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

[pete 2,499]

I'd say there's a pretty good chance that Advocaat will have went to Murray with the EBT idea as a way of convincing Murray to let him keep spending money in the transfer market.

 

If that was the case then would PSV not be under suspicion from the Dutch tax office. I haven't heard anything to that effect.

[Zappa 0]

If that was the case then would PSV not be under suspicion from the Dutch tax office. I haven't heard anything to that effect.

 

Not necessarily pete because there's nothing wrong with EBTs legally. It's just that HMRC have their knickers in a twist about it and are trying to bring in more money for the Government to waste on pointless shite.

[khan 0]

Not necessarily pete because there's nothing wrong with EBTs legally. It's just that HMRC have their knickers in a twist about it and are trying to bring in more money for the Government to waste on pointless shite.

 

There isn't wrong with anything that is legal even avoidance, I stress the quote by Johnston which makes it clear that he/they did not know of the small tax liability, obvious question is why he/they didn't know and who was/is responsible for that concealment. Maybe the financial director would cover fiscal matters ?

 

"And let me put on record that if we had known about it we would have had to put it in our annual report and taken a liability in the accounts."

[Ergatrude 0]

I find it strange Whyte would tell me (as a shareholder) in writing that he would settle it in full then renege on that commitment, but then Craig Whyte doesn't give a flying f*&k about me or any of the other 26,000 shareholders.

 

Had it been paid and then AAM won their appeal to the UTT it would have repaid in full + interest, believe it or not it's not that strange an event in the world of taxation where some disputes take decades to settle.

 

He hasn't reneged on his commitment though has he? As far as we can be aware from reports we have had he is willing to pay the liability but not he £1.4M in fines that accompany it.

[forlanssister 3,050]

There isn't wrong with anything that is legal even avoidance, I stress the quote by Johnston which makes it clear that he/they did not know of the small tax liability, obvious question is why he/they didn't know and who was/is responsible for that concealment. Maybe the financial director would cover fiscal matters ?

 

"And let me put on record that if we had known about it we would have had to put it in our annual report and taken a liability in the accounts."

 

If AAM had not lost their FTT in November 2010 there would have been no "wee tax bill", there was no liability until after that case when HMRC would have sent out and assessment, that assessment arrived during the period that due diligence was being carried out, hence the incorrect media spin that Whyte's agents discovered it during the due diligence process. There was no concealment of any liability re the DOS.

 

Johnston's statement is factually correct.

 

He hasn't reneged on his commitment though has he? As far as we can be aware from reports we have had he is willing to pay the liability but not he £1.4M in fines that accompany it.

 

He could and should have paid the liability he said he would then appealed the subsequent fine, he hasn't therefore he has reneged on his promise/commitment (call it what you like). I very much doubt we would have received a fine of that scale had Whyte not decided to play silly buggers with HMRC.

[khan 0]

If AAM had not lost their FTT in November 2010 there would have been no "wee tax bill", there was no liability until after that case when HMRC would have sent out and assessment, that assessment arrived during the period that due diligence was being carried out, hence the incorrect media spin that Whyte's agents discovered it during the due diligence process. There was no concealment of any liability re the DOS.

 

Johnston's statement is factually correct.

 

 

 

 

He could and should have paid the liability he said he would then appealed the subsequent fine, he hasn't therefore he has reneged on his promise/commitment (call it what you like). I very much doubt we would have received a fine of that scale had Whyte not decided to play silly buggers with HMRC.

 

I would invite you to show the direct link through the judgement in the Aberdeen Asset Management case to our case, but I won't as there is none.

Your unquestionable devotion to the regime which presided over the financial mess that we now find ourselves in is well questionable.

 

Just for clarification Whyte does not dispute the bill, he disputes the validity of the £1.4 million penalty.

[forlanssister 3,050]

I would invite you to show the direct link through the judgement in the Aberdeen Asset Management case to our case, but I won't as there is none.

Your unquestionable devotion to the regime which presided over the financial mess that we now find ourselves in is well questionable.

 

Just for clarification Whyte does not dispute the bill, he disputes the validity of the £1.4 million penalty.

 

Here's the link to the findings of the FTT re AAM DOS scheme.

 

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2010/TC00779.html

 

It was as a result of those findings that HMRC sent RFC (and many other companies) an assessment for tax due for the DOS that they ran.

 

I don not have unquestionable devotion to any regime (past or present) but also I'm not ignorant enough to blame Donald McIntyre for things that were nothing to do with him.

 

Tell me then what is to stop Craig Whyte paying the bill you say he does not dispute and pursuing the penalty through the appropriate channels? absolutely nothing eh ?

Edited December 11, 2011 by forlanssister
Crap grammar!

[khan 0]

HMRC refused part payment, insisting on payment in full which obviously included the disputed penalty.

I am well aware of the Aberdeen Asset Management judgement, it has no correlation to our own circumstances.

[Bluedell 5,354]

Unlike you I have no problem giving an opinion about his incompetence, if you don't like it tough.

 

I don't have a problem in giving an opinion when I know what I'm taking about, unlke you.

[Bluedell 5,354]

HMRC refused part payment, insisting on payment in full which obviously included the disputed penalty.

 

How do you know that and how can they do that? Does interest not continue to run? Surely they cannot refuse payments and allow interest to keep clocking up?