Ministerial response from HMRC

[ian1964 10,457]

Lifted from FF:

 

 

I wrote to David Gauke, the Exchequer Secretary, on 29 November about matters related to the actions of HMRC in their pursuit of Rangers. The reason why I wrote to Mr Gauke was because he is the Minister who has responsibility for the day to day business of HMRC. In my letter I asked a series of questions which included:

 

1. Why did it take HMRC until 2004 to approach Rangers about EBTs when the club had published its use of the scheme in the 2001 Annual Report?

 

2. Why did it take HMRC until 2009 before they presented Rangers with an estimated bill for money which they believed they were due from the club's use of EBTs?

 

3. Why did HMRC refuse an offer of £10 million from Rangers as a without prejudice settlement when they accepted a proportionately lower offer from Arsenal to settle their estimated EBT debt?

 

4. What are HMRC doing about the blatant leaking of confidential information about Rangers' tax affairs during the period of their pursuit of Rangers?

 

I received the delegated response from an HMRC official on 28 December. I've typed it in below. As you will see, HMRC are trying to bodyswerve the questions presented to them. Their refusal to answer valid questions has only strengthened this Bear's resolve and as well as continuing my correspondence with Mr Gauke, I will be going down the Freedom of Information route as well.

 

HMRC response;

 

Dear ..........

 

Thank you for your letter of 29 November to the Exchequer Secretary about Rangers FC and HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC). I have recently been asked to reply since, as you will appreciate, the large amount of correspondence the Exchequer Secretary receives makes it impossible for him to answer all of it personally.

 

As you know, the First Tier Tax Tribunal is now in the public domain and was found in favour of Rangers FC. We have announced we will seek leave to appeal.

 

In relation to Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) more generally, we have increasingly seen EBTs being used as a way of avoiding Pay as You Earn (PAYE) tax and National Insurance contributions (NICs). We will form a view based based on the facts of the case. Where we believe a company has used an EBT as a way of trying to avoid obligations to account for PAYE and NICs, we will challenge the arrangement and seek to recover the unpaid PAYE and NICs.

 

In cases where the company does not accept our view that the EBT scheme does not work and PAYE and NICs are due, then it is for the company to appeal our decision within the appropriate time limit, and effectively choose to progress matters to litigation.

 

We are disappointed to have lost the First Tier Tax Tribunal stage of the court process and, as I say, we will seek permission to appeal the Tribunal decision. The decision was not unanimous and the diligence of HMRC investigators was acknowledged by the wholw tribunal. We are committed to tackling avoidance and it is right that we challenge the type of avoidance seen in this case to prevent the loss of substantial amounts of tax and NICs.

 

I hope that you will appreciate that we cannot comment on the affairs of any business or individual due to our legal obligations of confidentiality.

 

Where tax is under dispute, our debt pursuit procedures are clear: provided the business or individual has taken the appropriate steps to register and pursue the dispute and have the tax postponed, we will not take any action to collect the disputed tax until after the First Tier Tax Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal or a higher court has ruled in our favour.

 

It is a matter of public record that the company was placed in administration by its principal shareholder and director because the company had failed to pay millions of pounds of tax which was not subject to legal challenge, and that it was subsequently placed in liquidation following the sale of its assets to a new company.

 

We do not comment on speculation about breaches of confidentiality.

 

Thank you for writing to the Exchequer Secretary.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Jane Burton

[der Berliner 3,290]

So in essence, they still seek permission to appeal, even though the appeal timescale has elapsed.

[bossy 0]

I hope that you will appreciate that we cannot comment on the affairs of any business or individual due to our legal obligations of confidentiality.

 

I take it that they don't do irony.

[RANGERRAB 3,304]

Bad though they are HMRC are not our biggest villains. They have a duty to collect tax & were only doing their job albeit extremely unprofessionally by all accounts.

What we really need to know is how Whyte got the club. Was SDM blackmailed into selling by LBG?

if so by whom at LBG & for what reasons ? was it Fullerton & Kane or did they get some patsy to do it for them?

Once this question is answered everything else will fall into place

[Scott7 5,242]

The absence of a credible rebuttal of the issues raised tells the story. HMRC have no answer - at least no answer that they want to publish.

[Guest Lloret1972]

HMRC do not do 'transparancy' eh? What are our Rangers Supporters in parliament doing on this? A mumble has been heard here & there but nothing more as far as I know.