Meanwhile ... BDO Progress Report on OldCo

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

HMRC never really wanted Rangers. They were purely after Whyte. They looked upon Rangers as just another club who would survive and come back debt-free.

They were always after Whyte. Read the Telegraph first, then read the trail in the Record. They wanted to nail Whyte and we were just so much colateral damage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9326562/Rangers-consigned-to-liquidation-with-HMRC-to-vote-against-Company-Voluntary-Arrangement.html

"The tax authority forced Rangers into administration in February over millions of pounds of unpaid tax under Craig Whyte and could also pursue former owner Sir David Murray over a tax case, which could result in a £75million bill.

A statement from the tax authority read: "A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company's financial affairs in recent years."

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415

 

Unfortunately I do not believe a word of what HMRC say. Whyte took over in May 2011 but emerged as a potential buyer about six months previously IIRC. He was allegedly looking thro the books(aye right)

We have since learned that Whyte already owed HMRC about 3million in taxes prior to him getting Rangers.So why did HMRC just sit back & allow him to take over Rangers ? If they were so concerned why let him run up even more tax than he already owed HMRC? HMRC then laughably claimed they didnt know Whyte was back in the country when he emerged six months before he got Rangers. Who's kidding who here? Dont they talk to UKborder control? Or are they not as competent as the Mexican authorities who arrested Whyte last year as he tried to sneak back to Costa Rica?

Nope IMO HMRC were manipulated by poltical influence to try & financially destroy Rangers by firstly inventing a BTC to deter reputable buyers and secondly allowing Whyte to take over and cause even more carnage. A certain gentleman who presided as east end chairman now sitting in the lords is my main suspect. Ibelieve in the fullness of time this will all come out.

[forlanssister 3,050]

HMRC never really wanted Rangers. They were purely after Whyte. They looked upon Rangers as just another club who would survive and come back debt-free.

They were always after Whyte. Read the Telegraph first, then read the trail in the Record. They wanted to nail Whyte and we were just so much colateral damage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9326562/Rangers-consigned-to-liquidation-with-HMRC-to-vote-against-Company-Voluntary-Arrangement.html

"The tax authority forced Rangers into administration in February over millions of pounds of unpaid tax under Craig Whyte and could also pursue former owner Sir David Murray over a tax case, which could result in a £75million bill.

A statement from the tax authority read: "A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company's financial affairs in recent years."

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415

 

So where do both the wee tax case and the big tax case come into the equation considering HMRC started actions on both before Whyte came on to the scene?

[barca72 440]

So where do both the wee tax case and the big tax case come into the equation considering HMRC started actions on both before Whyte came on to the scene?

 

If you read the articles the intent of HMRC was to nail Whyte. The total money owed on the WTC and by Whyte's non-payment of tax and NI premiums, is almost superfluous to their intent of chasing down Whyte. Apparently if they force liquidation they can have a better chance of prosecuting Whyte than they do if they accepted the CVA.

Rangers operated a tax avoidance scheme for two former players, Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer, between 2000-01 and 2002-03 known as a 'Discounted Options Scheme' - commonly referred to as the "Wee Tax Case". HMRC issued Rangers with a bill of about £4m for outstanding amounts owed from the discounted options tax scheme, which was settled, but was not paid.

As you know the BTC was against Murray/MIH and they were waiting for a verdict from the FTT when the liquidation occurred. A complete non-influence on the rejection of the CVA and subsequent liquidation.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

If you read the articles the intent of HMRC was to nail Whyte. The total money owed on the WTC and by Whyte's non-payment of tax and NI premiums, is almost superfluous to their intent of chasing down Whyte. Apparently if they force liquidation they can have a better chance of prosecuting Whyte than they do if they accepted the CVA.

Rangers operated a tax avoidance scheme for two former players, Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer, between 2000-01 and 2002-03 known as a 'Discounted Options Scheme' - commonly referred to as the "Wee Tax Case". HMRC issued Rangers with a bill of about £4m for outstanding amounts owed from the discounted options tax scheme, which was settled, but was not paid.

As you know the BTC was against Murray/MIH and they were waiting for a verdict from the FTT when the liquidation occurred. A complete non-influence on the rejection of the CVA and subsequent liquidation.

 

If HMRC wanted to nail Whyte they could have done so before he got Rangers. They didnt. Why not?

Edited June 13, 2015 by RANGERRAB

[barca72 440]

If HMRC wanted to nail Whyte they could have done so before he got Rangers. They didnt. Why not?

 

Snakes squirm and slither away, and Whyte was good at that.

Read the Record article - " HMRC had instructed debt enforcers to chase Whyte with a bill for almost £4million and threaten him with bankruptcy in May 2011 - the same month that he bought Rangers."

I guess not paying taxes on your own income is one thing, but to not pay the deductions taken from staff is probably worse in the crime stakes.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

Snakes squirm and slither away, and Whyte was good at that.

Read the Record article - " HMRC had instructed debt enforcers to chase Whyte with a bill for almost £4million and threaten him with bankruptcy in May 2011 - the same month that he bought Rangers."

I guess not paying taxes on your own income is one thing, but to not pay the deductions taken from staff is probably worse in the crime stakes.

 

The part I simply cannot believe was when HMRC implied that they didnt know Whyte was back in the country when he emerged six months before he got Rangers. Do they expect us to believe that? It seems to me they deliberately did nothing. Were they told to do so? If so by whom?

[Rangersitis 0]

If you read the articles the intent of HMRC was to nail Whyte. The total money owed on the WTC and by Whyte's non-payment of tax and NI premiums, is almost superfluous to their intent of chasing down Whyte. Apparently if they force liquidation they can have a better chance of prosecuting Whyte than they do if they accepted the CVA.

Rangers operated a tax avoidance scheme for two former players, Tore Andre Flo and Ronald De Boer, between 2000-01 and 2002-03 known as a 'Discounted Options Scheme' - commonly referred to as the "Wee Tax Case". HMRC issued Rangers with a bill of about £4m for outstanding amounts owed from the discounted options tax scheme, which was settled, but was not paid.

As you know the BTC was against Murray/MIH and they were waiting for a verdict from the FTT when the liquidation occurred. A complete non-influence on the rejection of the CVA and subsequent liquidation.

 

 

No, the intent of HMRC was to recover the monies which they were owed by RFC, not Craig Whyte. If prior to February 2012 Whyte had sent them the total that you claimed he owed, Rangers would still have suffered the same fate.

 

HMRC's guidelines on CVAs are quite clear. They will not support proposals put forward by companies with a history of poor compliance and late payments. The ongoing disputes from the time of SDM helped lead to the failure of the Voluntary Arrangement.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

No, the intent of HMRC was to recover the monies which they were owed by RFC, not Craig Whyte. If prior to February 2012 Whyte had sent them the total that you claimed he owed, Rangers would still have suffered the same fate.

 

HMRC's guidelines on CVAs are quite clear. They will not support proposals put forward by companies with a history of poor compliance and late payments. The ongoing disputes from the time of SDM helped lead to the failure of the Voluntary Arrangement.

 

HMRC should never have been allowed to reject the CVA. Without the BTC they were not the main creditor and they subsequently lost the BTC

[Rangersitis 0]

HMRC should never have been allowed to reject the CVA. Without the BTC they were not the main creditor and they subsequently lost the BTC

 

 

The BTC had no relevance to the CVA as the HMRC didn't include it in their claim. The proposal failed because their vote against meant that the 75% needed for approval couldn't be achieved.

[barca72 440]

No, the intent of HMRC was to recover the monies which they were owed by RFC, not Craig Whyte. If prior to February 2012 Whyte had sent them the total that you claimed he owed, Rangers would still have suffered the same fate.

 

HMRC's guidelines on CVAs are quite clear. They will not support proposals put forward by companies with a history of poor compliance and late payments. The ongoing disputes from the time of SDM helped lead to the failure of the Voluntary Arrangement.

 

I think I'll disagree with you here, but you'll agree that attempting to read between the lines as to HMRC's intent is purely subjective.

Let's see if we can agree on the facts, as I have garnered them.

1. Whyte was seen to have owed HMRC, on a personal basis as distinct from his actions with Rangers, approx. £4M. This was a long-running saga which HMRC had great difficulty in pinning him down on. In fact, they believed he was a flight risk.

2. Since acquiring Rangers Whyte caused a debt of approx. £14.5M to be owed to HMRC ( and HMRC watched it happen - why did they not intervene earlier? ). This was the accumulated non-payment of employee taxes and NI deductions, plus interest and penalties. Up to this point Rangers had no history of non-payment of taxes apart from the WTC, which they finally agreed was in fact owed but had not as yet been paid. This could be added to the £14.5M bringing the total to approx. £18.5M.

3. Under the CVA ( CG was offering something like £8.5M I believe ), HMRC as a creditor would have received perhaps 5p/£ ( I don't know for sure ), however, under liquidation they would get nothing. Now for the piddly amount owed by Rangers under the WTC do you reasonably accept that this is why HMRC forced Rangers into liquidation?

 

Here's a quote from the Telegraph from the administrators - "Clark added: "It was with HMRC's approval that a proposal was placed before creditors for consideration.

"However, it is the commercial view that the level offered within the CVA was not enough to merit departure from their normal policy of seeking a detailed investigation via a liquidator.

"However, we have been left in no doubt by HMRC the fundamental reason for the rejection of the CVA proposal is the historical non-compliance with tax liabilities by the former owners and directors of the club." ( you might argue that that historical reference is directed at Rangers before Whyte, but I believe it is directed at Whyte as owner and director. I base that on the fact I haven't seen HMRC go after any other directors or SDM )

And one from CG - "I can understand HMRC deciding that football clubs which do not pay their taxes need to be punished, but by effectively banning Rangers from Europe for three years all that will happen is that there will be less revenue generated by the club and consequently less money paid over to the taxman.

"Also, I do not believe that by opting to vote against the CVA proposal, HMRC will generate more cash by pursuing those they believe as responsible - but that is a matter for them." - CG knew Whyte was skint.

 

So, from what I see there I would have thought that HMRC would have been doing the public, who are after all their bosses, a better service from a monetary point of view by accepting the greater amount in the CVA proposal. However, from the bolded parts we can see that HMRC were more concerned with getting greater investigative powers using the offices of the liquidator.

Now this is where we either agree or agree to disagree, but I don't think that HMRC were after SDM, AJ, John Grieg or any of the others. I believe they only want Whyte because I think they have a history with him, probably more than is seen in the articles, and they need the increased powers of the Liquidators office to nail him.

As I say, a purely subjective opinion.