Rangers FC settle £300,000 damages claim with former director Donald McIntyre

[Bluedell 5,599]

£500,00 has been paid to account by the previous regime leaving a shortfall of £3.7 million not complicated.

What reasons HMRC would have in insisting on the full amount from Mr Whyte is open to interpretation I wouldn't really know, perhaps the urgency to arrest may give a clue.

 

Are you making up the fact that HMRC are refusing payment? Where did you get this information?

[der Berliner 3,716]

The more I read of this conversation, the more I get the feeling that someone from that dubious tax-affair-website has found his/her way to these shores. Just my impression. At the end of the day, I doubt anyone on here (or over there) knows the facts and that the case have shifted to London has some formerly well-informed people source- and thus restless.

[forlanssister 3,105]

£500,00 has been paid to account by the previous regime leaving a shortfall of £3.7 million not complicated.

What reasons HMRC would have in insisting on the full amount from Mr Whyte is open to interpretation I wouldn't really know, perhaps the urgency to arrest may give a clue.

 

So you are now saying the HMRC do in fact accept part payments just not from Mr Whyte ?

 

There is absolutely nothing to stop Mr Whyte paying the amount he promised to pay in the shareholders circular and still appeal the penalty is there ?

 

HMRC will not refuse to accept a cheque or cleared funds as payment of the balance of the "wee tax case" will they ?

[Zappa 0]

Advocaat went to Murrray with a highly complex scheme that allowed players to avoid UK tax? Sounds very implausible to me.

 

Are you saying that the players were the only party benefitting from using these schemes?

[Bluedell 5,599]

Are you saying that the players were the only party benefitting from using these schemes?

 

No, but I thought that you were suggesting that Advocaat had suggested the scheme, rather than who benefited from it?

[Zappa 0]

No, but I thought that you were suggesting that Advocaat had suggested the scheme, rather than who benefited from it?

 

All I'm really suggesting is that I don't think it's a coincidence that the EBTs were started during a managerial era which seen over £70m net spent in the transfer market. Maybe you're right that it's totally implausible that Dick suggested it, but I still think it's a bit fishy that this mess we're in now dates back to Advocaat and Murray's wild spending spree.

[khan 0]

There is nothing to prevent Mr Whyte carrying out his statement as per circular.

 

(e) The Rangers FC Group is to contribute to the Club the amount required to meet a liability

owed by the Club to HM Revenue & Customs in relation to a discounted option scheme tax;

[craig 5,199]

All I'm really suggesting is that I don't think it's a coincidence that the EBTs were started during a managerial era which seen over £70m net spent in the transfer market. Maybe you're right that it's totally implausible that Dick suggested it, but I still think it's a bit fishy that this mess we're in now dates back to Advocaat and Murray's wild spending spree.

 

I personally doubt that this is something that would have been brought up by Advocaat. Players adviser's, legal counsel etc perhaps - but the manager ? IMO that seems unlikely.

 

More likely is that they (the club) knew that they would be paying higher salaries and they looked in more depth at what they could use to minimise the tax liability.

[stewarty 1,998]

I dont BD, wish we did know.

 

Yes, strange Grant Thornton also missed it but these things do unfortunately happen in audits. As you know full well the ultimate responsibility of the financials will rest with the CEO and CFO. Cant really blame McIntyre I suppose unless and until we know more about how the liability occurred and was found. Could have been him that found it after all.

 

Not solely on their shoulders. I would also suggest that the non-exective directors: Messrs Johnson, Murray, McLelland, et al; all had a fiduciary duty to satisfy themselves as to the veracity of any tax composition.

[Bluedell 5,599]

Not solely on their shoulders. I would also suggest that the non-exective directors: Messrs Johnson, Murray, McLelland, et al; all had a fiduciary duty to satisfy themselves as to the veracity of any tax composition.

 

It's not a non-exec's responsibility to know a company's tax computation in detail and to ensure it is 100% correct.