Paquis

Now, go back, read the blog that I was critiquing and then read my comments again. You might then understand the context and the timeline that I was referring too. Alternatively, just continue making yourself look ignorant.

Again, you really need to read the judgement. Counsel for HMRC tried to introduce the argument that the side letters (not contracts) should have been disclosed (p 38) as part of his overall case that the EBTs represented payments. The majority decision did not accept that argument. If the side-letters were specific to loans - which is what the Tribunal found - then there is no case for them to be disclosed to the SFA. Furthermore, in the dissenting opinion, Dr. Poon opined that Rangers did actually disclose all payments to the SFA albeit vaguely.

1. What makes you think that the evidence was not given due consideration? 3. Why would you cooperate with HMRC when they are trying to take millions off you? Any organisation would be guided by its lawyers and would only make available the minimum of information as required by law. You think it looks shady because you have already prejudged the issue. Others might see Murray's actions as reasonable in the circumstances. I think the problem you are having is that, like the blogger you cite, you really want Rangers to be guilty. So you are looking for supporting arguments while ignoring other arguments that don't support your position. Hanging your hat on Murray and his employees being 'shady' is not going to change the FTT decision. That will only come about if HMRC are able to win the right to appeal and then an appeal itself on a point of law. The Tribunal's decision is a great example of what happens when you remove the emotion, the preconceived ideas, the various loyalties and hates and the rush to judgement from the equation.

No. The facts as established by the Tribunal is that these employees received loans which are recoverable. See page 58 of the judgement. How they were perceived by the employees is not relevant. I recommend reading the judgement itself rather than the blog.

It is entirely possible that HMRC might appeal. That will be a judgement call for them and will be based on an appreciation of how good their chances are of winning. However, at this point the facts are established and are what they are. HMRC cannot introduce new facts. Their only grounds for appeal will be if the Tribunal made an error in their interpretation of the law. I don't fully understand your second paragraph. Insofar as any appeal can only be on a point of law then that 'evidence' you refer to is not relevant. With regard to the SFA/SPL, both the majority decision and the dissenting opinion do not help the SFA/SPL and do help Rangers. I have cited the specifics in previous posts. Probably the best the SFA/SPL can hope for now is to find Rangers guilty of not getting the paperwork right. I predict that they will find Rangers guilty of a minor infraction and a slap on the wrist will ensue. Your comment on possible criminal proceeding is, I suspect, made more in hope than in anticipation. Most of the comments on the Murray £10 million offer demonstrate a serious lack of understanding as to how civil proceeding happen. People 'settle' for a great many reasons and they often have nothing to do with guilt or innocence. My own company routinely settled law suits as matter of policy because the cost, potential risk and adverse publicity of taking them to trial outweighed the cost of settling. Recently, an association of which I am a board member settled a case which we had won and which was being appealed for a sum less than that which we had been awarded because it was going to be cheaper than going to appeal. Given that HMRC were asking for £90 million plus, only offering £10 million suggests that Murray had a lot of confidence in his case.

Yes, I read that. It is interesting stuff but it has a number of flaws. First it relies far too much on the dissenting opinion which, by the author's own admission, had nothing to do with the actual legalities of the decision. In fact, he says himself that he would have arrived at the same decision as the majority. While the dissenting opinion had given great comfort to those who are critical of Rangers and who were surprised by the result, it is the majority decision that actually matters here. Second, it speculates on what BDO might or might not do. But the reality is that Murray sold Rangers as a going concern to Craig Whyte. It was Whyte who failed to pay HMRC not Murray. It was Whyte that put Rangers into liquidation and not Murray. He questions why Murray did not provide for the BTC. But that is a judgement call and not an absolute accounting rule. Further, the result of the BTC shows that Murray was right not to provide for it. The sale of Rangers to Whyte and the subsequent administration and liquidation were caused by the risk of losing the BTC and not because the underlying business was insolvent. While I think that Whyte absolutely was a conman and that he has many questions to answer for his actions in the short time he was in charge at Rangers, it will be much harder to pin any wrongdoing on Murray. Basing his discussion on the dissenting opinion, he is very critical of some of the witnesses. That may be justified but it is not relevant. HMRC can only appeal on a point of law and not on whether the dissenting judge thought the witnesses were shifty. He also confuses Rangers and Murray Group in his argument. Rangers were part of the Murray Group. It was the Murray Group that was the defendant. The Murray Group was profitable even if Rangers were not. The fact is that while this 'stuff' may have been 'dodgy' (all his words) it was also legal and, for the most part, not subject to tax. While Murray certainly sailed close to the wind and there is no doubt that this was a tax avoidance scheme, that in itself does not signify wrongdoing. That reality will hamper any attempt by BDO or by the SFA/SPL to attack Rangers, their former owners or directors on the question of EBTs. The Tribunal made a number of findings of fact which clearly establish the nature of the payments made by Rangers. Because of that, those facts will be very hard to challenge going forward. Unfortunately, the real agenda of the blogger is revealed towards the end of his rather long piece. Like so many others he has already decided that Rangers are guilty. His over-reliance on the dissenting opinion is a rather clumsy attempt to make an argument that Rangers are still guilty and it is okay for the SFA/SPL or BDO to go after them. His blog is rather long on polemic but rather short on the legal basis as to how this can actually happen.

It was an offer to settle out of court - or in this case out of Tribunal. It happens all the time. I believe that Arsenal settled their EBT case in this way. The shit has gone away unless HMRC appeal. But they can only appeal on a point of law so their options are limited.

Why would you be cooperative with an organisation that is trying to take you for £90 plus million?

No, paying tax is not optional. The issue is not whether or not you pay tax but how much you pay. I don't have a lot of time for Murray. For me, he is and always has been a chancer of the first order.

Well, I think you have two viewpoints here. First, I think Murray reckoned his chances of winning the case were pretty good but not 100%. Remember, he had access to a lot of legal opinion both when setting up the EBTs and when the case came along. With a potential liability of £90+ million, offering £10 million is a pretty confident step. However, I do think that HMRC were also pretty confident which is why they declined to settle. That said, when you are spending public money on your case it is easy to go all the way.

As I said earlier, 2-1 isn't a draw. It is a win for Murray Group. Morality is a much more subjective issue. I pay as little tax as I can get away with although, as you point out, I have not taken part in any of these more 'imaginative' schemes.

The £10m offer was a calculated gamble. Murray knew that fighting the case was going to cost a lot of money in legal and other fees. Several millions as it transpired. He also knew there was a risk that he could lose the case. The higher the risk the more he would be willing to settle for. That he 'only' offered £10m suggests that he estimated his risk of losing at around 10% - 20%. Had he thought he had a 50% chance of losing then he would have offered a lot more.

In terms of football justice ..... as the EBT scheme was legal, any other club could have used it. As such, Rangers derived no advantage. In terms of morality I think we need to be intellectually honest here. The vast majority of people will take whatever steps are available to them to reduce the amount of tax they pay. I know that I certainly do. That could be as simple as getting tax relief on pension contributions or charitable donations. Some people and companies have more opportunity to take advantage of tax avoidance schemes than ordinary people. But that does not change the 'morality'. I really don't see how anyone can wind up in prison. The dissenting opinion represents a minority viewpoint. Dr. Poon is entitled to that view. But it does not represent a finding in law.

Talking of tax cases ... how is Neil Lennon doing? http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/neil-lennon-tax-scheme-blow-1173612

Since when was PAYE a 'due'?

Which bit of the rules you quote refer to 'debt'?

If it did then just about every club in the SPL and quite a few others are guilty of cheating. People really need to think before they spout this rubbish.

Look ... it was a tax avoidance scheme. We all know that. It was used by lots of people and lots of companies and it was all legal. The Tribunal established that fact. Now, we can all have a view as to whether tax avoidance schemes are moral or immoral. But while they are legal they will get used. Just look how many well-known people have been using various schemes such as film companies for just that purpose. The only issue we are left with now is the SPL/SFA investigation into dual contracts. My view is that this decision will make that much more difficult and will open the SFA/SPL to being challenged in the Court of Session if they try to strip any titles. The result of the Tribunal has made this into a high risk strategy for the SPL/SFA. My guess is that it will fizzle out with a strongly worded statement and nothing more.

Now, think about that for a moment. Are you suggesting that the SFA/SPL are acting as agents for HMRC? I think we both know that isn't the case. SFA/SPL were looking out for their own interests and nothing else. However, BDO may well have a case that they were improperly withheld. If BDO are able to recover those monies from the SFA/SPL then they will go towards paying part of that unpaid tax bill

Her perspective is interesting but of limited relevance. The fact is that the majority decision went the other way. 2-1 is not a draw as Celtic found in Lisbon the other night. I am curious as to what future proceedings, in your view, might take place. HMRC are very limited in what they can do and I don't see what recourse BDO might have towards MIH given that they sold the business as a going concern to Craig Whyte. I suppose that BDO may try to recover some of the loans but my guess is that the legal structure of the EBTs is such that while the Trust can recover a loan, the entity that paid the money into trust cannot. That said, BDO may well have a case for recovering monies due to Rangers but withheld by the SPL and SFA.

Whether the loans are ever paid back is not relevant to the discussion. The Tribunal found that they were loans and that is all that matters. Second, HMRC cannot pursue anyone for repayment of these loans. Repayment is a civil matter between the lender and the borrower. HMRC has no role there. Third, counsel for HMRC accepted that the loans were not shams and were real legal events. HMRC cannot now change their minds on that statement. A change of mind is not grounds for an appeal.

Of course, we have been here before with the legions of amateur accountants, lawyers and tax experts. And they all got it wrong. So I would suggest caution before going down that road again.

There are a couple of points here. Counsel for HMRC tried to argue that these side-letters formed part of the contract and were used for payment of a 'wage' (FTT decision page 38). However, in its decision, the Tribunal found that the payments were not 'earnings or emoluments' but were recoverable loans (page 58). So the question then becomes whether it is an SFA requirement to disclose loans made to players. In terms of disclosure there is also some confusion. In the dissenting decision, Dr. Poon states on page 84: "As the use of the remunerationtrust became more wide spread, in the contracts for players with a sub-trust in place,the clause for the terms of bonus payments was reduced to stating that the club wouldpay the player ‘a bonus in accordance with the schedule agreed from time to time’." So, while the schedule was vague, it was actually lodged with the SFA. This is supported on page 120 .... For bonus payments to the footballing employees, there appeared to be aschedule agreed for the start of each season and lodged with SFA as a matterof normal practice. The bonus entitlement should be the same for eachplayer in the team squad in accordance with the schedule agreed. It wouldappear that the bonus and appearance money for players with a sub-trust hadbeen paid via the trust mechanism while other players without a sub-trustreceived their entitlement through payroll. The SFA/SPL argument is that the side-letters and the EBT represent contracts for payments for footballing activities. The finding of the Tribunal is that they were loans and not payments and there is also evidence that they were disclosed to the SFA even though they may have been vague. If that disclosure has been made then how the payment is made is no business of the SFA/SPL.

Like I said, you need to educate yourself. You have clearly been asleep these last few days and missed all the fun. The Tribunal found that players received recoverable loans. I am unaware of any SFA rule which requires loans to be disclosed.

Don't talk nonsense. At least try to educate yourself before spouting this crap.