Jump to content

 

 

Recommended Posts

Wasn't there something about new legally relevant evidence to be required?

 

They will probably appeal the Judge's decision on the few cases involving MIH personnel which he ruled on.

You would have to think that by now all 'points of law' arguments have been exhausted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HMRC confirms it has sought leave to appeal Rangers 'big tax case' ruling

 

By Matt Coyle - 7 August 2014 17:09 BST

 

The taxman has confirmed it has sought leave from the courts to appeal the Oldco Rangers "big tax case" ruling.

 

Last month, the taxman lost an appeal against the Rangers "big tax case" verdict after a ruling by a High Court judge.

 

Lord Doherty, in most part, dismissed HM Revenue and Customs appeal against the verdict.

 

In 2012 a First Tier Tax Tribunal ruled that payments made to some Rangers players through EBT trusts were loans.

 

The three-person First Tier Tax Tribunal could not reach an unanimous decision on the club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts between 2001 and 2010.

 

It found most of the trusts were "valid" and loans are "recoverable" by the trust, although it conceded some advances to players were taxable and any bill is likely to be "substantially reduced" from the initial £46.2m assessment.

 

On Thursday, a spokesman for HMRC confirmed it was seeking permission to appeal the court judgment.

 

He added: "HMRC continues to believe that schemes using Employee Benefit Trusts to avoid tax do not work. We have applied for permission to appeal the case to the Court of Session.

 

"Around 700 users of EBT schemes have already settled with us resulting in around £800m of tax and NICs being paid. We expect more to settle in the near future.

 

"These are avoidance schemes and we will continue to tackle those who do not pay up. It is not right that a small minority can avoid paying what they owe while the vast majority pay the right tax on their earnings. This case represents an important principle.

 

"HMRC is proud of our record of winning around 80% of cases that are taken to litigation by the taxpayer. We tackle avoidance wherever we see it and litigate where necessary to ensure schemes are defeated and the tax due is paid."

 

Lord Docherty's written ruling, which has no impact on the current Rangers regime, reads: "The appeal is dismissed except in so far as it relates to the termination payments.

 

"I shall remit the case to the FTT (i) with a direction to allow the taxpayers' appeals against the assessments relating to the payments to the sub-trusts of Sir David Murray, his sons, Mr McClelland and Mr MacMillan; (ii) to proceed as accords in relation to the termination payments, the payments in respect of guaranteed bonuses, and any related questions of grossing up.

 

"Standing my findings and my disposal, the remit should be to the FTT as originally constituted."

 

STV

 

Was the figure of the bill that "is likely to be "substantially reduced" from the initial £46.2m assessment." ever made public? 500k, 3m or the like? If so, why does the media refuse to use it and is preferring the 46.2m? Well, well ...

 

NB: My cynical half just uttered: how appropriate that HMRC make this public the day after the Yahoos bowed out of CL richland. No coincident whatsoever, nope.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.