Whyte takeover and Ticketus deal emails

[metlika 0]

... coming to think of it, if someone tries to use these "private" e-amils in court without having had a court order beforehand, wouldn't this evidence be deemed null and void? No matter the public outcry now?

 

No, there is loopholes if the evidence is obtained beforehand.

[Guest carter001]

If all this evidence were true and so easily accessible, why have Rangers not not had further sanctions from the SFA and, why have we not had the outcome of the EBT case?

Surely, if it was all so straight forward it would be a slam dunk for both the SFA and HMRC?

 

Just sayin'

[der Berliner 3,297]

I doubt that this info was easily accessible (after all, you would wager that all these mails were/are confidental) and none of it actually refers to the HMRC stuff.

[Guest carter001]

I doubt that this info was easily accessible (after all, you would wager that all these mails were/are confidental) and none of it actually refers to the HMRC stuff.

 

My post was a bit tongue-in-cheek. You never know, the BBC might just have started a new hacking scheme (where's the news of the world when you need them!!)

 

I know HMRC were not mentioned but, surely if the BBC have so much proof about the EBT's then i'd expect HMRC to have it also. So why the delay on an outcome.

[der Berliner 3,297]

That's anyone's guess. of course, there are three judges presiding over this now, not HMRC themselves. The cynics amongst us would argue that they wait till the takeover is completed, but whether it is a CVA or a newco, that bill will not affect the Rangers after that, it seems.

[ian1964 10,460]

My post was a bit tongue-in-cheek. You never know, the BBC might just have started a new hacking scheme (where's the news of the world when you need them!!)

 

I know HMRC were not mentioned but, surely if the BBC have so much proof about the EBT's then i'd expect HMRC to have it also. So why the delay on an outcome.

 

 

Payments from an EBT should not be made on a contractual basis, as it would make them part of an employee's salary and subject to tax and National Insurance.

 

HMRC claims that Rangers' EBT scheme was a tax scam as it was contractual, which forms the basis of the so-called "Big Tax Case".

HMRC also insists it has proof of this in the form of documents and emails between former directors at Rangers and players' agents.

 

In 2010, HMRC issued Rangers with a bill for £35m in unpaid tax and interest, and £14m in penalties which Rangers challenged at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, but the verdict has not been announced.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502

[Guest carter001]

Payments from an EBT should not be made on a contractual basis, as it would make them part of an employee's salary and subject to tax and National Insurance.

 

HMRC claims that Rangers' EBT scheme was a tax scam as it was contractual, which forms the basis of the so-called "Big Tax Case".

HMRC also insists it has proof of this in the form of documents and emails between former directors at Rangers and players' agents.

 

In 2010, HMRC issued Rangers with a bill for £35m in unpaid tax and interest, and £14m in penalties which Rangers challenged at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, but the verdict has not been announced.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502

 

 

Thanks for that.

 

Again though, if there is so much proof flying about, why the delay about the outcome?

 

I also got told that people within Rangers (including D&P) think the longer it goes on the greater their chance of winning the case.

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

I doubt that this info was easily accessible (after all, you would wager that all these mails were/are confidental) and none of it actually refers to the HMRC stuff.

 

Given that it is virtually certain that the mails have come from hmrc that should be no surprise.

[GovanAllan 0]

Any E-Mails or letters leaked would classed as illegally obtained would they not and someone should be going to jail for it.

[calscot 0]

I still think we just need to countermand those emails with - "Sorry for the misunderstanding, you have to pay the loan back. Any time in the next 200 years will do."

 

Without a signed contract the emails are pretty flimsy evidence of a de facto contract. Would anyone want to fight in court over the cancellation of an implied contract by email before you signed the real contract? You wouldn't think you had the slightest chance, would you?