der Berliner 3,267 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 ... while D&P were given wrong information "by the club" (I "like" the club bit) when estimating the initial debt. + + + (Ignoring the quote option, so the text is not "italicized") Rangers administrators blame HMRC penalties for £4m tax bill increase By Mike Farrell 7 June 2012 18:31 BST Rangers administrators claim the clubâ??s tax bill has increased by £4m because of interest and penalties added by the authorities. According to a report released earlier this month, the Ibrox club now owe HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) an estimated £18.3m for non-payment of VAT and PAYE in the nine months following Craig Whyte's May 2011 takeover. The penalties have added £4m to the tax debt originally specified as £14.3m in Duff and Phelps's statement to creditors released in April. Mr Whyte deducted the tax from employees' wages but did not hand it over to HMRC, instead using it as a source of working capital at Ibrox. On Thursday, a spokesman for the administrators claimed that the increase in the club's tax liability was not the result of any failure to pay PAYE or VAT since they were appointed on February 14. The administrators also said the figure had risen as a result of "new information coming to light" which differed from what the club's owners had given them. The spokesman said: "The £14.3m figure was Duff and Phelpsâ?? calculations based on the information provided to them by the club at the time. "The £18.3m takes into account HMRCâ??s full claim as creditors apart from both the big and wee tax cases. "A substantial part of that increase is down to penalties and interest being added by HMRC for non-payment. It is also to do with new information coming to light in its claim, which differed from the information provided by the club to the administrators initially." The administratorâ??s spokesman said "all tax has been paid on behalf of Rangers since their appointment on February 14" and stated the increase was not in relation to new debts built up since the insolvency firm was appointed. When administrators were called in earlier this year, the HMRC debt was estimated at £9m by the administrators. But this rose to £14m in Duff and Phelps' first report to creditors the following month, Rangers owe HMRC around £3m for the 'wee' tax case, which centres on the clubâ??s use of a discounted options scheme to pay players Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer from 2000 to 2003. The club is also awaiting the first tier tribunalâ??s decision on the 'big' tax case, in which Rangers are appealing against HMRCâ??s decision that the way they used offshore employee benefit trusts (EBTs) breached tax law. Under Sir David Murrayâ??s ownership the club paid part of the salaries of staff and players using loans from the trusts between 2001 and 2010. The use of such trusts was not illegal, but the way in which Rangers allegedly (inserted by dB) deployed them to pay wages found them in breach of the rules according to HMRC. Legislation introduced last March was designed to clampdown on the schemes by imposing tax-charges on loans from the trusts. According to administrators, Rangers could face a tax bill of up to £75m if they are unsuccessful in the tax tribunal case, which concluded hearing evidence in January and is still to report its findings over the use of EBTs. ... sayest STV + + + This will only change the payout HMRC gets from an approved CVA, I assume, but may well endanger them accepting it? Then again, they would have known the figure all along anyway. (You do "like" the penalty percentage used here. Would any bank et all do this, hell would break lose ... ) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought HMRC couldn't add interest and penalties once we were in Admin. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought HMRC couldn't add interest and penalties once we were in Admin. Didn't think any creditor could add penalties or fines to outstanding debts once you enter into Administration? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,267 Posted June 8, 2012 Author Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) I would be surprised if HMRC did not tell D&P the correct figures themselves, or at least what they estimated it would be. Apart from that I was under the impression that part of the small case money was already ring-fenced long before we went into admin and thus would be there ... somewhere. As I asked before, is there actually a time-restriction with regards to back-dating any claims, e.g. the EBTs. Like 5 or 10 years before any claim goes out of the window? Edited June 8, 2012 by der Berliner spelling 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I would be surpirsed if HMRC did not tell D&P the correct figures themselves, or at least what they estimated it would be. Apart from that I was under the impression that part of the small case money was already ring-fenced long before we went into admin and thus would be there ... somewhere. As I asked before, is there actually a time-restriction with regards to back-dating any claims, e.g. the EBTs. Like 5 or 10 years before any claim goes out of the window? Whatever happened to the wee taxcase money I thought D&P would've paid that on day one of admin. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 [The administrators also said the figure had risen as a result of "new information coming to light" which differed from what the club's owners had given them. The spokesman said: "The £14.3m figure was Duff and Phelpsâ?? calculations based on the information provided to them by the club at the time. "The £18.3m takes into account HMRCâ??s full claim as creditors apart from both the big and wee tax cases. "A substantial part of that increase is down to penalties and interest being added by HMRC for non-payment. It is also to do with new information coming to light in its claim, which differed from the information provided by the club to the administrators initially."] The Admins have been there for months. Surely they are 'the club and owners'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guardian Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 The interest and penalties were probably already applied or accrued before admin. D & P have only been owners since admin, they are referring to the previous owners ie Whyte. Did anyone expect he would be open and forthcoming before he left ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Trumpeter 50 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 The interest and penalties were probably already applied or accrued before admin. D & P have only been owners since admin, they are referring to the previous owners ie Whyte. Did anyone expect he would be open and forthcoming before he left ? D&P are owners of what since admin? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigy1881 79 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Why is this just being reported on when it was documented in the CVA proposal HM Revenue & Customs – Excluding EBT Case and the Discounted Option Scheme Case £18,324,285.42 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I thought it was £14.3m INCLUDING penalties, the original non payment of tax was £9m, was it not? plus over £4m in penalties and fines. Why now even more penalties? 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.