Two sides of the same coin - THE taxman cometh.

[GovanAllan 0]

As an aside a HMRC employee and wife/partner were arrested this morning by police investigating alleged illegal payments by journalists.

 

That'll be the RTC blog leak then.

 

Are the journalists getting arrested for bribing government employees.

[calscot 0]

I don't get the article at alll; it seems written by someone who doesn't have handle on the situation.

 

HMRC do not seem interested at all in maximising the return from Rangers. If they were they would have done a deal on the BTC at a much reduced demand and over a long and affordable timescale.

 

Say they settled for £15m over 15 years and Rangers agreed - the Whyte saga would probably never have happened and they would have received their £15m plus the £13m owed from last year, plus £4m from the small tax case. That's £32m. Now it seems like they will receive about £2m instead. That's the tax payer losing £30m - a 16th of what they could have had, just because HRMC wouldn't deal. The reason they are getting so much less is BECAUSE they played hardball.

 

So the question is, are they just stupid - or is there another agenda? The most probable answer is that there is another agenda, and that is to make an example of a high profile football club that will cause aftershocks around the country. Rangers may end up not pay much of what is owed but they will have paid big time in other ways. It's a bit like sending someone for torture in Guantanamo for a year for not paying their taxes, then letting them off with a small payment and then people still complaining they got away with not paying their taxes.

 

Rangers haven't got away with it, the pain has been terrible and will leave lasting scars. It seems to me you get your money or you get your punishment, you can't ask for both.

 

So it seems the agenda here is for HMRC to show a sort of ruthlessness when it comes to dishing out pain as punishment rather than making sure they get their money. This will scare a lot of companies including football clubs into being put off any dodgy, aggressive tax avoidance schemes which could save the taxpayer billions in the future.

 

That sounds a bit more clever to me - but Rangers have certainly paid for their sins.

[Thinker 879]

If I recall correctly, Whyte claimed he had to withhold the PAYE/NI because he couldn't use the money that was ring-fenced due to the BTC. My worry is that, should we win the BTC, HMRC will appeal and we'll still have the threat of a potentially huge bill (and therefore the ring-fencing) hanging over a post-CVA Rangers.

 

Also, again - if I recall correctly, when HMRC were dealing with Leeds, they dragged their heels past the end of the season so that Leeds ended up with a points penalty the following year. Only then did they agree to settle. They could have made the decision earlier but wanted to make a show of how awkward and troublesome they can be if someone tries to diddle them. The difference between that and forcing us into a newco is that HMRC will lose out on money if they go down that route, whereas they had nothing to lose by getting tough with Leeds.

[caseyjones 0]

I'm sure I read D&P were going to go to court pre-CVA to have that set at nil because the decision has not been made yet.

 

That doesn't explain what should happen post-CVA.

 

That would be a strange ruling to get.

[Juancornetto 1]

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/national-news/hmrc-man-held-in-corruption-probe-1-3841667

 

Corruption at HMRC, bribery for information by journalists but people want to talk about morality to us.

[pete 2,499]

This is why I don't understand the hysteria about Newco and the fervent belief that any one set of bidders is better placed to achieve a CVA than another. HMRC are the main reason we are where we are, they are the reason Murray sold to Whyte and the BTC is why Whyte never paid the PAYE or VAT after all what would be the point if you could never pay what was coming down the pipe? They've held out to see what will happen and now they know only now will they have to make a decision...agree a CVA or not.

 

Disagree totally. David Murray is the reason we are where we are.

[26th of foot 5,838]

The journo that penned the piece is the Herald's Chief Sports Writer, Hugh MacDonald.

 

He succeeded Spiers in that designation, previously he was the Herald's Literary Editor for a decade. Where to begin with just another hate filled maggot?

 

As Literary Editor, he panned Nick Hornby's 'Fever Pitch', stated it did not compare to David Bennie's 'Not Playing for Celtic'. I have read both tomes and in the case of Fever Pitch, re-read it. Former rc priest, MacDonald is correct in that they don't compare. One book is a wonderful narrative on Arsenal obsession, the other muses lots on rare skin conditions, rc retreats, and attending ra Piggery.

 

During ra Sellik's run to Suvul, MacDonald was beside himself on media coverage of his hooped heroes. He demanded BBC Scotland hand over their entire broadcast capacity(radio and TV) to noon to midnight blanket coverage of each game. He returned to this demand for the third time when BBC Scotland's Director General replied in a several paragraph letter to the Herald's correspondence pages. He ridiculed MacDonald, pointed out every game had received both radio and TV live coverage, and BBC Scotland had other responsibilities.

 

MacDonald is just another Sellik loving, Rangers hating obsessive.

[calscot 0]

Disagree totally. David Murray is the reason we are where we are.

 

I disagree, if HMRC had done a fair and proper job, they'd have demanded the tax after the first year of the EBTs. We then would not have done them again and would not be in this position. Despite SDM being a bit dodgy, that would be fair and just treatment.

 

SDM did what he thought was legal and clever, by all accounts it seems like HRMC were fine with it then changed their minds.

 

They also were not fair in the their dealings after the fact - you can't fairly backdate something that everyone thought was legal and ask for the full amount. Taking it to extreme unfairness you can't then treble it with interest and penalties. At best this is entrapment.

 

Also if you or I don't demand our money from someone within six years, we lose it - why not them?

 

Imagine you cut though my land every day for 10 years which you know is a bit dodgy but I turn a blind eye. Imagine then I decide to charge people for going through my land and as I have CCT coverage of you for the past 10 years I decide to backdate it with interest and then penalties on late payment.

 

If we went to court would you be in the wrong or would I? Actually the court would decide that since you have cut through my land for 10 years it now becomes your right of way...

 

It's easy to blame Murray 100% - until you re-frame it for something about yourself.

 

Some may say that it's in the rules that HMRC can do this, but that does not make it right. In every other part of law it is considered wrong and pretty much extortion.

 

HMRC are being no less dodgy or disingenuous than SDM and I would say they are a lot worse.

[Thinker 879]

It all depends on the fine details of how the EBTs were documented. Hopefully SDM had sense enough not to put anything that sounded contractual in writing.

Either way it was obviously dodgy and he must have known he was taking a risk. He's guilty of "reckless endangerment" at least.

[calscot 0]

It all depends on the fine details of how the EBTs were documented. Hopefully SDM had sense enough not to put anything that sounded contractual in writing.

Either way it was obviously dodgy and he must have known he was taking a risk. He's guilty of "reckless endangerment" at least.

 

I can't disagree with that.