK in football registration?

And seperately (this is what my previous post was about), it sounded on Sportsound as if certain EBTs had gone against Rangers... if any of those referred to players, presumably those cases are of particular interest to SPL or SFA enquiries.

If that's correct, sounds like some grey areas remain?

i'm not sure the sfa will be able to find out who falls into what camp.

the report is full of stupid names like mr barrow, mr furness, miss scarllet and mr magenta because the individuals involved have a right to privacy. the sfa can't make people tell them their personal financial details.

EDIT: Cheers. Interesting.

Edited November 20, 2012 by HibeeJibee

[Guest Kincardine]

Seriously, are there really orcs that think that fans of Celtic or any other Scottish club are not literally laughing right now at this long ongoing comedy that is going on at Ibrox?

I am an Orc and I am happy to reply to your post.

However, the question, "are there really orcs that think that fans of Celtic or any other Scottish club are not literally laughing right now at this long ongoing comedy that is going on at Ibrox? " is just a little vague.

Now if you'd like to make it a touch more succinct then I will happily reply.

[Guest Kincardine]

If that's correct, sounds like some grey areas remain?

The SPL have had years to look at this. It's hardly new news. They have chosen not to either through ignorance of cowardice. The SPL have no credibility in any area of governance.

[Guest Kincardine]

What sad mad bad raging poor excuse for a man would stoop so low as to demand that this historical (often hysterical) thread is closed down and binned, Kincardine?

Only a right c**t. Thankfully I didn't ask that.

[SS-18 ICBM]

I am an Orc and I am happy to reply to your post.

However, the question, "are there really orcs that think that fans of Celtic or any other Scottish club are not literally laughing right now at this long ongoing comedy that is going on at Ibrox? " is just a little vague.

Now if you'd like to make it a touch more succinct then I will happily reply.

^^^^^

Lost his sense of humour on Valentines Day 2012, had a mental breakdown in July and is now on the brink of entering a serious depression along with 10's of 1000's of other orcs when they realise that the new club is just a poor clone of the dead club.

[dorlomin]

I am very surprised at the way this panned out. I knew that hedge funds in the city were getting off with their EBTs but just assumed the Rangers legal team were not up to the job.

EBTs were deliberately created so very high earners could avoid tax.

Other terms of the offer, which the accountancy firm says is likely to be received in writing by thousands of taxpayers, include the prospect of being taken to court for refusing to pay the Revenue's estimate in full.

"These letters are essentially hot air," reflected Hacker Young partner Steve Theaker. "Several of the letters I have seen are wildly inaccurate estimates of the amounts of tax actually in dispute. HMRC could at least get the numbers right.

"HMRC is in effect saying, 'pay all of the tax you would have paid if you had taken your loan as a bonus, and we'll forget all about it'. But why would anyone who has entered into this form of tax planning to pay less tax do that?"

EBTs, which date back to the 1980s, became popular in the IT and consultant sectors, for allowing employers to ring-fence cash to pay bonuses, which were taken tax-free as loans, or to buy shares on behalf of staff.

"HMRC has litigated twice on the taxability of loans from EBTs and lost on both occasions," Mr Theaker said. " The courts have essentially ruled that EBTs were a legitimate form of tax planning prior to HMRC's announcement last December. HMRC seems to be pinning its hopes on judges reversing the precedent which has already been set – but why would they do that?"

As a result, "HMRC's case is far from watertight," the advisor said, adding: "Taxpayers should think very carefully about how they respond to these letters.

"If they chose to settle they may end up paying tax which HMRC has no legal right to. The letter actually says that if taxpayers chose to settle, but subsequent litigation finds in taxpayers' favour, the settlement cannot be reopened."

link

I just never considered that the HMRCs legal team would be less competent than a sports club in the backwaters of Glasgow. .

Edited November 20, 2012 by dorlomin

[flyingrodent]

Not sure if anyone else has done it, but I'll put my hands up and admit I was totally wrong, on numerous occasions throughout this thread.

I thought that Rangers were gaining an unfair advantage by gifting massive payments to employees and calling them "loans", even though none have ever been paid back and there is no expectation they would be paid back, as part of a legally suspect scheme designed to avoid enormous amounts of tax.

I also thought that Rangers didn't declare these payments to the football authorities because they knew the scheme was legally suspect.

I now realise that Rangers weren't gaining any unfair advantage at all when they gifted most of the massive payments to employees and called them "loans", even though none have ever been paid back and there is no expectation they will ever be paid back, as part of a legally sound scheme to avoid enormous amounts of tax.

(Although i do recognise that in a minority of cases, they were actually using a legally suspect scheme involving these so-called "loans" to avoid enormous amounts of tax).

I also now admit that Rangers didn't declare these to the football authorities because... Well actually, I don't know why they didn't declare them. Presumably, it was because the scheme was so unimpeachable that the club had full confidence in their validity.

Anyway, I wholeheartedly apologise for calling your club tax cheats and scammers. This was based on my false belief that a "loan" is supposed to be paid back, rather than gifted tax-free in perpetuity.

Sorry, Rangers fans, if I caused you any offence. The judges sure have made a monkey out if me today.

Well, two of them did, anyway.

Edited November 20, 2012 by flyingrodent

[MacWatt]

Some of my posts on the substance of the tax case...........

Posted 06 March 2012 -15.51

'The central issue in this case is whether the money received by Rangers' employees from the EBT were wages for footballing activities. The reality and real substance of the case is that payments from the EBT were in the form of loans The reality is that the players currently still owe the trust and the loans are required to be paid back. Therefore, what Rangers argued at the BTC and which they will tell Doncaster is that the withdrawals from the EBTs are not wages, not contractual, not taxable and not contrary to SPL rules.'

Posted 28February 2012 - 23:56

In reply to VTs words of wisdom.........

VikingTon said...

There's probably about as much chance of Rangers winning the tax case as David Edgar being the next Pope.

Every quiet day simply takes us closer to the HMRC time-bomb exploding in Duffand Phelps' pus. Tick. Tock.

'HMRC has litigated twice on the taxability of loans from EBTs and lost on both occasions. The courts have essentially ruled that EBTs were a legitimate form of tax planning prior to HMRC's clampdown in December 2010.'

Posted 28February 2012 - 23:21

'As some will know there is an alternative take on the EBTs and the BTC which could still be won by Rangers.

EBTs have been used by over 5,000 businesses in the UK and some english clubs until they became illegal in December 2010.

At the FTT, Rangers argued that the EBTs were correctly administered and that the club met all their legal responsibilities and complied with all tax laws.

They weren't as has been suggested written into the players' contracts of employment. They were totally separate and administered offshore in Guernsey.The letters to players referred to by the Sun (and which SFA would have had to rightly investigate if they amounted to a contract of which they were not aware) may not exist. The Sun getting a story wrong?'

Edited November 20, 2012 by MacWatt

[SS-18 ICBM]

I am very surprised at the way this panned out.

I knew that hedge funds in the city were getting off with their EBTs but just assumed the Rangers legal team were not up to the job.

EBTs were deliberately created so very high earners could avoid tax.

link

I just never considered that the HMRCs legal team would be less competent than a sports club in the backwaters of Glasgow. .

hmm...

[Martian86]

Um no. It's only you that's so stupid as to make such a post.

Oooh just a weee bit of hurt in that post

:P

[SS-18 ICBM]

Oooh just a weee bit of hurt in that post

:P

Fun IS permitted, i believe.

[Guest Kincardine]

Not sure if anyone else has done it, but I'll put my hands up and admit I was totally wrong, on numerous occasions throughout this thread.

You haven't a clue what 'totally wrong' means.

I read your post and I do know what 'cant' means.

[flyingrodent]

You haven't a clue what 'totally wrong' means.

I read your post and I do know what 'cant' means.

Well, that seems unfair. When the facts change, I change my opinion on them. It seems only fair.

[Bearwithme]

I am very surprised at the way this panned out. I knew that hedge funds in the city were getting off with their EBTs but just assumed the Rangers legal team were not up to the job.

EBTs were deliberately created so very high earners could avoid tax.

link

I just never considered that the HMRCs legal team would be less competent than a sports club in the backwaters of Glasgow. .

That's hardly unusual. Moreover, most people would reduce their tax bills within the law if they could - the vast majority of people probably.

[Paquis]

Counsel for HMRC tried to argue in front of the Tribunal the payments were contractual and amounted to wages for playing football. The Tribunal did not accept this argument. Specifically they said (page 55):

"Thus we cannot accede to Mr Thomson’s proposition that payment of monies into the trust represents payment of emoluments or earnings".

If they were indeed loans as the Tribunal found (p56 -57):

"We consider that the employees benefiting did not obtain an absolute legal entitlement to the monies. Having regard to the legal effect of the trust and loan structure, the employees’ entitlement or, rather, expectation is to no more than a loan"

Then there was no need to register that fact with the SFA or SPL. Therefore, there were no dual contracts and the players were not improperly registered. Furthermore, the existence of EBTs had been fully disclosed in Rangers annual reports for a number of years.

It will take quite a feat of mental gymnastics for the SPL to argue that the Tribunals findings 'in law' are wrong and that Rangers should be stripped of their titles. Furthermore, to do so will inevitably lead to the matter ending up in the Court of Session. I think it unlikely that the CoS would overturn the verdict of a duly constituted Tribunal containing experst in the matter. Thus, there is a high risk of the SPL losing and being made to look petty, vindictive and foolish in the process.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Watching Newsnicht. There seems to be some humming and hawing about how long the FTTT took to hear the case. The answer to that is simple, Rangers and Murray stonewalled investigators withheld documents (including the side letters) and generally made it difficult for the investigation to proceed.

Tom English was going on about the dissenting opinion and that he SPL could base their dual contract investigation on that but quite simply it is legally irrelevant (until an appeal). The SPL need to tread carefully and make legally sound judgements within their own rules. The SFA already got a bloody nose from a court for over-stepping the mark.

[Paquis]

Watching Newsnicht. There seems to be some humming and hawing about how long the FTTT took to hear the case. The answer to that is simple, Rangers and Murray stonewalled investigators withheld documents (including the side letters) and generally made it difficult for the investigation to proceed.

Tom English was going on about the dissenting opinion and that he SPL could base their dual contract investigation on that but quite simply it is legally irrelevant (until an appeal). The SPL need to tread carefully and make legally sound judgements within their own rules. The SFA already got a bloody nose from a court for over-stepping the mark.

The dissenting opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not have force of law which the Tribunal finding does have. Were this to end up inthe Court of Session, the judge is likely to give more weight to the majority opinion than the minority one.

The sensible thing to do here is for the SPL to walk away from this one. There is very little to be gained by pursuing it and quite a lot to lose.