So why did HMRC allow Whyte to avoid paying over PAYE/NI for so long?

[craig 5,199]

Because he was warned by many and by his own "advisory board" not to sell to Whyte as Whyte was a chancer with a record of not paying bills. So the non-paying of bills we are discussing is directly traceable to SDM's decision.

 

SDM was responsible for selling to Whyte. He wasnt responsible for non-payment of PAYE & NIC. We never had anyoverdue payroll tax debt when SDM owned us.

 

And the original question was "So why did HMRC allow Whyte to avoid paying over PAYE/NI for so long?" - again, what was that to do with SDM ?

[Dragonfly Trumpeter 50]

I'm salaried. I get monthly deductions.

 

Monthly deductions from your salary has nothing to do with when your company pays the revenue.

[SteveC 150]

SDM was responsible for selling to Whyte. He wasnt responsible for non-payment of PAYE & NIC. We never had anyoverdue payroll tax debt when SDM owned us.

 

And the original question was "So why did HMRC allow Whyte to avoid paying over PAYE/NI for so long?" - again, what was that to do with SDM ?

 

As I said, he was responsible for selling to someone he was warned would not pay bills. That seems a relevant connection; not sure why you are so on top of me for stating this - its hardly a stretch or going off topic, just drawing an inference to a preceding and contributory action. Were I to have started another thread: "Why did SDM sell to someone who was infamous for not paying bills, thus leading to the non-payment of NI/PAYE by said person", I think people would have asked why I started another thread instead of replying in the thread already ongoing .

Given most forum threads I read stray very, very far from the exact wording (indeed often the very topics) they start from, I'm puzzled that I seem to have upset you here.

[Bluedell 5,346]

In respect of the original question, HMRC didn't "allow" Rangers/Whyte not to pay PAYE. They would have started chasing it actively after a few months. There would probably have discussed payment schedules and would have possibly been promised payments that weren't forthcoming.

 

They would initially look at the company's payment record and not sit down and analyse who the various directors are.

 

I don't think there's some sort of conspiracy as some seem to imply.

[RANGERRAB 3,266]

SDM was responsible for selling to Whyte. He wasnt responsible for non-payment of PAYE & NIC. We never had anyoverdue payroll tax debt when SDM owned us.

 

And the original question was "So why did HMRC allow Whyte to avoid paying over PAYE/NI for so long?" - again, what was that to do with SDM ?

 

Don't you think SDM was blackmailed into selling to Whyte?

[RANGERRAB 3,266]

In respect of the original question, HMRC didn't "allow" Rangers/Whyte not to pay PAYE. They would have started chasing it actively after a few months. There would probably have discussed payment schedules and would have possibly been promised payments that weren't forthcoming.

 

They would initially look at the company's payment record and not sit down and analyse who the various directors are.

 

I don't think there's some sort of conspiracy as some seem to imply.

 

I think they'd have started chasing in a lot less than a few months for unpaid PAYE/NI. And somehow can't see Whyte discussing payment schedules for anything. He pays for nothing - look at his Highland Castle !!!!

Analyse who the directors were ? he got shot of them all so they wouldn't see what he was doing !!!!!!!

I think HMRC have more than a few questions to answer regards Whyte IMO.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

i think this is bluedells field of expertise.

[RANGERRAB 3,266]

another question which needs answered is why they aloowed administration to run from FEB14 - JUNE14 when they'd absolutely no intention from the outset of agreeing to a CVA

[the gunslinger 3,366]

they had no control over admin and for all they know the cva may have been 100p in the pound.

[craig 5,199]

another question which needs answered is why they aloowed administration to run from FEB14 - JUNE14 when they'd absolutely no intention from the outset of agreeing to a CVA

 

HMRC had no control whatsoever over the process of the administration. They, like all others, had to wait on due process from the administrators.

 

You also are obligated to advertise the administration and give reasonable opportunity to potential creditors to make their claim. When you add that to the complexity of Rangers as an entity and having to get all books and records analysed, as well as try to run the business as an ongoing concern (meeting league obligations etc) then being in admin for months is perfectly reasonable