Bluedell 5,366 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Methinks with regards to the small bill, he does not contest it as such, but the (in his opinion) far too heavy penalty ... after he found out about it and gave the relevant info to HMRC in the frist place. While the tax people can demand penalties to their hearts content, it does make you wonder that they go at us with all guns blazing here. When, as has been said, Vodafone et all got off the hook very lightly. (And yes, the penalty was imposed before HMRC got told to sharpen up late last year.) Since we know not much about the small deal, we as much as Traynor can hardly debate on a decent level about it. Since we have a right to appeal the penalty and it is not in our hands when the appeal etc. is being heard, I doubt that the fee as such will increase while it is in that state. He should be making a payment on account to stop the interest clocking up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,327 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 He should be making a payment on account to stop the interest clocking up. As far as I understood it, that has actually happened when the amount was frozen in our accounts? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,366 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 As far as I understood it, that has actually happened when the amount was frozen in our accounts? i wouldn't think that would stop the interest clocking up. It just safeguards HMRC's position. HMRC don't have use of the funds. Although the interest rate is relatively low it is still increasing daily and every penny seems to count. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Methinks with regards to the small bill, he does not contest it as such, but the (in his opinion) far too heavy penalty ... after he found out about it and gave the relevant info to HMRC in the frist place. While the tax people can demand penalties to their hearts content, it does make you wonder that they go at us with all guns blazing here. When, as has been said, Vodafone et all got off the hook very lightly. (And yes, the penalty was imposed before HMRC got told to sharpen up late last year.) Since we know not much about the small deal, we as much as Traynor can hardly debate on a decent level about it. Since we have a right to appeal the penalty and it is not in our hands when the appeal etc. is being heard, I doubt that the fee as such will increase while it is in that state. The small, uncontested tax bill is still clocking up interest. Given CW doesnt contest it there is nothing to prevent him from doing so and he can make the payment without prejudice. AFAIK he can settle the liability plus current interest and contest the penalty - I think (though could definitely be wrong) that the contested penalty would not then continue to clock interest. Nothing to stop CW from paying the liability but still contest the penalty. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 i wouldn't think that would stop the interest clocking up. It just safeguards HMRC's position. HMRC don't have use of the funds. Although the interest rate is relatively low it is still increasing daily and every penny seems to count. Agreed. Freezing of funds does not mean that HMRC have the money which also therefore means the liability hasnt been paid. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,881 Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Agree with BD. Some pertinent points obscured by mudslinging. Interesting that the DR's apparently new found "interest" in all things Craig Whyte has coincided not too long after their latest round of redundancies and reorganisation. All part of a new found strategy? Any word on the AGM as promised yesterday? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Traynor and King again asking the "must tell the truth" and "supporters must demand" stuff. It seems unless Whyte (whom Traynor jovially calls "Craig") tells them what they want to hear - e.g. Rangers are in deep shyte and I'm guilty and will burn in hell for this - they will not listen and read and think about what the chairman has to say. For that reason alone I hope the HMRC case bursts and Whyte waives the 18m debt stored in the Rangers Football Group. I'm going to predict right now that if we do win the case (first of all the Revenue will appeal) Mr Whyte will find a way to go back on the deal to waive the debt. I stress that this is a personal opinion, I don't have any evidence for this it's just the impression I get from all his dealings that have ben revealed over the past 7/8 months. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 (edited) I'm going to predict right now that if we do win the case (first of all the Revenue will appeal) Mr Whyte will find a way to go back on the deal to waive the debt. I stress that this is a personal opinion, I don't have any evidence for this it's just the impression I get from all his dealings that have ben revealed over the past 7/8 months. BH, you also forgot that, in that scenario, there will be a deluge of "offended taxpayer" complaints to HMRC and all and sundry. Plus another media frenzy. But never mind, I see that Traynor's offered to bring his fag packet along and teach CW the finer details of corporate finance. "Well, with so much going on he can't be expected to remember everything although if he wants another look at the relevant documents I'll be happy to help out." We're saved. By the way, can anyone tell me why this deal with Ticketus is so outrageous, yet an overdraft for the same amount (secured against future income) isn't. Am I missing something? Edited February 7, 2012 by bluebear54 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,327 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'm going to predict right now that if we do win the case (first of all the Revenue will appeal) Mr Whyte will find a way to go back on the deal to waive the debt. I stress that this is a personal opinion, I don't have any evidence for this it's just the impression I get from all his dealings that have ben revealed over the past 7/8 months. The point is that he - unless I am mistaken - never gave a date about waiving the debt. In essence, it is not looming over the club as the Lloyds debt was, so wether he waives it or not is not a pressing issue. But we can speculate all day long. First we need to hear about the tax case. BTW, the jovial tone Traynor presented would make him a persona non grata at Ibrox if I were Whyte. Maybe they think that because he's just 40 years old, they can patronise him like a schoolboy. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The point is that he - unless I am mistaken - never gave a date about waiving the debt. did he not state in the circular that if the club was still operational a certian number of days (possibly 60) after the tax result, that the debt would then be cleared?? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.