der Berliner

That's the problem with most of the stuff we get these days. Nigh every article written on a subject relating to us needs to bang in the HMRC bill that looms over our heads and all the rest of the dire stuff, whether it relates to the actual story or not. One does need a cool head to see this through.

Taken from FF, a little discussion by an FFer with an unaffiliated tax expert: Perhaps not too much new stuff in here, but I thought I'd post details of a conversation I've had via LinkedIn with a Senior Tax Partner at a leading legal firm. He doesn't seem to sway in favour of Rangers or otherwise, so I found it quite interesting to hear from a neutral perspective. +++ It started from a comment from him hence the initial blog-like post. If anyone sees this discussion on LinkedIn, I'd appreciate anonymity for the expert at all costs. ------ EBT = Evil Bad Taxpayer ?? Aggressive tax â??planningâ? or â??avoidanceâ? is headline news right now. The line between tax evasion â?? illegally not paying the tax due - and tax avoidance â?? quite legitimately interpreting the law to reach an appropriate conclusion - is increasingly blurred. The use of employee benefit trusts is part of that debate and some of the comment on this has been .... well frankly, a load of rubbish. One thing Iâ??ve heard on several occasions is that those involved, for example Rangers FC, "are guilty of tax evasionâ? â?? no, theyâ??re not. What Rangers and many other taxpayers did was tax planning = arranging your affairs in a way that allows you to pay the least possible tax within the confines of the law. Last time I checked, that precedent established by historic case law still applied. Rangers paid some of their players and senior employees in a way which meant their earnings werenâ??t subject to UK tax and they did this in a way that at the time was relatively common and not viewed with particular disdain. The Government has fought a â??hearts and mindsâ? campaign over the last 10 years to try to convince us that there is no difference between evasion and avoidance and everyone should pay the full amount of tax possible. Somewhere on that road they decided that they didnâ??t like EBTs. Hundreds if not thousands of taxpayers want to see the outcome of the recent Tribunal as there are millions of pounds of tax at stake. However that may not be the end of the story. The Tax Tribunal is the first level at which a contentious tax point is debated. Whoever loses has the right to appeal to a higher level, although there is the question of whether Rangers can afford to do this given the legal costs involved. There are further rights of appeal which eventually end at our Supreme Court, and also the European Court of Justice. In the meantime in 2011 HMRC brought in targeted rules to stop the â??offensiveâ? use of EBTs. But clearing up the historic position could take years. --- *****, Excellent article. However, my understanding of the situation at Rangers is that EBT's were used to pay salaries of staff rather than additional payments/bonuses. This is what HMRC is disputing and are classing as potential tax evasion? The case itself isn't as much of a landmark case as people think due to the way EBT's were used by Rangers, not the use of them in general. There are a few examples of companies using them to pay additional bonuses (which is slightly more acceptable to HMRC), and these have been settled out of court already (see Vodafone, Arsenal). Correct me if I'm wrong as I may be way off (and hope that I am), and you are the tax expert!! ---- Rory: Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. Businesses have used EBTs in many different ways and the underlying substance has varied with some using profits earned over many years to fund the EBT and others using exceptional profits. You mention whether it is salaries, bonuses or other and my view on this is that it shouldn't actually matter. In the view of HMRC, any remuneration for employees should be subject to income tax and it is noticeable that they chose to name their anti-avoidance rules aimed at EBTs and similar as "disguised remuneration". So they contend that once funds have left a company and gone "offshore", if the money finds its way back to an employee or director, for example by way of a long-term loan, then they should be taxed as income. A counter-argument is that it is not remuneration paid by the company and the trustees administering the EBT can at their discretion decide where the money goes. This is why the documentation surrounding the EBT is so important - and there have been suggestions that the Rangers documentation isn't helpful (am guessing here but maybe there is something in writing - as part of player signing negotiations ? - which says that overseas players will be paid with no UK tax ??) which is maybe why HMRC have litigated, viewing it as a weaker case. ---- Thanks for your response *****. My reply was based purely on my interpretation of the ongoing situation with Rangers/HMRC, so is most likely wholly incorrect! Your comment regarding documentation surrounding the EBT seems particularly pertinent, as there has been talk of "unofficial" letters given to players promising payment through EBT's. I'm guessing that the unofficial nature of these (no letterheads, separate from contracts) forms much of Rangers' argument - these were letters of intent and not contractually binding. Regardless, it will be an interesting few weeks ahead for sure - and not just for Rangers Football Club. ---- Thanks Rory, your interpretation is pretty good actually. I could write pages on the documentation issue but your comment is spot on - if HMRC can present tangible evidence that the funds going into the EBT were always intended to find their way to players and staff, I struggle to see how Rangers can win unless the court ignores the substance and upholds some technical argument regarding the relevant tax law. Most tax case decisions these days tend to find in favour of the substance of what happened rather than its legal form. In the eyes of HMRC, any documentation is fair game whether a letter, internal memo, email or even a handwritten note, and so the existence of anything which points towards "disguised salary" will not help their case.

Anyone can shed any light how "illegal" any of these Whyte deals listed above actually were. Or rather, how they can be deemed illegal under British / Scottish law.

Some naughty statement by the BBC's very own sports reporter Matt Slater, for after a rather sensible report on some administrations in British football, he's leaving a lingering comment about the Rangers support to end the article.

The Emir of Qatar ... maybe?

The day when we won the title at the Scumhut ... was that a home - fans only occasion? (The Hugh Dallas game.) Of course, if they postpone it, the scum and attached press will sure make us look like the bad boys who cannot behave.

There is, though, the small matter of TV commitments ...

I seem to remember that after the last round of talks in January, the "deadline" for a decision was said to be early April.

You could instead write to e.g. the Ministry of Defence and ask them about their opinion with regard to active and open anti-British behaviour at football grounds by the Hooped Hordes, who time and again besmirch the image of the British causalties of war, soldiers and victims of IRA attacks. The continued silence by the governing body untowards this continuous breach of e.g. the Terrorist Act 2006 and existing SFA / SPL statutes with regards to showing political statements within a place under their jurisdiction does not only beggar belief, it is obviously in need of some higher authority to make a statement on this.

I'm pretty pragmatic here. Ticketus dealt with Whyte and Whyte alone. If they (both) screwed it up it is the duty of the administrators to get Rangers (the club) in the clear. You'd hope that Ticketus are business-people enough to know that they might have screwed this up. If their deal with us stands, no problem whatsoever.

Well, we do not know how these discussions between the BK and Ticketus went. I would be surprised if they would want "nothing" if TBK get the their deal done though. Of course, there is still a good possibility that other "bidders" may speak to Ticketus once the deal with them is examined.

Out of interest, can you name a few Scottish/British "players like him" being bought in years gone by? People asked to play all over the park in unfamiliar roles ... time and again. Not saying I'm not exactly a fan of him (playing in mdifield), but since you made this claim I'd like to know.

Unless ... the deal between Whyte and Ticketus, backed up by Whyte and not Rangers, is declared null-and-void. You do wonder still, what Ticketus would "demand" if the BK make it over the finishing line. On another note, I read that PM want that share issue with the cheapest share costing 1,000 pounds. With essentially next to none but sentimental return/influence for the respective shareholder. As in: since TBK will hold thousands upon thousands of shares and have a major say, people could invest a million of pounds for 1,000 share and still have next to no say? I'd rather spend 1,000 pounds for a "gold membership" (with some extras involved) and someone who has actually a say in matters of the club representing me than that.

Whether this one (at the bottom) is from the Middle East remains to be seen, but anyway ...

I can't lose that feeling that they want to punish us because we found out about their own shortcomings.

I would look at precedents here, like ... Motherwell, Gretna, and Dundee. Whether their people were fit & proper, how they were punished for becoming insolvent? I wouldn't be surprised if the SFA and SPl act together and get their grand deduction plan into motion, like "charging" us 1/3 of last season's points total as a penalty. (Coming to think of it, we should start loosing more games, so we only start next season at -28 or the like. Of course, any such action is beyond all reason (IMHO) and we as a support should fight them to the bone. If they want to charge Whyte here, fair enough. If they want to hamper the club as such and make competition impossible for the seasons to come (while doing nothing towards the Hooped Horros for their continuous conduct), we should go to a higher authority.

A quote snatched from FF

Yep, they all fear that Rangers disappear from Scottish football because they might get liquidated. It is essentially squeaky bums time from all 10 clubs that depend on the Old Firm to happen by two or more times a season, for the SPL and SFA to have a competition that draws some money to the game. But while the players representatives et al work their socks of to save the club that keeps Scottish football alive, they look for something to hit it even harder. What now? We have been conned by a faux-businessman. You have been conned by a faux-businessman. What could Rangers the club have done to avoid it? In this day and age of chairmen ruling the roost with no-one looking in? But leave that aside, what are they looking for? Deducting Rangers more points this season? Or, since we always make good candidates for precedents, deduct us 10 points for the next ... say 5 seasons too? Get Timothy all the wishes they want? Really, you cannot make this up, simply cannot make this up.

Here a bit more of the "latest" on this first deadline day ... ... plus ...

Well, the admins (not Rangers, btw) do what they have to. If Whyte dealt wrongly with Ticketus and their money, they should make sure that no harm is done to the club itself. I would ask more questions if they would not look at this (or anything else SDM/Whyte-ish).

The immediate problem for the club was that we weren't able to run till the end of the season. This horror scenario has been averted due to the players and management agreeing to pay-cuts. Now, while they (IMHO) sure want us out of administration sooner (hence the "deadline") rather than later, they have more time to do it. The HMRC tribunal results are due in April, so I would expect nothing to happen before that, i.e. the club changing owners. For I do not expect that anyone will take the club as it is.

Do they, though?

While there might be no statement today, here's the gist of the current situation (acc. to the Scotsman) Sir David Murray has apologised for selling Rangers to Craig Whyte, insisting he was â??duped.â?? Murray sold the Ibrox club to the Motherwell-born businessman last May, but the former owner has expressed his dismay at how Whyte has handled affairs, maintaining that he had no knowledge of Whyteâ??s intention to use a £24 million loan from Ticketus to fund his takeover. Murray also produced documents from Whyte and his lawyers supporting the sale, outlining details of £9.5 million being set aside for players and stadium developments, and £5 million of other working capital. Murray has also denied any wrongdoing during his time at the club, insisting that there were no double contracts, and every player was registered correctly with the SPL. Murrayâ??s comments come in the wake of Hugh Adam, the former Rangers director, claiming that dual contracts were paid and that the club were aware of the illegitimate payments. Meanwhile, an American investment bank has expressed definite interest in taking over the club. New York-based Fortress, who have assets totalling £27 billion, have contacted Duff and Phelps signalling their interest, which the administrators are said to be considering. Fortress join a Singapore-based consortium who are also contemplating a bid for the club, however, the Paul Murray-led Blue Knights consortium believe they are currently favourites to take over Rangers. Paul Murrayâ??s Blue Knights consortium would need around £1000 from each fan in a plan to save the club. Murray, a former director of the club admitted there was no quick fix to the situation. Brian Kennedy, owner of the Sale Sharks rugby club, has announced he will table a bid for the Ibrox club. Kennedy was quoted as saying â??My position is that if there is no better deal...then I will gladly do a deal to buy the club. If there is a better offer then I will gladly walk away.â?

There's been an article posted by one Chris Murphy of CNN today which neatly forages to all sorts of history, assumptiuons, hearsay, and facts. What is interesting is the note on other countries, usually forgotten when we speak of the current financial troubles of our club. "We" includes the Scottish press, of course. I'll post a bit of that article here, since at the bottom the discredited journalist (for whatever reason) has been picked to make a few comments about the events. A neat doomsday reminder to finish, ere Spiers' babble starts. Had to be done, hadn't it? Then again, every single article in the press needs to have this sort of strike-terror-into-the-supporters'-hearts - line somewhere. Compulsary, you would think.

Methinks the Disfunctional Reality Perception syndrome was actuall first noted and afterwards spread from the Scumhut. It is a pandemic occurance these days and various sections of the SFA, SPL, media and other clubs have become infected. Methinks some from those already suffering beyond help are running about with injection-filled syringes, looking for the stats-collectors who had the audacity to tell the world that e.g. a Celtic player is twice as unlikely to get booked as any other SPL-footballer. As an FFer once put it ... I just want AWAY from that professional victimhood, that bi-polar relationship with reality, that Celtic fan determination to be either cheepy-jovial-chappies rubbing yer face in it, or outraged opressed masses on the verge of revolution against the evil empire.