Breaking: Green, Whyte And Whitehouse to appear at Glasgow Sheriff Court tomorrow

[calscot 0]

I think how HMRC have gone about things at Rangers has shown the system to be highly flawed and easily abused. It's a massive miscarriage of injustice where a company was forced out of business and at the same time the treasury lost tens of millions. It's a shocking waste of time and resources that had an innocent party severely punished.

 

They may have had the legal right to do what they did but they did not act ethically.

 

The worst you could say of Rangers if they lose now, is that the rules were too complex to follow, so much so two tribunals must have got it wrong. That suggests that again at worst, HMRC should have cut a deal, then tightened up the rules.

 

At best, HMRC are guilty of being so incompetent as to being unfit for purpose. Tax, if nothing else, should be seen to be fair. It's not exactly something that people see with affection.

[Zappa 0]

What crime do you think Muir is guilty of?

 

Breach of his fiduciary duty to the shareholders of RFC plc ? Given that he pocketed £1m from Lloyds/HBOS for services to them not RFC plc.

 

I'd imagine that guys like Gary Withey, David Whitehouse and Paul Clark could end up in a lot more trouble than Donald Muir.

[26th of foot 5,828]

In principle, I am against capital punishment.

 

I believe the statute book continues to carry the death penalty for Treachery, and Raising Fire in the Cinque Ports. I saw Charles Green walking around Hythe and Dover with a five gallon drum of petrol and several boxes of Swan Vestas. Do I have a witness?

 

Hypocrite Loyal RSC.

[Germinal 27]

LBG forcing SDM to sell to Whyte then withdrawing all bank credit once Whyte got control. You couldn't make this up

 

To be fair, you could.

[craig 5,195]

So do you think it's perfectly acceptable for HMRC to go round issuing tax bills to companies for amounts to which they are not entitled?

 

They believed they were entitled. They would undoubtedly have checked their own tax legislation and felt that Rangers had a case to answer and a tax liability to which HMRC were entitled. Happens all the time. The fact they lost doesn't mean they didn't believe they were entitled to the monies - it meant they lost the case based on interpretation.

[der Berliner 3,237]

The decision wasn't clear cut and there was a case to answer. Having read through the various documents, I certainly wasn't 100% sure that we'd win the case, and given the decision wasn't unanimous, tends to back me up on that.

 

The accountant ruled against us, the two law judges did not. Next to everything was laid open in the accounts. Nothing hidden, nothing illegal. At worst, it was handled not 100% correct. HMRC whipped up a rule and tried to apply it backwards. We stopped the use of EBT onc the new rule was in place, offered a pay off. The case pursued by HMRC created a vacuum about our club and essentially drove it to ruin. Over an EBT case that was at best hypothetical at the time, and still is.

 

And while I'm at it, unless I am mistaken, Whyte was already hunted by HMRC when he took over Rangers. How that slipped under the radar, not least the HMRC one - from whom we did not hear a whisper - leaves you wondering about the truth in the theory that HMRC did what the did (and do) on purpose. And not solely the one to hand the tax payer some much needed money.

 

At the end of the day, they did not get Murray's 10m, they probably spent millions on the BTC, and after the company went broke, will gain next to nothing in return. Bar some "satisfactory" show case to threaten other companies with. IF they should actually win. You do wonder who is actually monitoring/supervising HMRC's work in such ruinous cases ... and you do wonder why no "investigative" journalist has dug into this behaviour by now.

[der Berliner 3,237]

Appendix to the above reply:

 

Ex-Rangers owner Craig Whyte was being chased by the taxman for £3.74m BEFORE he started his catastrophic reign at Ibrox

07:30, 5 August 2014 Updated 07:39, 5 August 2014 By Keith Jackson

 

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.

 

 

 

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

Edited September 1, 2015 by der Berliner

[Bluedell 5,329]

So do you think it's perfectly acceptable for HMRC to go round issuing tax bills to companies for amounts to which they are not entitled?

 

They became not entitled to it after the court case and for it to go to court they needed to issue the demand.

 

I'm not saying that HMRC's actions are blameless and there's a lot in this whole case that they should be criticised for, but my specific point was on the merits of the argument.

[craig 5,195]

The accountant ruled against us, the two law judges did not. Next to everything was laid open in the accounts. Nothing hidden, nothing illegal. At worst, it was handled not 100% correct. HMRC whipped up a rule and tried to apply it backwards. We stopped the use of EBT onc the new rule was in place, offered a pay off. The case pursued by HMRC created a vacuum about our club and essentially drove it to ruin. Over an EBT case that was at best hypothetical at the time, and still is.

 

And while I'm at it, unless I am mistaken, Whyte was already hunted by HMRC when he took over Rangers. How that slipped under the radar, not least the HMRC one - from whom we did not hear a whisper - leaves you wondering about the truth in the theory that HMRC did what the did (and do) on purpose. And not solely the one to hand the tax payer some much needed money.

 

At the end of the day, they did not get Murray's 10m, they probably spent millions on the BTC, and after the company went broke, will gain next to nothing in return. Bar some "satisfactory" show case to threaten other companies with. IF they should actually win. You do wonder who is actually monitoring/supervising HMRC's work in such ruinous cases ... and you do wonder why no "investigative" journalist has dug into this behaviour by now.

 

Everything being in the accounts is no defense though. Not when it comes to HMRC, as the accounts show very little with regards to tax obligations.

 

HMRC did not "whip up a rule" - the rule was put in place to close a loophole. I do agree that retrospective application of tax rules seems unfair to the entities who had merely employed tax avoidance schemes. However, HMRC regulations allow for these to be applied retrospectively, so they still acted within their remit. Should tax law be altered for this ? I believe so.

 

It is not HMRC's obligation to dictate who should and should not be allowed to purchase companies. Should they have had a tighter reign on us not paying taxes after Whyte got control ? Maybe. But then we seem to conveniently forget that the CLUB had an obligation to those taxes and simply weren't paying them. Further, what if HMRC had approached us about non-payment earlier ? What was Whyte going to do ? He didn't have the money so administration was coming anyway - and the EBT "liability" was always going to ensure a CVA wouldn't be accepted (as HMRC believed they would win that case)

[Bluedell 5,329]

The accountant ruled against us, the two law judges did not. Next to everything was laid open in the accounts. Nothing hidden, nothing illegal. At worst, it was handled not 100% correct. HMRC whipped up a rule and tried to apply it backwards. We stopped the use of EBT onc the new rule was in place, offered a pay off. The case pursued by HMRC created a vacuum about our club and essentially drove it to ruin. Over an EBT case that was at best hypothetical at the time, and still is.

"Next to everything was laid open in the account" - No, it wasn't. There's a big difference between a mention of a trust in the accounts and everything being "laid open".

 

"nothing hidden, nothing illegal" - I'm not sure how you can make that statement about nothing being hidden as you don't know what was submitted when the tax return was done.

 

"At worst, it was handled not 100% correct" - which could have invalidated the whole scheme.

 

With all due respect the remainder of the paragraph shows you don't fully understand the issues in play and the basis of their claims.

 

As I've said above, the actions of HMRC can be criticised in a large number of areas but that don't take away from the fact that the claim was not without a degree of merit.