Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

Party time

Guilty of.......Sweet f**k all

Hopefully this means we can all move on, surely the SPL`s case is now well and truly fucked

No, because the SPL case is based around dual contracts.

Whether the payments were loans or remuneration, they were still payments. Payments that weren't declared on the contracts lodged with the SFA, but instead in side-letters, which make an appearance in the decision...

35. It is not accepted that there had been no deliberate concealment of the side-letters,

in view of how the first side-letter only came to light through the seizure of

5 Mr Berwick’s file nearly four years into the enquiry. It is not accepted that the nondisclosure of the side-letters arose from a ‘credible’ view that Mr Red considered the

side-letters irrelevant to HMRC’s enquiry. As a former Inspector of Taxes, Mr Red

knew, or should have known, that the side-letters were highly relevant to the enquiry.

The side-letters showed a form of contractual arrangement, and they proved linkage

10 between the sums contributed into the sub-trusts at the appointed dates and their

withdrawal as loans from the sub-trusts as contemporaneous transactions. The

contractual aspect and the linkage between the amounts of contributions to the main

Trust and the sums loaned had been repeatedly raised in the enquiry correspondence.

A fair conclusion to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence on the one hand, and

15 Mr Red’s oral evidence on the other, is that the side-letters had been actively

concealed. The reason for the concealment might have been, in Mr Red’s view, the

side-letters could be incriminating evidence against the impression of the trust

operation that he had been trying to give.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They seem to have ruled that they were loans, but tax was due. Some sources on Twitter say Rangers have won, others say HMRC have won. I assume the outcome is that neither has "won", as such, but that the truth is somewhere in the middle. Like that money is due as tax, and that the EBT schemes were not a legal way of remunerating players, but that the tax isn't due by Rangers FC (extinct) and it is actually due by the players?

HMRC have won in that tax is due.

Rangers 2012 PLC have won in as much as the company were not liable for that tax. They just shifted the onus to their heroes without them knowing.

Fcuking hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still a lot of conflicting stories floating around cyberland. If we have indeed won/been cleared then it's a big f**k you to all those b*****ds who've accused us of cheating-not paying taxes for years.

Side letters ya cheating c***s :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still a lot of conflicting stories floating around cyberland. If we have indeed won/been cleared then it's a big f**k you to all those b*****ds who've accused us of cheating-not paying taxes for years.

That kind of depends on your interpretation.

While the company was not liable for the tax, its employees were. Did the company inform the employees of this? If not, they are still morally responsible for millions in tax not being paid, even if not legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the SPL dare - we'll see about that in court now that the law lords have ruled the EBT's were not contracted payments, but in fact loans.

laugh.gif

No, they've said the payments to EBTs were not subject to PAYE.

The decision clearly states that the side-letters confirming payment to the EBTs WERE contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Early reports suggest a score draw.

Rangers being liquidated and a newco starting at the bottom for absolutely no reason at all would be pretty funny.

...while still having titles (claimed by the NewCo) being stripped from the OldCo.

In some ways, the ideal result. Liquidated for no reason and a chunk of the claimed history being wiped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will celebrate it because it kinda blows the SPL`s case out of the water, why else have they kept delaying it ;)

It does nothing to show we were operating dual contracts, in fact it kinda shows we were not

Yes it does. Read the decision - side-letters are a form of contractual agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will celebrate it because it kinda blows the SPL`s case out of the water, why else have they kept delaying it ;)

It does nothing to show we were operating dual contracts, in fact it kinda shows we were not

Rangers have always said these were simply loans, HMRC agree

It also reduces the final liability down considerably

Do you know what a side letter is, Ted? :lol:

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...