Dave King stands to get £1.4m out of £10m Rangers oldco creditors pot

[craig 5,198]

Well, it's my wasted lifetime ... and if you read some remarks you start having doubts anyway. But we stray away from the topic.

 

Very true, you are at liberty to waste your efforts on whatever you decide to.... such as all of us coming on this forum....

[Zappa 0]

I don't think King will receive a penny and this is the first of an anti-King series of articles.

 

Toxic Jack and his minions?

[aweebluesoandso 290]

Excellent if accurate, didn't King say any money recovered from the BDO for him, will go directly back into Rangers?

[barca72 440]

Other than the £72m for EBT's where does the rest of HMRC's claim come from ? that's £22.4m.

Whyte only owed around £9m in unpaid PAYE/NI did he not?

 

Why did HMRC allow Whyte to go on as long as he did without paying?

 

Whyte was effectively running Rangers on his own so he was responsible

 

I seem to remember that Whyte was the only one running the show and knew where the money went*. He had an FD, but (according to that person) told him exactly what he had to do with regards to tax et al. Why the FD did not went public is another matter. And BTW, this is not about conspiracies, but how a club-comapny can be run and was. And if anything, it was dubious in the very least. This info is out there as well (can't remember the FD's name right now), so perhaps we stick the conspiracy standards as well as the assumption that Whyte could have been somehow stopped in-house, shouldn't we?

 

*Remember the similarities in this respect under Green and his heirs.

 

The SFA Judicial Panel Verdict on Rangers

 

Ken Olverman

66. That shortly before 19 September 2011 Mr Ken Olverman was aware that Rangers FC were due to make a payment to HMRC in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and Value added Tax. On making enquiry with Mr Craig Whyte about said payments, he was not authorised to make the payment which was therefore not paid on the due date. Upon his expressing his concern to Mr Craig Whyte Mr Ken Olverman was in due course instructed that payments to HMRC were to be suspended and withheld. At the time of the first withheld payment in September 2011 Rangers FC’s financial situation was such that it could have made the payment due to HMRC.

67. That in the course of his subsequent communications with Mr Craig Whyte about the payment of these social taxes due to HMRC Mr Craig Whyte stated to Mr Olverman that non-payment of the sums due was a tactic or negotiating ploy intended to improve the position of Rangers FC in any attempted negotiation with HMRC of a settlement in “the Big Tax Case”.

Tax due

68. That between September 2011 and February 2012 Rangers FC withheld in excess of £13,000,000 from HMRC due in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and VAT. As at the date of the Tribunal determination the said sums were still outstanding and due.

74. That in the course of the latter part of August 2011 Mr Ken Olverman was contacted by two senior officials of the Customs and Excise (VAT)* division of HMRC. Their enquiry was in relation to invoices which had been discovered in the business records of Ticketus which bore to have been raised by Rangers FC. The invoices related to sums of many millions of pounds and the VAT element in each of them had been the subject of offset by Ticketus in the submission of its VAT returns for the last period. Such was the size and impact of this offset of VAT which had been paid by Ticketus in respect of these invoices, that Ticketus had made a claim for payment of a substantial sum to it by HMRC by way of recovery of VAT paid.

75. That Mr Ken Olverman, the Financial Controller of Rangers FC had no knowledge of the existence of the invoices purportedly raised by Rangers FC. The raising of such invoices was a matter which fell squarely within his sphere of responsibility and it was inconceivable that such invoices for such large sums could be raised and issued from the finance office of Rangers FC without his knowledge. He had no knowledge of any agreement with Ticketus which might give rise to any invoice within the period concerned. He was unaware of any current transaction with Ticketus and knew that no sums of money had been received in recent times from Ticketus into any accounts of Rangers FC.

88 That during that period between September and February, no payments were made by Rangers FC in respect of PAYE income tax, National Insurance Contributions and VAT. The non payment was a deliberate act in furtherance of a decision of the Chairman and director of Rangers FC not to make payment as a negotiating tactic in the resolution of “the Big Tax Case”.

92 That on 14 February 2012 Rangers FC were placed in Administration by order of the Court of Session. Two insolvency practitioners from the firm of Duff and Phelps were appointed administrators. The principal Creditor was HMRC and sums owed to it were in excess of £13,000,000.

93 That in all material respects, between 6 May 2011 and 14 February 2012 Mr Craig Whyte was “the directing mind and will” of Rangers FC.

* It was the investigation by this department that finally triggered the the intent of the other departments within HMRC to bring Whyte down ( in my opinion ), because his blatent intention was apparent now. Rangers subsequent fortunes were a by-product of Whyte's actions. Sorry Rab, but if you still want a conspiracy theory I think you will have to talk to Dr. Death directly.

Why Rangers?

The Attribution of Improper Conduct on the Part of a Director to his Company. This was one of the central legal issues in the case.

The Compliance Officer submitted to the Tribunal that in so far as any company (including such a company as Rangers FC) is an abstract legal concept but is at the same time a separate legal personna, it cannot in its own right be responsible for acts or omissions. However, it can and should be held accountable under the principle of identification of the company with the director or officer who is the “controlling or directing mind” of the company.

And from the verdict portion ...

The Tribunal took into account the extraordinary circumstances of the offences and the extent to which Rangers FC through its directors had been apparently misled and deceived by Mr Craig Whyte. Against that it took the view that whatever their position a number of individual directors and employees must have known that what was happening within Rangers FC was entirely wrong and illegitimate but they chose to do nothing to bring it to the attention of the public. That may be matter for their long term reflection but it does reduce the mitigatory impact of the suggestion that Rangers FC were innocent victims.

The Tribunal also took into account Rangers FC had no disciplinary record involving any similar matters.

It also took into account the exemplary manner in which Rangers FC had conducted itself at the Disciplinary Hearing and in its related dealings.

 

Whyte

Mr Craig Whyte was found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute, and the Tribunal was in no doubt that he, together with a number of business associates, had engaged in scandalous business activities, which, if not illegal, of which in certain matters there may be a doubt, had a corrosive effect on the reputation of a proud football club. The Tribunal was left in no doubt that Mr Craig Whyte did not engage in his activities in Rangers FC with any view to the interests of Rangers FC or Scottish football in the wider context.

The Tribunal was driven by the evidence which it accepted as credible and reliable in the proceedings before it to conclude that whatever the longer term objective might have been, Mr Craig Whyte’s interests lay only with Mr Craig Whyte. The Tribunal was in no doubt that the directors of the club prior to his share acquisition were deeply suspicious of him and time appears to have justified that view. There are a number of aspects to his behaviour which will no doubt be the subject of continued investigation by appropriate agencies ( hence the need for the investigatory powers of the liquidator's office ).

The Tribunal could do nothing else but conclude that his conduct in bringing the game into disrepute lay at the highest level of offence. It was clear on the evidence that the elements comprising his conduct bringing the game into disrepute were intentional and calculated and extended over a substantial time period.

It is clear that he engaged in a programme of exclusion of all directors except those whom he had brought with him to Ibrox, and their conduct, the Tribunal considered, bore no hint of credit at the very least.

 

 

Here's a link to the full list of creditors ...

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/rangers-administration-full-list-of-creditors-1-2325870

[der Berliner 3,247]

An article I stumbled over today ...

 

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 from Sir David Murray for £1.

 

THE taxman was chasing Craig Whyte for £3.7million before he took over Rangers.

 

HMRC focused on Whyte’s personal finances and made several failed attempts to get him to pay his dues before, during and after his catastrophic reign at Ibrox.

 

The taxman regarded Whyte as a “flight risk”, fearing he might flee the country without settling his huge tax bill.

 

Documents seen by the Record show:

 

* The authorities 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.

 

* It was the culmination of a probe begun the previous year when the taxman learned Whyte had returned to the UK in 2005.

 

* Whyte was continually warned he was failing to submit satisfactory tax returns and risked being fined.

 

* He actually claimed at one stage to have a UK taxable worth of just £24 in accrued bank interest.

 

* Yet when he struck the notorious deal with Ticketus for funds to finance his Rangers takeover, he gave the firm a personal guarantee he was worth nearly £33million.

 

This “guarantee”, which was obtained by HMRC, helped them calculate Whyte’s £3,741,835.29 tax bill but he continued stalling tactics to avoid coughing up.

 

At the same time he was able to run up a further £15million in unpaid taxes and penalties during his nine months in charge of Rangers.

 

Whyte had bought Rangers for £1 from Sir David Murray in May 2011, while agreeing to wipe out the club’s £18million debts.

 

But on February 14, 2012, he made a legal move to have the Ibrox outfit placed into administration.

 

By then the club’s debt had rocketed to around £50million.

 

HMRC then rejected a Company Voluntary Arrangement, forcing the club’s owners to be liquidated in a move which also saw Rangers having to start again in the lowest tier of Scottish football.

 

David Murray has long blamed the taxman for the demise of Rangers, saying the spectre of the Big Tax Case – a potential bill of between £46m and £100million, hanging over the club forced his hand in selling up.

 

But a sizeable proportion of Rangers fans still hold Murray at least partly responsible for the club’s demise, arguing he should not have sold to Whyte, whose reputation had already been questioned.

 

Ultimately, Rangers won the Big Tax Case when a tribunal ruled Employee Benefit Trusts paid to players were in fact loans not subject to tax – and HMRC’s appeal against that judgment was rejected this year.

 

Fans remain furious at the taxman for bringing the case in the first place, and the latest documents from July 2012 obtained by the Record are unlikely to quell their anger.

 

They show HMRC began building their case against Whyte from the moment his proposed take over first hit the headlines in November 2010, six months before he was eventually handed the keys to Ibrox.

 

The paperwork from the taxman’s high net worth unit states: “HMRC became aware that Whyte had returned to live in the UK when the press carried stories in 2010 that he was potentially going to purchase Rangers Football Club plc.

 

“HMRC discovered that Whyte had been back in the UK since 2005. He did not notify HMRC of his return to the UK, nor did he complete tax returns.”

 

The documents go on to chronicle various atttempts by the taxman to force Whyte to detail his finances and warnings of fines he faces if he fails to comply.

 

In the absence of his co-operation, the tax office made their own calculations and issued Whyte with demands for £1million for the financial year 2006-07 and £1.2million for the following year.

 

Whyte did finally submitted some returns. But the documents note: “The returns contained entries in respect of net UK bank interest of £24 for 2006-07 and £491 for 2007-08.”

 

This pattern continues throughout the reports, until a damning revelation centring on Whyte’s takeover of Rangers when he secured funding from Ticketus to head off the club’s future debt in exchange for money from season ticket sales.

 

Presumably to convince Ticketus he was a genuine businessman, Whyte gave his own word that he was good for the investment, according to the HMRC documents.

 

They state: “The personal guarantee included a statement of Whyte’s net worth, signed by him, which showed he had net assets with a value of £32,956,843.”

 

This was the evdience HMRC needed to slap Whyte with the tax bill of £3,741,835.29 at the time of his takeover.

 

Just four days after he posed for pictures with the SPL trophy at Rugby Park following a thrilling last day climax to the league campaign, a letter was written to Whyte by HMRC’s higher debt manager detailing the claim and giving him seven days to pay in full.

 

Whyte was warned that a warrant would be served on him by a sheriff officer who would also provide him with a leaflet entitled Dealing with Debt to help him assess his options.

 

The letter continues: “If the debt remains unpaid, I will arrange to present a sequestration petition in your local sheriff court. The effect of this is that you are likely to be made bankrupt and a Trustee appointed to sell your assets and pay your creditors.”

 

Even then Whyte continued to stall, appealing to a tribunal against the judgment. As HMRC do not discuss private tax dealings, the outcome as yet remains unknown.

 

But the emergence of HMRC’s serious concerns about Whyte before his takeover prompted further anger among senior Rangers figures.

 

Alastair Johnston, Rangers chairman at the time, pleaded with Murray not to sell the club to Whyte. He was subsequently axed.

Presented with the revelations last night, he said: “On the back of this, I would welcome a full-scale, independent investigation into the actions of HMRC around the Rangers issue.”

 

Former director Paul Murray added: “I have always said that what has happened to Rangers has been nothing short of disgraceful.

 

“The club has been the victim of a fraud. A lot of people have made a lot of money at the club’s expense and it has to end.

 

“It is in the public interest to find out exactly what has happened and then to take action. Justice must be done and be seen to be done."

 

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

[colinstein 294]

I feel that something did die back in 2012 and no amount of arguments which quote corporate law will change that for the better and I really couldn't give a shit whether that will help the cause of some obsessive.

 

1min 26 in

 

Edited June 24, 2015 by colinstein

[jhunter 0]

An article I stumbled over today ...

 

 

 

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

 

A lot of people have made a lot of money at the club’s expense and it has to end.

 

Notice PM isn't talking in past tense here

[pete 2,499]

I thought HMRC had appealed again in the BTC. Surely that is still ongoing or have I got it wrong?

[Rangersitis 0]

I thought HMRC had appealed again in the BTC. Surely that is still ongoing or have I got it wrong?

 

 

A four day hearing begins on July 7.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

I thought HMRC had appealed again in the BTC. Surely that is still ongoing or have I got it wrong?

 

Their appeal of the FTT starts in July.