Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Henrik's tongue]

18 minutes ago, Tynieness said:

For the avoidance of doubt any more references to Big Jock etc and all that is associated with it will result in an automatic ban. 

I would suggest bennett should be very, very careful from now on.

Hopefully he's not though and we're finally rid of him. The fucking twonk.

[The_Kincardine]

32 minutes ago, Zen Archer said:

I didn't know you were a boy soprano?

Reported.

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said:

Reported.

[Henrik's tongue]

14 minutes ago, Zen Archer said:

 

 

[THE KING]

TEDOphile 

[Davie Bhoy]

Surely the Lying King should be listened to?

[Sting777]

10 hours ago, Davie Bhoy said:

 

 

Surely the Lying King should be listened to?

 

The man that all Sevconians believe.....lol. For once in his life he has spoken the truth!

[shull]

 CHRIS JACK 

[Davie Bhoy]

[Monkey Tennis]

Sigh.

[Guest Flash]

I see the HMRC consultation on disguised remuneration was published today.

I've not read it properly yet, but looks like charges under the new rules, for example on loans made previously and not repaid, can be transferred to employees where the PAYE either cannot be paid by the company or if the company no longer exists.  This was in the budget, but the consultation has more details, including some of the proposed legislation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545085/Tackling_disguised_remuneration-technical_consultation.pdf

Looks like it confirms what we thought at budget time.  The most relevant chapters are 3, 4 and 5.

Ch 4 deals with the case where loans are still outstanding in April 2019.  A tax charge will arise (the new charge). Looking back at ch 3, if the employer has insufficient funds to pay it or if the original employer company no longer exists with the business now being carried on by another entity, the tax charge will fall back on the employees.

Ch 5 deals with relief for a double tax charge.  So, if tax has already been paid on the loans (say, for example, if Rangers lost the BTC and paid PAYE on the EBT loans) then this is deducted from the tax due on the new charge. 

If Rangers lose the BTC but don't pay the PAYE, there will be nothing to deduct from the new charge, so it will remain due in full. If the company doesn't pay it, then it falls back on the employees.

If Rangers win the BTC, there will be no PAYE due on the EBT loans, but if they aren't repaid by April 2019, the new charge will fall due.  If Rangers can't pay it, either because it has insufficient funds or has been dissolved, the charge will fall back on the employees.

It looks like the only way to avoid a tax charge is for the employees to repay the loans by April 2019.

That's my take on it.  Could be wrong, though.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Flash

[The_Kincardine]

1 minute ago, Flash said:

I've not read it properly yet,

Said every diddy post on The Big Thread.

[Guest Flash]

Just now, The_Kincardine said:

Said every diddy post on The Big Thread.

I have just noticed it and will read it later when I have time. It shouldn't take that long and it is written in fairly plain language, so even I will be able to understand it.

[Stag Nation]

14 hours ago, Flash said:

I see the HMRC consultation on disguised remuneration was published today.

I've not read it properly yet, but looks like charges under the new rules, for example on loans made previously and not repaid, can be transferred to employees where the PAYE either cannot be paid by the company or if the company no longer exists.  This was in the budget, but the consultation has more details, including some of the proposed legislation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/545085/Tackling_disguised_remuneration-technical_consultation.pdf

Looks like it confirms what we thought at budget time.  The most relevant chapters are 3, 4 and 5.

Ch 4 deals with the case where loans are still outstanding in April 2019.  A tax charge will arise (the new charge). Looking back at ch 3, if the employer has insufficient funds to pay it or if the original employer company no longer exists with the business now being carried on by another entity, the tax charge will fall back on the employees.

Ch 5 deals with relief for a double tax charge.  So, if tax has already been paid on the loans (say, for example, if Rangers lost the BTC and paid PAYE on the EBT loans) then this is deducted from the tax due on the new charge. 

If Rangers lose the BTC but don't pay the PAYE, there will be nothing to deduct from the new charge, so it will remain due in full. If the company doesn't pay it, then it falls back on the employees.

If Rangers win the BTC, there will be no PAYE due on the EBT loans, but if they aren't repaid by April 2019, the new charge will fall due.  If Rangers can't pay it, either because it has insufficient funds or has been dissolved, the charge will fall back on the employees.

It looks like the only way to avoid a tax charge is for the employees to repay the loans by April 2019.

That's my take on it.  Could be wrong, though.

 

 

As I understand it, the loans were not made by Rangers. Rangers paid the money (let's say £100,000 for J Bloggs) into a trust for Bloggs' benefit. The trust then "lent" Bloggs the cash.

The tax liability therefore arises from the payment to the EBT, not from the loan, and remains payable whether or not the loan is repaid, as the trust will still exist.

It's probably academic. Why would anyone pay back the whole £100,000 instead of just paying the tax?

[Guest Flash]

1 hour ago, Stag Nation said:

As I understand it, the loans were not made by Rangers. Rangers paid the money (let's say £100,000 for J Bloggs) into a trust for Bloggs' benefit. The trust then "lent" Bloggs the cash.

The tax liability therefore arises from the payment to the EBT, not from the loan, and remains payable whether or not the loan is repaid, as the trust will still exist.

It's probably academic. Why would anyone pay back the whole £100,000 instead of just paying the tax?

That's the point  - a tax charge is now unavoidable if the employees keep the money. The thinking being that if it was a loan, it would be repaid at some point. And HMRC have set a deadline of April 2019.

The fact that the loans came from the EBT doesn't matter. The new charge applies anyway.

The original tax liability does arise on the payment to the EBT, unless Rangers win the appeal, in which case that charge goes away. If Rangers lose, then that tax charge remains and will be deducted from the tax due under the new charge on the non-repaid loans. But it will only be deducted if Rangers actually pay it. If they don't pay it because they have insufficient cash, or because they have been dissolved, there is no double tax relief.

So the new charge on the non-repaid loans is unavoidable. All that happens is that there will be relief if tax has actually been paid on the money going in to the EBT. And the new charge is initially chargeable on the company ie Rangers. But if they don't pay it, the employees will have to.

[energyzone]

That's the point  - a tax charge is now unavoidable if the employees keep the money. The thinking being that if it was a loan, it would be repaid at some point. And HMRC have set a deadline of April 2019.

The fact that the loans came from the EBT doesn't matter. The new charge applies anyway.

The original tax liability does arise on the payment to the EBT, unless Rangers win the appeal, in which case that charge goes away. If Rangers lose, then that tax charge remains and will be deducted from the tax due under the new charge on the non-repaid loans. But it will only be deducted if Rangers actually pay it. If they don't pay it because they have insufficient cash, or because they have been dissolved, there is no double tax relief.

So the new charge on the non-repaid loans is unavoidable. All that happens is that there will be relief if tax has actually been paid on the money going in to the EBT. And the new charge is initially chargeable on the company ie Rangers. But if they don't pay it, the employees will have to.

Will it be initially chargeable on Rangers if the original entity is in liquidation though? I'd assume it would automatically default to the employees. Either way HMRC seem pretty persistent and will surely be looking to reclaim the money from somewhere.

[Guest Flash]

31 minutes ago, energyzone said:

 

Will it be initially chargeable on Rangers if the original entity is in liquidation though? I'd assume it would automatically default to the employees. Either way HMRC seem pretty persistent and will surely be looking to reclaim the money from somewhere.

 

HMRC will probably have to go through the formal process of charging the company first, unless it has been dissolved by then.

The outcome is the same, though.

[bennett]

Certain wannabe film investors are being chased by hmrc, just saying...

 

[The_Kincardine]

5 hours ago, energyzone said:

 

Will it be initially chargeable on Rangers if the original entity is in liquidation though? I'd assume it would automatically default to the employees. Either way HMRC seem pretty persistent and will surely be looking to reclaim the money from somewhere.

HMRC were offered a settlement by The Mint.  That they didn't accept it is to their eternal shame.  HMRC have been incompetent and profligate and it is beyond credulity that they haven't been castigated on here.  Then again, one simply cannot expect The Diddies to do joined-up thinking.

[Monkey Tennis]

17 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

HMRC were offered a settlement by The Mint.  That they didn't accept it is to their eternal shame.  HMRC have been incompetent and profligate and it is beyond credulity that they haven't been castigated on here.  Then again, one simply cannot expect The Diddies to do joined-up thinking.

A truly preposterous post Kincardine - utterly ludicrous.

Murray offered a fraction of what the club stood to owe and in fact does, as the ruling currently stands.

How can that possibly be considered as to the shame of HMRC?

It's HMRC's job to collect the tax due to them.  That's what they've attempted to do here.  You've made far more sensible noises in the past about Murray's behaviour.  Why you wish to dress everything in this inane attack on diddies these days, I've no idea.

It's actually a bit pathetic.