forlanssister 3,050 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 It's a bit of a liberty to take a 9 month tenure as "historical non compliance" especially given the length of time HMRC had been de facto pursuing the BTC and ergo Rangers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 It's a bit of a liberty to take a 9 month tenure as "historical non compliance" especially given the length of time HMRC had been de facto pursuing the BTC and ergo Rangers. "historical non-compliance with tax liabilities" - Rangers are not liable ( as yet, or may never be ) for tax under the BTC, so in my book they can't use that against them. ( unless of course Toxic Jack was writing the press releases for HMRC ) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 "historical non-compliance with tax liabilities" - Rangers are not liable ( as yet, or may never be ) for tax under the BTC, so in my book they can't use that against them. ( unless of course Toxic Jack was writing the press releases for HMRC ) You carry on with your book I'll remain in the real world. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangersitis 0 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 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. Paul Clark and Charles Green. Jesus wept! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 You carry on with your book I'll remain in the real world. So if it really was Rangers that HMRC were after in the real world, why would they force them into liquidation and lose their ability to collect on the BTC if they ever win it - it is after all a big prize.? Secondly, if they did force Rangers into liquidation over the BTC because they were "historically non-compliant", why are they still appealing the BTC since, according to you, they will never collect it from Rangers in the real world? Maybe because they were never claiming from Rangers, but MIH? And in the real world if Rangers are not being claimed for the BTC, how can they be historically non-compliant in tax matters? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Paul Clark and Charles Green. Jesus wept! That's your contribution? Don't call me, I'll call you. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 That's your contribution?Don't call me, I'll call you. But he's right. Both were part of the con. Nothing they said can be taken as true. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 HMRC stated at the time they were liquidating Rangers as it was the only way they could get at Whyte. In this case the law sucks as they put a concern, that could have been easily turned around, unnecessarily into liquidation just to get at the owner. There should be laws in place that made that possible without putting a company into liquidation. They should have been able to force a sale for the amount of the debt and still pursued Whyte on criminal charges. That way everyone would have been happy except Whyte. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 Show me where they said that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 So if it really was Rangers that HMRC were after in the real world, why would they force them into liquidation and lose their ability to collect on the BTC if they ever win it - it is after all a big prize.? Secondly, if they did force Rangers into liquidation over the BTC because they were "historically non-compliant", why are they still appealing the BTC since, according to you, they will never collect it from Rangers in the real world?Maybe because they were never claiming from Rangers, but MIH? And in the real world if Rangers are not being claimed for the BTC, how can they be historically non-compliant in tax matters? The HMRC action against the MIH EBT scheme came via Rangers not the other way around, in the real world the Met raided Ibrox when investigating transfer dealings involving Willie McKay and subsequently handed over papers to HMRC. 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.