Jump to content

Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!


Recommended Posts

That is not what the dundonian said tho....

It is all in the link I provided. There will be provision in place to avoid dual billing.

How much do you think will be in the pot with bdo to cover the bill?

Talking about links where is the one you were going to provide showing that I was parroting the idea that these income tax bills would become a football related debt once the players are invoiced?

Edited by stonedsailor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Flash

Another one who has been on the monitor lol

Hmrc has a claim in for two amonuts with bdo, depending on court case outcomes. They can't claim for the same money twice lol

The newspaper said he may go after players, may....

The scheme was run by mih.

Cheerybye now.

HMRC aren't claiming for the same money twice.

If they win in the Supreme Court, they get to claim back unpaid PAYE on the loans from, for example, RFC 2012. In addition, there is a new income tax charge on EBT type loans not repaid by April 2019. So, if the employee repays the loan, there is no additional tax charge. If the loan is still outstanding in April 2019, the additional income tax charge is due.

If the employer has already paid all of the PAYE, for example if RFC 2012 pays up after losing in the Supreme Court, then the PAYE paid is deducted from the new income tax charge on the loan. Which should mean no more tax to pay.

If the PAYE actually paid is less than the new tax charge on the loan, then the balance has to be paid. So, if the employer doesn't pay any of the PAYE, then the new tax charge is due in full.

New legislation, which will be the subject of consultation over the summer, will allow HMRC to recover the new income tax charge on the loan, or the original PAYE if higher, from the employee where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer. Because the new rules haven't been drafted yet, people have to use "may" when referring to this point because the precise circumstances where the employees will be liable won't be known until the new rules are issued. HMRC have not said "where the employer is in liquidation". They have said "where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer" which will cover cases where an employer company has been set up overseas, for example.

If HMRC lose in the Supreme Court, then there will be no PAYE charge. But the new income tax charge on the loan will still apply, if the loan is not repaid by April 2019. This tax will be payable by the employer but, again, HMRC will be allowed to recover it from the employee where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer.

Trying to summarise quite a lot of stuff in a few lines, so it is probably oversimplified. Others may be able to explain it better or correct my mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HMRC aren't claiming for the same money twice.

If they win in the Supreme Court, they get to claim back unpaid PAYE on the loans from, for example, RFC 2012. In addition, there is a new income tax charge on EBT type loans not repaid by April 2019. So, if the employee repays the loan, there is no additional tax charge. If the loan is still outstanding in April 2019, the additional income tax charge is due.

If the employer has already paid all of the PAYE, for example if RFC 2012 pays up after losing in the Supreme Court, then the PAYE paid is deducted from the new income tax charge on the loan. Which should mean no more tax to pay.

If the PAYE actually paid is less than the new tax charge on the loan, then the balance has to be paid. So, if the employer doesn't pay any of the PAYE, then the new tax charge is due in full.

New legislation, which will be the subject of consultation over the summer, will allow HMRC to recover the new income tax charge on the loan, or the original PAYE if higher, from the employee where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer. Because the new rules haven't been drafted yet, people have to use "may" when referring to this point because the precise circumstances where the employees will be liable won't be known until the new rules are issued. HMRC have not said "where the employer is in liquidation". They have said "where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer" which will cover cases where an employer company has been set up overseas, for example.

If HMRC lose in the Supreme Court, then there will be no PAYE charge. But the new income tax charge on the loan will still apply, if the loan is not repaid by April 2019. This tax will be payable by the employer but, again, HMRC will be allowed to recover it from the employee where it cannot reasonably be collected from the employer.

Trying to summarise quite a lot of stuff in a few lines, so it is probably oversimplified. Others may be able to explain it better or correct my mistakes.

I take it you don't know Bennett very well.

That is a pretty good summary you provided.

However, please be prepared for a TL.DR-type of response from Bennett.......if any response at all. He won't read it, I'll hazard a guess.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you don't know Bennett very well.

That is a pretty good summary you provided.

However, please be prepared for a TL.DR-type of response from Bennett.......if any response at all. He won't read it, I'll hazard a guess.........

 

No, no, no. You are being very unfair. Benny will read it in it's entirety, then pretend he didn't, until 8 months later when he will quote it out of context.

 

 

The man puts a great deal of effort into his trolling. It is a art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, no, no. You are being very unfair. Benny will read it in it's entirety, then pretend he didn't, until 8 months later when he will quote it out of context.

The man puts a great deal of effort into his trolling. It is a art.

Bennet really gets to you aofjay , hilarious to see

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you don't know Bennett very well.

That is a pretty good summary you provided.

However, please be prepared for a TL.DR-type of response from Bennett.......if any response at all. He won't read it, I'll hazard a guess.........

It was an informative post, whether he's right or not is anyone's guess, as Flashy said it's not law yet and has a wee bit to go yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bennet really gets to you aofjay , hilarious to see

^^^^ Has not let Bennett get to him.

^^^ Someone's jealous. Sorry guys, compared with benny you two suck big time. Bennet uses stupidity and blindness in artful and subtle ways whereas you two can be summed up as "Hurr duur, rangers #1". There's no skill to it and any random muppet could replace you tomorrow. Bennet. however, is one of a kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an informative post, whether he's right or not is anyone's guess, as Flashy said it's not law yet and has a wee bit to go yet.

You just wrote that to pretend you read it, didn't you?

I don't think you read long posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just wrote that to pretend you read it, didn't you?

I don't think you read long posts.

Depends on the poster I s'pose/if I can be arsed, flashy usually thinks for himself and doesn't densboy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on the poster I s'pose/if I can be arsed, flashy usually thinks for himself and doesn't densboy it.

He just condensed and reposted what is on the government website. "Parroting" as you call it.

You got that link for me to this website you call the Rangers monitor and the article which discusses the possibility of Rangers players asking the SFA to have new Rangers meet the bills under the terms of the 5 way agreement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do, I crave it. See you at Hampden.

 

Sorry. I gave you slightly less credit than you are due, you also insinuate people are celtic fans. A stunning repertoire indeed.

 

Unless I am mistaken and ibrox is finally getting that lick of paint it was promised with the share issue. Do you expect to groundshare with Queens Park?

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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...