HMRC sources briefing that Rangers bank accounts have been frozen this afternoon

[der Berliner 3,357]

You just trying to dodge your tax liabilities Berliner?

 

What? Expand please ...

[djbroxybear 0]

Why has Whyte not paid the bill does he not have the funds?

[der Berliner 3,357]

Why has Whyte not paid the bill does he not have the funds?

 

As far as we know (official sources), Rangers have already paid a six-figure sum. We / Whyte always said that he does not contest the 2.8m, but we do the extra-charge. This is the thing - IMHO - that is talked about between Whyte's people and HMRC. Why the latter deems it necessary to jump on our accounts and "ring-fence" the 2.8m when these are already paid back is everyone's guess. IMHO, there is something more sinister involved. Something that also makes sure that every fact and figure is being relayed to the public. If I was Wyhte, I'd send my lawyers out there and sue HMRC and any informer till there is no tomorrow. For this whole behaviour is damaging to the name of Rangers FC ... when there is absolutely no need to play this out in public as they do. I wonder whether we can find an instance where HMRC has done the same with another company.

[Guest Dutchy]

It's not as if we've been closed down, but we need to ask why this is being down in the glare of the public eye. You would think someone is trying to destroy Rangers crediability.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/14771581.stm

 

Beriliner, as you're abroad, it was only jokey comment about tax dodging, take it easy, unless.......

[Bluedell 5,376]

As far as we know (official sources), Rangers have already paid a six-figure sum.

 

What's that? �£100K? Out of �£2.8m.

 

Why not pay the �£2.8m now? The clock is still running and more interest is being charged every day it remains unpaid, costing the club even more.

 

Whyte may be contesting the penalties but the interest will be non-negotiable, and I don't see them being successful over the penalties either although it's certainly worth trying to appeal them.

[craig 5,199]

Yep, agreed with Bluedell. The appeal would not be compromised by paying the 2.8 million. You can also make payment and reserve rights on it which means that you are paying it under contention, so that it doesnt prejudice your case.

 

No reason not to pay the 2.8 million - even that could remain to be contested even though it looks like Whyte and RFC agreed that this was a legitimate liability.

 

They CAN appeal the penalty but, again as BD says, it is unlikely that HMRC would reduce or eliminate it. When you have a found liability by HMRC they have the right to fine you penalties up to, I believe, 100% of the liability. It looks like RFC have been charged 50% which, surprisingly, is not an unreasonable amount when considered against other cases I have personally been involved with previously.

[craig 5,199]

As far as we know (official sources), Rangers have already paid a six-figure sum. We / Whyte always said that he does not contest the 2.8m, but we do the extra-charge. This is the thing - IMHO - that is talked about between Whyte's people and HMRC. Why the latter deems it necessary to jump on our accounts and "ring-fence" the 2.8m when these are already paid back is everyone's guess. IMHO, there is something more sinister involved. Something that also makes sure that every fact and figure is being relayed to the public. If I was Wyhte, I'd send my lawyers out there and sue HMRC and any informer till there is no tomorrow. For this whole behaviour is damaging to the name of Rangers FC ... when there is absolutely no need to play this out in public as they do. I wonder whether we can find an instance where HMRC has done the same with another company.

 

1. If Whyte doesnt contest the 2.8 million why has it still to be paid and only a paltry 6 figure sum been paid on it ? If he doesnt contest it then he should pay it, especially as his purchase price for RFC was reduced because of this liability coming to light.

 

2. "these are already paid back". No, they arent. You already stated a 6 figure sum had been paid back but certainly not the full liability. They have not been paid back.

 

3. Why would HMRC ring fence funds ? Quite simple. They fear not receiving what they believe they are legally entitled to. If RFC and Whyte do not contest it there is absolutely NO REASON not to pay it. So given they havent, I am far from surprised that HMRC are doing this. In fact, if i were a taxpayer, I would be disappointed if HMRC DIDNT do this. We complain about big businesses getting breaks and benefits that they shouldnt.... so RFC are no different in this respect - but because it is close to our hearts we seem to take a contrarian view that we shouldnt.

 

4. Good luck being able to sue HMRC over this.

 

5. I find it rather amusing, and hypocritical in fact, that we are complaining about HMRC or their informants going public with this when just 3 days ago we were going public with Leicester's bid for Jelavic whic quite clearly was not the wish of Leicester.

 

6. I would be very, very surprised if it hasnt been done by HMRC or their informants elsewhere - we often hear of celebrities tax issues being aired in public, this is no different.

[der Berliner 3,357]

1. If Whyte doesnt contest the 2.8 million why has it still to be paid and only a paltry 6 figure sum been paid on it ? If he doesnt contest it then he should pay it, especially as his purchase price for RFC was reduced because of this liability coming to light.

 

6-figure sum can be anything from 100k to 999k, which is a third of what is demanded. Do you know what sort of pay-back period has been given? Nope. Neither do I. The point is that we are willing to pay it, so why's the apparent undue hurry here? They waited about a decade for it (and we (!) found it and told them in the first place, apparently).

 

2. "these are already paid back". No, they arent. You already stated a 6 figure sum had been paid back but certainly not the full liability. They have not been paid back.

 

Make that: "are already being paid back". That is what I assume, for what else would that sum be? Forgive my language lapse.

 

 

3. Why would HMRC ring fence funds ? Quite simple. They fear not receiving what they believe they are legally entitled to. If RFC and Whyte do not contest it there is absolutely NO REASON not to pay it. So given they havent, I am far from surprised that HMRC are doing this. In fact, if i were a taxpayer, I would be disappointed if HMRC DIDNT do this. We complain about big businesses getting breaks and benefits that they shouldnt.... so RFC are no different in this respect - but because it is close to our hearts we seem to take a contrarian view that we shouldnt.

 

Doing this now is IMHO quite simply over the top. For we won't just go away next week or leave the country. IMHO a neat publicity stunt by whomever drives these events on.

 

4. Good luck being able to sue HMRC over this.

 

So you rather want these details about our dealings with HRMC being played out in the public? I find that quite strange. For - as with all tax documents (yours or mine included) - I do assume that this is confidental stuff. As a Rangers source said, we should be dismayed that every cough of it hits the news outlets faster than the club knows about it, apparently. Thus, there sure is a breach of guidelines involved here and this should be investigated.

 

5. I find it rather amusing, and hypocritical in fact, that we are complaining about HMRC or their informants going public with this when just 3 days ago we were going public with Leicester's bid for Jelavic whic quite clearly was not the wish of Leicester.

 

I'd have to dig out the relevant news or twitter sites, but I'm firmly believing that the info about the Leicester bid was not published first on rangers.co.uk.. We just send out a signal.

 

6. I would be very, very surprised if it hasnt been done by HMRC or their informants elsewhere - we often hear of celebrities tax issues being aired in public, this is no different.

 

Rangers FC is no celebrity, it is a company. Just imagine this thwarts the deal with Fox Sports? Over no matter of consequence to that media outlet at all. Just because of the bad publicity involving a disputed tax sum. IMHO, the Rangers business department looks in terror on these "revelations" and spilled beans.

 

All just MHO, of course.

Edited September 3, 2011 by der Berliner

[der Berliner 3,357]

Re Jelavic ...

 

STV were the frontrunners

 

... at least according to NewsNow

Rangers Reject Leicester Jelavic Bid Sporting Life 18:22 Tue, 30 Aug 2011

Jelavic Offer Rejected Glasgow Rangers - Official Site 18:17 Tue, 30 Aug 2011

Rangers reject Leicester bid for Nikica Jelavic stv.tv 17:56 Tue, 30 Aug 2011

 

... and we all know that the STV twitterers are even faster than that. I wouldn't be surprised if Jela's agent was actually the one who got this going.

[der Berliner 3,357]

An interesting article by a Glasgow accountant is to be found here:

 

Football Focus - disguised remuneration = disguised HMRC bias? - Jim Gillespie