craig 5,199 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I think the last verdict shows that they will find it difficult to use our case as a precedent. It at least would mean that other clubs would find it within their interests to appeal and appeal again - is it really worth that level of investigation and litigation with no guarantee of a win - at taxpayers expense? The issue here is that it wont be HMRC currently using our case as precedent but rather those other hundreds of companies they are chasing. HMRC quite possibly wont want to let this one lie as it could prejudice their chances in all the other cases. Was it worth them chasing this one in the first place at the taxpayers expense ? Sometimes HMRC dont act in the taxpayers best interests - in fact, I would say they OFTEN dont. I had a client a few years ago and we met with HMRC and explained that there was no way that he could pay his liabilities and basically begged them to come to agreement on a payment plan which was achievable. HMRC effectively told him to piss off... End result ? Yup, a liquidated company that paid NOTHING to HMRC from that day forward. What could the end result possibly have been ? A company still in existence, paying current liabilities and with a reasonable payment plan for back-taxes (including penalties and interest I might add). So often it isnt about the taxpayers best interests. As we saw with this case. But if they think they have a chance of having the appeal overturned then they may very well go for it as it would/could have an impact on other future cases. Either way, my point to EDGE remains the same - you simply cannot look at this as Rangers vs HMRC on a standalone basis - it has far wider reaching repercussions for HMRC should they walk away from it. Obviously I hope they dont appeal, but I can definitely see why they WOULD. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 With the backlash just starting against them and their embarrassment about the many leaks to the RTC, I doubt they have the nerve to start an appeal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Wasn't it the case that when we were looking for a bidder the general concensus was that even if we won the case HMRC would appeal and it would take years and would deter any investor (except someone riding in with a Dick Turpin mask on shouting "my dad was a bluenose" and waving a pound note in the air!)? Even if they were to win any appeal, which is doubtful, EBTs weren't taxable until 2011 I believe. Even then, loans are considered repayable therefore not taxable income. (what would happen when the loan was repaid, the tax refunded ? ..don't think so), Anyway, there is practically no cash left from "oldco" to pay them. It could drag on for years and cost a fortune. Rangers could then also appeal citing HMRC's previous leniency to other "avoiders", phone companies etc. This is just my opinion based on common sense and logic, if anyone knows otherwise, please enlighten us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I read somewhere that they can only appeal on a point of law. Not because they didn't like the ruling. The more erudite on here could confirm. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I read somewhere that they can only appeal on a point of law. Not because they didn't like the ruling. The more erudite on here could confirm. ive heard this before as well. they have to present new evidence or they can not appeal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfly Trumpeter 50 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 ive heard this before as well. they have to present new evidence or they can not appeal. They are not allowed to present new evidence 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 Well that's that cleared up then. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 5,857 Posted November 22, 2012 Share Posted November 22, 2012 I believe the earliest slot for hearing an appeal would be 18 months hence. Further, there is at least an 18 month backlog of cases waiting a slot. Thus, it could be dependent upon priority; however a possible 3 year wait is unacceptable to all parties. The costs are already in excess of £5million, HMRC refused an offer from Rangers of £10million two years past, and those parties providing evidence for the revenue have already been presented as the united colours of beneton. It has cost too much, will not pass muster of public scrutiny, and we have ran out of pastel shades. The window of opportunity has closed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Ally 0 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 People suggesting they can only appeal on a point of law and not just because they don't like the result? Is this correct? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Don't know for definite bud. Read it somewhere in the last couple of days, and it seemed authoritative, but forget where. Perhaps Ff? Sure it will be written in the runes somewhere. Any tax lawyers here? 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.