Tax Case Started Today

[BrahimHemdani 1]

You need a good accountant.... none of those on here

 

Or maybe I should go offshore?

[craig 5,199]

Or maybe I should go offshore?

 

Fantastic idea

[Guest Dutchy]

I think people and businesses should pay their taxes, there's far too much acceptance of criminality with all these tax dogers.

 

We may win the case yet, but if not, surely the tax man is not going to put us out of business to get their money? Some form of payment plan should and could be arranged, which I think we've proved with Llyods, we can do.

[der Berliner 3,290]

While I hope that they will agree to a payment plan, the noises coming out of HMRC (or rather the press) make it look as if they want to make an example of us (and not only the paranoid will smell something that stinks here). As has been said before, if they go the full monty, they will probably see next to nothing though, which is not in their interest either. All we can do now is sit and wait.

[GovanAllan 0]

They cut a deal with Vodafone on an 8 Billion tax bill down to 1 Billion paid over ten years. So if we lose the case there must be room to deal as said above why get nothing when you can deal and get something.

[der Berliner 3,290]

While we hope for a deal, ... a snippet from FF:

 

Since the introduction of the Disguised Remuneration legislation last December EBTs are effectively dead in the water.

 

This is about historic chasing of money. Indeed HMRC are so confident they have set up a voluntary settlement scheme for other companies who used EBTs - and the voluntary settlement has virtually no mitigation or soft sides, it basically says give us everything we expect. The Rangers case would give this settlement the basis HMRC need. There's a lot at stake for HMRC, moreso than worrying about the future of an SPL club.

 

1/8th would be a "good" deal, but then again, Rangers are not Vodafone (and probably have not the relevant staying power and law people as the latter).

[GovanAllan 0]

That makes the whole we must do Rangers scenario a must for them, if they want to force other companies into full payment.

 

You have to ask why are we the test case?

 

Either way I just wish it was all over and done and we can move on.

[Darthter 542]

from a logical business point of view, it makes little sense to put a company out of business.

 

Say Rangers lose the case to the tune of £49m....how much of that £49m will HMRC ACTUALLY get???

 

However, if HMRC were to cut a deal @ say £10m over say 5 years, that money is guaranteed, as is the ongoing tax income generated from the club since it is still trading etc. It would be a win-win situation all round.

 

I get the impression with the EBT amnesty that HMRC fear that if they lose the case against the Gers, they would be stuffed with all the other cases, therefore they are giving companies the opportunity to voluntarily pay up before the ruling. If a company doesn't pay now, and HMRC win the case, they will be targeting EVERY company that has used the EBT.

[craig 5,199]

I think people and businesses should pay their taxes, there's far too much acceptance of criminality with all these tax dogers.

 

We may win the case yet, but if not, surely the tax man is not going to put us out of business to get their money? Some form of payment plan should and could be arranged, which I think we've proved with Llyods, we can do.

 

This isnt the fault of the businesses, at least those that are operating tax avoidane schemes. All they are doing is utilising the "shades of grey" tax legislation that allows them to take advantage of loopholes in tax law. So it is up to the government's tax experts to close those loopholes to ensure that the law cant be manipulated.

 

Further, though, tax avoidance is not criminality. Tax avoidance is very legal and my paragraph above explains what tax avoidance is. Nothing wrong with it. And Rangers have operated their EBT to avoid tax, that is legal but is open to interpretation and that is why we are in a tribunal with HMRC.

 

Tax evasion..... now that is a completely different matter. That most certainly IS illegal.

[craig 5,199]

Vodafone are refuting that the bill is that amount. Lets not forget it was an opposition politician that threw that number out. Sounds to me like some politicking.

 

Yes, HMRC have allowed a voluntary settlement plan. That to me suggests that they arent overly confident in their position with regards to the EBT legislation and winning the case against Rangers. I could be wrong though.

 

I suspect that the reason we havent settled with HMRC is simply because they want full payment - that makes little sense if we believe we have acted within the law and in compliance with tax legislation.

 

HMRC wouldnt have to offer a payment plan but you have to think that what they did with Vodafone would set some kind of precedence in that regard although with HMRC there are no guarantees of anything.