Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Henrik's tongue]

What's tedi's plan of attack?

Leeds?

[The Real Saints]

For those who struggle to understand the financial and legal stuff, can someone just make a rough estimation of how many months it will be before The Rangers are dead? Cheers.

[NorthBank]

Congratulations St Mirren for winning the League Cup in 2010

[Njord]

http://www.eurosport.co.uk/football/scottish-premiership/2015-2016/hmrc-wins-appeal-in-rangers-tax-case_sto4977908/story.shtml#uk-fb-sh

Lol

[thelegendthatis]

Not up to reading through the full judgement, but I would think that (old) Rangers has some liability to settle with HMRC. But I would guess that everyone who benefitted from this tax dodge is now liable to pay tax on their earnings obtained through their EBT.

So that should include most Rangers legends you can think of, some of whom used to be household names people looked up to.

Probably HMRC will be getting letters out to all these tax dodgers pretty damn quick.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Reading the ruling it is bizarre and the judges thread a legal needle to eventually declare that although they accept the trusts were loans and not set up as a sham process and not under the sole discretion of the employee, the income is still taxable.

The practical outcome of this ruling is nothing since it has redefined a term in a law that is over 5 years out of date and the ruling only applies in Scotland.

I would suggest that if anyone still cares (4 of the 5 defendants made no contest and only Rangers liquidators bothered to offer a defence) there would be fertile grounds of appeal on the fact that this court seems to have judicially fixed a tax law that was deemed not fit for purpose and changed to close the very loophole that the court now contends never existed.

HMRC have won by attrition.

(I'm unsure if the court has now essentially granted a tax break to people who have trusts, since Income Tax and NIC should already have been paid by Rangers even though they didn't bother)

[Boris Badenov]

Congratulations St Mirren for winning the League Cup in 2010

Dont want to rain on your parade.

Surely its the first team that Rangers first beat on the way to the final that should get the cup. By my reckoning the cup goes to .........

Queen of the South!

[Ned Nederlander]

Not up to reading through the full judgement, but I would think that (old) Rangers has some liability to settle with HMRC. But I would guess that everyone who benefitted from this tax dodge is now liable to pay tax on their earnings obtained through their EBT.

So that should include most Rangers legends you can think of, some of whom used to be household names people looked up to.

Probably HMRC will be getting letters out to all these tax dodgers pretty damn quick.

A chap on Radio Scotland earlier stated that chasing individuals would be to costly and time consuming for what would generally be low returns.

[Podlie]

Waiting to hear what SFA say. Expect the jist of it to be "no further action"........................wonder how a crowd funding case against the SFA would go...................

Edited November 4, 2015 by Podlie

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Not up to reading through the full judgement, but I would think that (old) Rangers has some liability to settle with HMRC. But I would guess that everyone who benefitted from this tax dodge is now liable to pay tax on their earnings obtained through their EBT.

So that should include most Rangers legends you can think of, some of whom used to be household names people looked up to.

Probably HMRC will be getting letters out to all these tax dodgers pretty damn quick.

I think it goes the otherway since the money would have been untaxed in the trust but now the money is deemed to been already subject to tax even if it is unpaid.

HMRC never made the case the players and others receiving EBTs were involved in a tax evasion scheme.

[strichener]

Not up to reading through the full judgement, but I would think that (old) Rangers has some liability to settle with HMRC. But I would guess that everyone who benefitted from this tax dodge is now liable to pay tax on their earnings obtained through their EBT.

So that should include most Rangers legends you can think of, some of whom used to be household names people looked up to.

Probably HMRC will be getting letters out to all these tax dodgers pretty damn quick.

The players are not obliged to pay the tax. The obligation is on the employer to deduct (or not) tax and NI for HMRC for all employees. Where the company pay the employee net of tax and NI, they are still obliged to make this payment to HMRC.

I am sure that you wouldn't be happy if the taxman came after you for money just because your employer hadn't paid your tax.

[Skyline Drifter]

So what does this latest ruling actually mean? Will it make one iota of difference to Sevco as a club? The whole thing just baffles me now, it's been 3 and a half years of ongoing legal Mumbo-jumbo.

It establishes a principle that operating EBT's the way Rangers and the Murray Group did is illegal tax evasion which fundamentally doesn't make much odds at this stage of the Oldco's existence and makes no odds at all to Newco. It is important to HMRC in terms of using it as a precedent against others though.

It means HMRC are owed a lot more money by Oldco which they won't get. In the event Oldco had a few pounds more to distribute to creditors they are far less likely to see it now as the Revenue will be in for a greater share of any crumbs.

It means nothing for Rangers in their current guise unless you took remotely seriously the suggestion that Dave King was going to pay off old debts and transfer the business back into Oldco. I doubt that would ever have happened but it certainly won't now.

Not up to reading through the full judgement, but I would think that (old) Rangers has some liability to settle with HMRC. But I would guess that everyone who benefitted from this tax dodge is now liable to pay tax on their earnings obtained through their EBT.

So that should include most Rangers legends you can think of, some of whom used to be household names people looked up to.

Probably HMRC will be getting letters out to all these tax dodgers pretty damn quick.

It's doubtful there will be any pursuit of the individuals who benefited. The liability really lies with the company. Unless the individual can be proven to be complicit in the set up and operation of the EBT and understood properly how illegal it potentially was it's unlikely they could be held personally responsible any more than if your own employer goes bust and hasn't paid over the tax and NI deducted from your salary the Governement wouldn't come after you for it.

[The Grass Is Greener.]

Finished my shift at 1.30pm, came on and found a shitload of PM's and I'm guessing around 50 pages on this thread alone. Gonnae take me a while to go through all of this Ken ken.

Get it right fucking up you

[williemillersmoustache]

A chap on Radio Scotland earlier stated that chasing individuals would be to costly and time consuming for what would generally be low returns.

Was it Billy Dodds or Graeme Souness?

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Waiting to hear what SFA say. Expect the jist of it to be "no further action"........................wonder how a crowd funding case against the SFA would go...................

The SFA involvement was always whether the side letters were contracts and should have been lodged with the SFA, even though the court has found that Rangers were liable to pay tax the Facts found by the first tax case still stand. And it was those facts that Lord Nimmo Smith based his decision on.

Rangers were already guilty of not paying Income Tax and NIC on many of the cases they admitted to in the Big Tax Case, how much they owe shouldn't make a difference.

[bennett]

Get it right fucking up you

Maybe later, reading complex financial/legal stuff at the Mo.

[strichener]

Reading the ruling it is bizarre and the judges thread a legal needle to eventually declare that although they accept the trusts were loans and not set up as a sham process and not under the sole discretion of the employee, the income is still taxable.

The practical outcome of this ruling is nothing since it has redefined a term in a law that is over 5 years out of date and the ruling only applies in Scotland.

I would suggest that if anyone still cares (4 of the 5 defendants made no contest and only Rangers liquidators bothered to offer a defence) there would be fertile grounds of appeal on the fact that this court seems to have judicially fixed a tax law that was deemed not fit for purpose and changed to close the very loophole that the court now contends never existed.

HMRC have won by attrition.

(I'm unsure if the court has now essentially granted a tax break to people who have trusts, since Income Tax and NIC should already have been paid by Rangers even though they didn't bother)

Your understanding of the ruling is incorrect. The basis on which the ruling was made was multi-faceted.

1. The employee had complete control over the sub-trust.

2. There were side-letters that formed part of the contract of employment.

3. The payments made to the principal trust were made on behalf of the employee and that the only logical basis for this would have been for his work. Therefore this fits the criteria of payment for employment.

The fact that the government have specifically changed the law to explicitly address these particular circumstances does not infer that the measures were legal previously.

Edited November 4, 2015 by strichener

[Henrik's tongue]

Always knew that Rangers mob were a bit cheaty.

The c***s.

[Henrik's tongue]

Maybe later, out hiding cakes/Celtic Views at the Mo.

[strichener]

The SFA involvement was always whether the side letters were contracts and should have been lodged with the SFA, even though the court has found that Rangers were liable to pay tax the Facts found by the first tax case still stand. And it was those facts that Lord Nimmo Smith based his decision on.

Rangers were already guilty of not paying Income Tax and NIC on many of the cases they admitted to in the Big Tax Case, how much they owe shouldn't make a difference.

The court has ruled that the side-letters were in fact part of the contract of employment.

The Scottish Football Association required players’ contracts to be registered with it, but Rangers Football Club Ltd did not consider it appropriate to have side-letters registered (paragraph 103(xii)). Although, for reasons that are not obvious, this is not expressly recorded in the findings of fact by the First-tier Tribunal, it is clear that the sums paid into a sub-trust, through the Principal Trust, were derived from the employee’s employment arrangements. That is apparent from the fact that the side-letter was regarded as containing part of a player’s contractual terms of employment, and it was the side-letter that provided for the setting up of the sub-trust, into which of course bonuses were paid. Consequently in both cases the payment of bonuses or the creation of trust arrangements resulted from the employment of the executive or footballer in question.

Also Paragraph 14 and 15 of the ruling address the original tribunal's error in law.

Edited November 4, 2015 by strichener