the tax case and possible claim against the auditors

[calscot 0]

Should it not be the case that it should be the players who benefited who are responsible for any tax bill? After all they are the ones who received the income...

[Guest thetruthwill0ut]

1. 1 million is not necessarily material. Materiality is very much dependent upon the size of organisation - you state it as if 1 million would be material to ANY company, not so. I have some major oil companies as clients where the tens of millions would not be considered material. It is a relative term dependent upon the parameters set forth by the audit firm themselves.QUOTE]

 

Yup agreed - I was just using notional numbers to give a basic explanation. From an audit point of view though, �£1m would be deemed material at RFC

[Yieldshields loyal 0]

I have a very basic understanding of this situation, however my own company are currently in the process of an Employee Buyout, within which is an EBT.

 

We are currently waiting on HMRC returning with a verdict to say that the EB and subsequent EBT are above board and satisfy all legal avenues.

 

Surely any EBT provided by Rangers would have to have been passed by HMRC also?

 

Or am I totally wide of the mark?

[franker 1]

Should it not be the case that it should be the players who benefited who are responsible for any tax bill? After all they are the ones who received the income...

 

I came across information regarding an ex player from around 6 years ago whose accountant specifically looked into our scheme. He sought advice from two independent tax experts and the conclusion was that from the players perspective there was no concern regarding any future liability.

[craig 5,199]

Should it not be the case that it should be the players who benefited who are responsible for any tax bill? After all they are the ones who received the income...

 

The responsibility for the liability will lay squarely at the foot of the employers - it is their responsibility to deduct the appropriate amount of PAYE from their staff. And good luck in recouping any of that potential liability from the players who benefitted.

[craig 5,199]

Yup agreed - I was just using notional numbers to give a basic explanation. From an audit point of view though, �£1m would be deemed material at RFC

 

Yep, 1 million will be a material amount for RFC, no doubt. Just isnt across the board obviously.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

As Bluedell and Craig explain clearly, there is no chance of Rangers succeeding with a claim against the auditors, if the auditors relied on professional advice Rangers obtained from their tax advisors, lawyers etc.

 

Equally, in order to succeed with a claim against those advisors Rangers would have to show that they were in some way negligent in the advice they gave at the time they gave it. That is to say the advice was obviously wrong or the advisors failed to exercise due care in giving that advice, such that it was either wrong or not appropriate for Rangers circumstances. In any event it is likely that any such advice will have been covered by a caveat such as "this is our opinion based on our experience and understanding of the law but it it is only our opinion and not a substitute for a ruling by the Revenue or a court".

 

Furthermore if EBT's were accepted practice at the time and had not been challenged as appears to be the case that would give strength to such opinions.

 

The fact that they have been challenged some years later, does not mean that the opinions were invalid at the time.