Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Perhaps not , but then that is not what you meant ;)

So, in addition to all your other talents, you're a mind-reader. Actually, that is EXACTLY what I meant - I even put it in caps with a large font to help the hard of thinking.

Would it be too much to ask, Great Swami, what it was I really meant, when I was so obviously misleading myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in addition to all your other talents, you're a mind-reader. Actually, that is EXACTLY what I meant - I even put it in caps with a large font to help the hard of thinking.

Would it be too much to ask, Great Swami, what it was I really meant, when I was so obviously misleading myself.

Cheers WRK :) now finish him off with a special move :) I think the liquidator should do the trick,press buttons CVA followed by DEAD :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers WRK :) now finish him off with a special move :) I think the liquidator should do the trick,press buttons CVA followed by DEAD :lol:

Finish him off? No chance! By turns laughably naive and arrogantly bombastic, Tedi is nothing if not reliably entertaining. He'll be gone soon enough when reality bites, so let's enjoy him while we have him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kincardine

Nothing wrong with Rangers eyeing a move to The EPL.

I'm eyeing a threesome with Sandra Bullock and Kristin Scott Thomas and, so far, they haven't said no.

You gotta have dreams!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with Rangers eyeing a move to The EPL.

I'm eyeing a threesome with Sandra Bullock and Kristin Scott Thomas and, so far, they haven't said no.

You gotta have dreams!

My money's on you to be tucked-up for the night with them two long before Chuckie leads the mighty Cevco to a tie in Manchester.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with Rangers eyeing a move to The EPL.

I'm eyeing a threesome with Sandra Bullock and Kristin Scott Thomas and, so far, they haven't said no.

You gotta have dreams!

Actually, they did. I had them round last night and asked them after we finished, said something about not wanting to associate themselves with bigotry and cheating. :P8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kincardine

Actually, they did. I had them round last night and asked them after we finished, said something about not wanting to associate themselves with bigotry and cheating. :P8)

Ah so you're the Justin they mentioned on the phone this morning!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My link

DETERMINED APPROACH?

As we continue to endure the seemingly endless countdown towards the decision of the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) (FTT(T)) in what has become known as "Rangers Big Tax Case", it is perhaps worth looking in more detail at the slightly arcane procedures open to HM Revenue & Customs in terms of their ability to pursue and collect any tax debt.

Tax Collectors and Winners

The biggest problem with PAYE is that, whilst most of the time it is an easy tax to collect – the employer has a legal obligation to make the requisite deductions and account for them to the taxman - it can be a difficult tax to assess.

That is because an employer should make an annual return for PAYE (Form P35) shortly after the year end but without that document, HMRC cannot quantify, and therefore pursue, any PAYE debt. Unfortunately a common tactic of distressed companies is not to submit the P35 precisely to frustrate the Revenue in this way.

There are however some useful, some would say "lethal" weapons in the Revenue's armoury.

Regulation 80 Determination

In the most intractable cases, HMRC may resort to what are known as Regulation 80 Determinations:-

· These are official assessments for PAYE which are estimated in the absence of any figures.

· The estimate will generally be generously high, forcing the company to appeal, which it can only do if it also supplies the correct figures at the same time.

· Unlike many other assessment procedures, the legislation for a Regulation 80 Determination allows for it to be raised even when outside the time limit, providing there are grounds for suspecting careless or deliberate conduct on the part of the employer

· Determinations can also be made in the tax year – for example if liquidation is likely - and can even be made on a regular – weekly if necessary - basis.

These determinations can then be used as grounds to take a case to the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) as happened with Rangers Football Club plc.

The Tribunal then is charged with establishing the facts of the case – in this case whether the payments from the EBT constituted earnings for employment purposes - but also establishing whether the Regulation 80s issued are valid and should be upheld or not, and if so to what extent.

Whatever the overall outcome in the Rangers' case, it is unlikely that either side will be successful on every point, and the decision will be worth scrutinising in detail when it is eventually published.

Regulation 81 Determination

Of course if a company which is the subject of a Regulation 80 Determination is insolvent, any victory for HMRC would be purely pyrrhic.

In extreme cases, it remains open to the Revenue to pursue individual directors or employees for PAYE under Regulation 81. This remains an option where the tax under-deducted exceeds £2,000 and the (ex-)employee has the means to settle the tax.

Whether and to what extent this avenue is explored after the FTT(T) decision is announced most likely depends on the liquidators' findings. The Regulation 81 option and Personal Liability Notices discussed below both explain why, in certain cases, HMRC will oppose a CVA and seek a liquidation.

Even though the return on liquidation may be less than on a CVA, a liquidation is likely to give much more control to the Revenue over the lifeless carcase that is the body corporate, allows the liquidator to sift through the company records and form a clearer view on the actions, deeds or omissions of the officers concerned.

Personal Liability Notice

What about NIC? If all else fails and a company simply goes into liquidation, HMRC has one final bite at the cherry with the little known Personal Liability Notice ("PLN").

This has been a relatively little-used approach in the past but recently we have seen at least a couple of occasions on which HMRC has felt compelled to use it.

In the most recent case of Zubair v Revenue & Customs, although the case was fairly clear cut and the outcome of the FTT(T) never really in doubt (HMRC won), it is the confirmation of the effectiveness of a PLN that is of relevance and could send shivers down the spine of any recent director of Rangers Football Club plc.

As the name suggests, a PLN is an assessment on an individual connected with the company to recover national insurance contributions that the company should have made.

It is the harmless sounding Social Security Administration Act of 1992 which provides HMRC with power to recover unpaid National Insurance Contributions, plus interest and penalties, from directors or other officers of a company. Those contributions include primary and secondary Class 1 NIC, Class 1A NIC, Class 1B NIC and related interest and penalties charged in respect of these contributions, so amounts can be significant. In the Zubair case they were in excess of £200,000.

A PLN can be issued where

1. A company has failed to pay the contributions due at the right time and

2. The failure is due to the fraud or neglect of one or more individuals who were officers of the company at the time ("culpable officer(s)").

An officer is not confined to director but includes a manager, secretary or other similar officer, or anyone purporting to act as a shadow director of the company.

If a decision is taken to issue a PLN, the individual culpable officer becomes personally liable for the amounts so charged.

There has been no suggestion at present that PLNs may be used in the case of Rangers, though the outcome of the liquidators' investigations remains to be seen. No doubt if PLNs were issued, they would be strongly appealed against, but it remains a stark reminder to an officer of any company that he or she cannot always seek the protection of "limited liability".

Information on our Guest Blogger

Aidan McLaughlin is a partner at McLaughlin Crolla LLP. He has more than 25 years experience in tax, advising sole practitioners and large corporations alike.

Aidan specialises in reconstructions, acquisitions, mergers and corporate finance.

Edited by Bairnforever1992
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My money's on you to be tucked-up for the night with them two long before Chuckie leads the mighty Cevco to a tie in Manchester.

My money's on them all pushing up daisies before the Orcs revisit the scene of their finest PR exercise.

No offence, Kincardine, My unborn grand-daughter's kids'll be worm-food first, as well.wink.gif

Hmmmm,,, Doesn't read very nice, but you get the idea.

LONG TIME, TEDI, LONG TIME.....

He'll get the idea, I'm sure.biggrin.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tax avoidance would be paying out discretionary loans to employees from an EBT

Tax evasion would be paying regular salaries to employees from an EBT and trying to hide the fact that it was regular salaries that were being paid by not registering all contracts with the football authorities.

Cheating would be not registering all contracts with the football authorities in order to try and hide the fact that salaries were being paid via EBTs so that you could evade tax and sign players you otherwise couldn't afford...

...and breaching the rules in a way sufficient for titles to be stripped, would merely require players to be fielded in said competitions who weren't properly registered with the bodies which govern them.

Although Rangers clearly did deliberately cheat, it's not necessary to prove this to mean that trophies and titles be taken away. Nobody thinks that Brechin or Spartans deliberately cheated, yet an acceptance exists that fielding ineligible players is serious enough for results in single games to be re-assessed. Even if Rangers made honest mistakes for a decade, they'd have no legitimate claim to the trophies 'won'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, now - Never try to second guess oor Tedster

(completely OT WRK, but I've got a cheeky wee £15 on Killie tonight...........@ 10/3 it seemed rude not to. So far, etc, etc)

Up til half-time it was looking good, but we can quite easily snatch defeat from the jaws, etc......sad.gif

Still, another two Standfree bonuses (laugh.gif) from Killie-Ann.

Oh, and back on topic - whaur's ma perspective? If Leggo can get wan, ma investors demand wan an aw!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...