Jump to content

 

 

We Will Win Tax Case-Whyte

chilledbear

By chilledbear
in Rangers Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

craig

craig 5,195

Posted
Posted
I assume the board would be in constant contact with their advisers.

 

I would expect HMRC to be using equally eminent counsel too.

 

If Murray and LBG were confident of a positive outcome then I very much doubt they would have countenanced accepting �£1

 

If Whyte is correct in his assumption then I'll gladly doff my cap to him.

 

No doubt HMRC will be using eminent legal counsel, I agree. With the quantum of money potentially at stake for HMRC they would be remiss to do otherwise. My main thrust was that whilst the Board may be privately stating they arent as convinced as Craig Whyte they really dont have the technical expertise to know or even have an educated guess (but then none do as tax legislation is often nothing more than varying shades of grey and it can simply depend on who hears the case).

 

Which leads to my next question. If the Board are in constant contact with their advisors (the legal counsel being one whom we should assume....) then why is Craig Whyte now suggesting we will win the case whilst the Board are not. That sounds to me like either mixed signals or the counsel talking out of both sides of his mouth, and the latter would be hard for me to believe.

 

With regards to the 1 quid purchase price... I can understand you using SDM and saying he wouldnt countenance it but why would LBG not countenance it ? I presume you are assuming because there is still some element of debt to LBG ? But LBG could just as easily have taken the "at least we rid ourselves of 18 out of 22 million of debt, which reduces our exposure considerably, and we also dont have the chalice of this potential HMRC case hanging over our heads".

 

Taking the quid was an EASY decision for LBG, no ? They get 18 mill out of 22. Sure, they still have 4 mill of debt left but that is comfortably serviceable so I am not sure why they wouldnt have been keen for the club to be sold for a quid.

0
Link to post
Share on other sites
forlanssister

forlanssister 3,050

Posted
Posted

 

With regards to the 1 quid purchase price... I can understand you using SDM and saying he wouldnt countenance it but why would LBG not countenance it ? I presume you are assuming because there is still some element of debt to LBG ? But LBG could just as easily have taken the "at least we rid ourselves of 18 out of 22 million of debt, which reduces our exposure considerably, and we also dont have the chalice of this potential HMRC case hanging over our heads".

 

Taking the quid was an EASY decision for LBG, no ? They get 18 mill out of 22. Sure, they still have 4 mill of debt left but that is comfortably serviceable so I am not sure why they wouldnt have been keen for the club to be sold for a quid.

 

No, I mean because for all intents and purposes MIH is now merely an LBG subsidiary, if they were to convert their 165 million convertible preference shares then Murrays shareholding will be reduced circa 7% of MIH. That would surely mean MIH and ergo LBG would've benefited greatly from a positive outcome of the tax case but were unconvinced by the chances of obtaining one.

0
Link to post
Share on other sites
craig

craig 5,195

Posted
Posted
No, I mean because for all intents and purposes MIH is now merely an LBG subsidiary, if they were to convert their 165 million convertible preference shares then Murrays shareholding will be reduced circa 7% of MIH. That would surely mean MIH and ergo LBG would've benefited greatly from a positive outcome of the tax case but were unconvinced by the chances of obtaining one.

 

Are the prefs convertible at the option of LBG or MIH ? I assume it is LBG ? In which case then Yeah, I would agree assuming all your numbers are correct. However, there is still the possibility that LBG simply didnt want to run the risk of getting NOTHING if we were not bought over. This way they have taken the safe cash of 18 mill.

 

Even given the linkage with MIH and LBG, Murray was never getting more than the 6 mill that he initially bought the club for. LBG could very easily have simply decided to take the security of the cash on offer now to clear most of the debt owed them by RFC. MIH still has the potential to improve its financial standing if and when the property markets turn, which hopefully they will.

0
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bluedell

Bluedell 5,329

Posted
Posted
No, I mean because for all intents and purposes MIH is now merely an LBG subsidiary, if they were to convert their 165 million convertible preference shares then Murrays shareholding will be reduced circa 7% of MIH. That would surely mean MIH and ergo LBG would've benefited greatly from a positive outcome of the tax case but were unconvinced by the chances of obtaining one.

 

The preference shares aren't convertible, are they?

0
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tannochsidebear

Tannochsidebear 2,314

Posted
Posted

Glad to see Whyte come out and back up my theory all along that this would come to nothing.

 

My experience with these EBT's would indicate that as long as all the paperwork has been done 100% correctly, and the EBT has been set up exactly within the loophole in the law, there is nothing to worry about, apart from the fact that HMRC will almost always challenge the validity of the EBT in the courts, for two reasons. One being that if the paperwork is even a bit incorrect it invalidates the whole EBT, and secondly to pressurise businesses from using EBT's as sometimes they will believe it is not worth the risk and the hassle or knowing that you are going to be challenged and it is really out of your hands if it is going to stand up or not.

 

Murray being that type of businessman that will always take a risk, he would not have been too bothered at the outset of HMRC challenging and all the bad press the club will get as a result, better that he is able to offer a player a better salary structure than just PAYE.

 

I have not believed that this tax case will come to anything right from the outset, have frequently said so, and obviously I hope I am right for all our sakes, and this statement from Whyte is what I expected to hear from the old board, who now yet again are exposed as muddying the waters to keep their jobs. Can it really look like anything else, given they have been receiving the same advice and no liability was mentioned in the accounts?

0
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bears

Bears 0

Posted
Posted

My opinion is CW will have a plan in place if we loose it, in other words he will have the cash to pay it and it will not interfere with his monies available to Ally and stadium development etc?

0
Link to post
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.