Meanwhile ... BDO Progress Report on OldCo

[pete 2,499]

Show me where they said that.

On Tuesday, a HMRC spokesman said: "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. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation.

 

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/105837-rangers-liquidation-now-inevitable-after-cva-bid-rejected-by-hmrc/

[der Berliner 3,245]

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.

 

Still wonder why the OldCo affair was not placed into hibernation up until the the EBT case is being settled. That the EBT case took as long as it did and does is mind-boggling anyways. A few things more as well: why did HMRC did not say from the very beginning that they will not accept a CVA and what made them holding their standpoint close to their chest until it essentially was "too late"? (Apart from Green's and D&P's dealings ... which might not have come to pass like they did.) And would it not have been more feasible had Green (or whomever) chosen a company that had been in existence for a few years to take over the club's dealings, avoiding the three-year-business record stuff? Not that it would have mattered as things panned out, but anyway.

[Rangersitis 0]

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/105837-rangers-liquidation-now-inevitable-after-cva-bid-rejected-by-hmrc/

 

 

That passage does not cover what you originally claimed. For a start, Whyte had not been there for 'years' and neither had he been guilty of tax fraud as everything had been recorded. The non-payment by Rangers was a civil matter, not criminal.

 

You could have included the following tract from the same STV article that you linked.

 

On its website, HMRC states that among some of the "exceptional reasons" it would reject a CVA is that a company has "funded their business or lifestyle by consistently withholding Crown monies" such as tax.

 

That is where the historical non-compliance aspect would be covered.

[pete 2,499]

That passage does not cover what you originally claimed. For a start, Whyte had not been there for 'years' and neither had he been guilty of tax fraud as everything had been recorded. The non-payment by Rangers was a civil matter, not criminal.

 

You could have included the following tract from the same STV article that you linked.

 

 

 

That is where the historical non-compliance aspect would be covered.

 

I suppose it is how you look at it. For me it says clearly they were liquidating Rangers because it was the only way they could investigate the person responsible for our financial affairs, At that moment that was Whyte. It could be that he also meant Murray but the fact remains we were Liquidated so as an investigation could be made and that was my point. It is crazy to me that you can't allow a company a CVA and investigate it at the same time.

[Rangersitis 0]

I suppose it is how you look at it. For me it says clearly they were liquidating Rangers because it was the only way they could investigate the person responsible for our financial affairs, At that moment that was Whyte. It could be that he also meant Murray but the fact remains we were Liquidated so as an investigation could be made and that was my point. It is crazy to me that you can't allow a company a CVA and investigate it at the same time.

 

 

There can be an investigation following a successful CVA. The spokesman claimed that it would 'restrict the scope'. Without further clarification as to what he was specifically referring to, it's all just supposition. HMRC appear to have been vindicated by their decision as the BDO pot appears to be far bigger than the £8.5m that Green and his cronies were pretending to offer.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

I suppose it is how you look at it. For me it says clearly they were liquidating Rangers because it was the only way they could investigate the person responsible for our financial affairs, At that moment that was Whyte. It could be that he also meant Murray but the fact remains we were Liquidated so as an investigation could be made and that was my point. It is crazy to me that you can't allow a company a CVA and investigate it at the same time.

 

The only person guilty of wrongdoing was Whyte by with holding employees PAYE/NI deductions. Yet HMRC allowed this to go on for the best part of six months. Why?

HMRC's actions have always looked deliberate to me. They deliberately allowed Whyte to get control of Rangers(despite the fact he already owed them millions) then deliberately allowed him to run up even more tax arrears.

Throw in the fictitious EBT tax bill and you have an organisation which clearly had an agenda. Whose agenda may I ask? I think we know the answer

[Rangersitis 0]

HMRC's actions have always looked deliberate to me. They deliberately allowed Whyte to get control of Rangers(despite the fact he already owed them millions) then deliberately allowed him to run up even more tax arrears.

 

 

Forget HMRC, they couldn't stop Whyte getting hold of Rangers.