Stefanovitch 0 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Apologies for asking this in a new thread. However, I was just reading through the D&P report again. The wee tax case is listed as 14.28 The Small Tax Case was bought against the Company by HMRC in respect of outstanding amounts owed from the use of a discounted options tax scheme for payments made to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer between the tax years 2000/01 and 2002/03. 14.29 The total amount determined as due by HMRC in respect of this case is in the region of £4,000,000, after interest and penalty charges. 14.30 The Small Tax Case has not progressed as far as Tribunal and has been settled based upon advice received. The big tax case listed as 14.31 The Big Tax Case was brought against the Company by HMRC in respect of outstanding amounts owed from the use of the EBT scheme to make payments to employees of the Company between the tax years 2000/01 and 2009/10. 14.32 The total amount determined as due by HMRC in respect of this case is in the region of £75,000,000, including interest and penalties. 14.33 The Big Tax Case is disputed by the Company and is subject to first tier tax Tribunal Proceedings instigated by HMRC. An outcome has yet to be determined by the Tribunal. What was the difference between the two schemes and why was liability admitted on the wee case? Also, are both cases under investigation by the SPL over the dual contract issue? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,290 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Not knowing to answer to the question, but ... 14.30 The Small Tax Case has not progressed as far as Tribunal and has been settled based upon advice received. ... means what? Has this amount now been paid? Can't remember anything about this. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefanovitch 0 Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 Not knowing to answer to the question, but ... ... means what? Has this amount now been paid? Can't remember anything about this. I did wonder about that as well but I assume it means we have conceded liability rather than settled the amount. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I did wonder about that as well but I assume it means we have conceded liability rather than settled the amount. The bill was conceded and Whyte agreed to pay it - which was his argument to acquire the club for £1, but then he never paid it. I think that's why the tax bill that put us in administration was £13m - £4m WTC and £9 unpaid PAYE and VAT... Could be wrong though. Seems to me that the WTC may not have been set up in a way that could be defended robustly (something in their contracts?) whereas the rest were. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 8 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I think that the "wee tax case" was some other type of tax device and didn't use EBTs 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.