Dave King and OldCo

[craig 5,199]

We read what we get presented from various sources and make up our own minds. It is not exactly "proper" to ask for "evidence" when you can be pretty sure that calscot will only have access to the same material as anyone else. But perhaps the following is enough evidence for you that somethings is very much amiss ...

 

Disagree. When someone says something in a "matter of fact" tone and passes it as fact then I personally believe that it IS proper to ask for evidence. Calscot made a statement that suggested that HMRC have acted illegally - he veered from his previous "immoral" stance to "certainly acted illegally". I'm curious as to the evidence which proves they acted illegally as I have not seen it.

 

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

 

No, AJ saying that he welcomes an investigation into the actions of HMRC is not evidence. It is the wish of AJ and is nothing more than a request - if AJ had any evidence of illegality at HMRC don't you think he would have produced it by now ?

 

As for your reply to me above, no disrespect, but I'm not going to explain my reasoning again. I did it a few times in this thread alone and all I get is a constant "HMRC could not have done anything because of their rules". Upon which I commented as well. I see no need to do that again.

 

How much do you know of the machinations of HMRC ? And how much of this is a desire to find someone, anyone, to blame for our demise so long as it is nobody related to Rangers ? I'm not having a go at you here or trying to be smart - I just get the impression at times that we try to blame everyone but ourselves (by that I mean the Club custodians) for the situation we found ourselves in.

 

Seems all too convenient to me to be blaming LBG & HMRC for almost everything. If the business was run the way it should have been run then both LBG & HMRC would have been completely irrelevant to where we ended up.

 

You don't want to go over the guidance that governs HMRC again - yet you will happily, next time the subject arises, throw out the exact same questions and observations - which ignore what HMRC can and cannot do.

 

BTW, I am not saying that HMRC staff MIGHT have been complicit - but I simply can't buy the whole "fictitious EBT" suggestion - because whether you consider them immoral or not, they had every right to chase down that EBT liability.

 

I'm like you though - I have little desire to continue debating this - the only thing we know for sure is that we are all going round in circles, entrenched in our views. None of it is doing anything for the betterment of the Club.

[RANGERRAB 3,260]

EBT's were a perfectly legal form of tax avoidance until George Osborne closed down that tax loophole late 2010,

Thousands of UK companies used them.

What evidence do you have that HMRC 'had every right to chasedown that EBT liability' ? The FTTT & UTTT results seem to suggest there was no tax due don't you agree?

So what was it that made HMRC send a tax demand for £24m in mid 2010 just before the General Election? Whose decision was it? Was there political influence from the Labour Party? I think We deserve answers don't you?

[craig 5,199]

EBT's were a perfectly legal form of tax avoidance until George Osborne closed down that tax loophole late 2010,

Thousands of UK companies used them.

What evidence do you have that HMRC 'had every right to chasedown that EBT liability' ? The FTTT & UTTT results seem to suggest there was no tax due don't you agree?

So what was it that made HMRC send a tax demand for £24m in mid 2010 just before the General Election? Whose decision was it? Was there political influence from the Labour Party? I think We deserve answers don't you?

 

Are you seriously going here AGAIN Rab ? I am absolutely certain that I have, on COUNTLESS occasions, explained why HMRC had every right to chase down that liability under their own guidance.

 

Please, please stop using the results of the FTTT & UTTT as some kind of proof positive that they had no right to chase it. If everything was as black and white as you are attempting to make out in this instance then we would have no need for lawyers. HMRC's own internal guidelines, along with the tax legislation would be the evidence that they had every right to chase it.

 

As for there being "no tax due don't you agree", lets see.... a) YES, there WAS tax due - Rangers lost a small piece of the case and had to pay tax. Even ignoring that, the fact that "no tax is due" does not by default mean that HMRC couldn't chase the tax. Tax legislation is often based on interpretational issues. Clearly HMRC interpreted that we had breached tax legislation. We believed we hadn't, hence why we ended up in tribunal to determine who was correct.

 

To ask the question a different way.... if this EBT liability was "fictitious" and HMRC had "no right to chase down the liability" as you want us to believe then Rangers would have had an "open and shut" case for it being dismissed out of hand on the basis that it didn't follow tax legislation or follow any of the tax regulations. But that was not the defense Rangers used at all. If HMRC had no right to chase it then you can be assured that it would have been the FIRST line of defense from Rangers as it would have been a very quick tribunal.

 

How do I know what made them send the demand ? Perhaps they had seen documentation which made them believe that Rangers weren't operating within the tax law. Was there political influence ? I don't know. Do you know ? If you do then might I suggest that you furnish it to your local constabulary and have them open that public enquiry ?? Do we deserve answers ? Of course we do. Will we get them ? Who knows. Will you be happy with the outcome if it is found that Reid, LBG and HMRC had little to do with our demise ?

[der Berliner 3,249]

Disagree. When someone says something in a "matter of fact" tone and passes it as fact then I personally believe that it IS proper to ask for evidence. Calscot made a statement that suggested that HMRC have acted illegally - he veered from his previous "immoral" stance to "certainly acted illegally". I'm curious as to the evidence which proves they acted illegally as I have not seen it. ...

 

No, AJ saying that he welcomes an investigation into the actions of HMRC is not evidence. It is the wish of AJ and is nothing more than a request - if AJ had any evidence of illegality at HMRC don't you think he would have produced it by now ?

 

He was speaking about Whyte's takeover and the actions or rather non-actions of HMRC. He obviously had serious doubts over Whyte, evidence or not. The apparent inaction of HMRC at the time should give us reason to think about HMRC's intentions and whether they acted in an illegal manner.

 

 

How much do you know of the machinations of HMRC ? And how much of this is a desire to find someone, anyone, to blame for our demise so long as it is nobody related to Rangers ?

 

Pardon me, but did you actually read my replies regarding the responsibility of Rangers people?

 

I'm not having a go at you here or trying to be smart - I just get the impression at times that we try to blame everyone but ourselves (by that I mean the Club custodians) for the situation we found ourselves in.

 

Not too many on here do that actually. What is being done is pointing fingers at those who should shoulder the biggest blame for actually ending up with Whyte and in admin though, not least with the evidence being washed up in recent months.

 

 

Seems all too convenient to me to be blaming LBG & HMRC for almost everything. If the business was run the way it should have been run then both LBG & HMRC would have been completely irrelevant to where we ended up.

 

That, in fact, reads more like an "Murray's the culprit, forget the rest"-opinion. Yet, had the credit crunch not wrecked his steel empire and the Royal Bank of Scotland and consequently LBG, something that neither of any party involved saw coming, no-one would most likely have had any ideas about selling Rangers at all, as the club's company was running on a decent course of cutting costs and reducing debts (18m or the like?). Put HMRC's witch hunt on top of that and you get the recipe for disaster that saw the advent of Whyte. That is my take on it and I for one see no evidence to the contrary. Sure, one can throw the EBTs at Murray all day long, but it was common practise and we did not do much wrong with them - as of now. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, Rangers use of the EBTs was a perfectly legal way to avoid tax at the time. In essence, those saying SDM was (primarily) to blame for our fall in 2011 do leave some rather important facts out of the equation.

 

You don't want to go over the guidance that governs HMRC again - yet you will happily, next time the subject arises, throw out the exact same questions and observations - which ignore what HMRC can and cannot do.

 

I read what they can do or not do. Does that explain why tax-enforcers were no-where to be seen around Ibrox in 2011 when Whyte took over then? When, according to the article, they were chasing Whyte for 4m at the time?

 

I'm like you though - I have little desire to continue debating this - the only thing we know for sure is that we are all going round in circles, entrenched in our views. None of it is doing anything for the betterment of the Club.

 

Well, the point here is that a defensive stance is being put up that is not required. As I said quite few times, hardly anyone is blaming one or two certain people or institutions alone. But we do disagree about who should have to shoulder more or most blame and should be taken to task about that.

Edited September 16, 2015 by der Berliner

[calscot 0]

Just because it is "immoral" (in your eyes) doesn't mean that they aren't allowed to do it. Not much else needs to be said on that particular matter.

 

Craig, you really are missing point after point and seem to be deliberately being obtuse to this. I'm not sure if your just stuck on being "right" or you don't understand morals - or anything that I say. This is really simple stuff.

 

I agreed they were "allowed" But you don't seem to understand that that doesn't mean they should, or that's professional. We're all allowed to do I immoral things within the law, but it doesn't mean we should, and if people are suffering it's time to look at changing the law. I also agree the morality is subjective but I think most people agree that people should generally act fairly, but that means an institution of society should be a paragon of fairness. Corruption within the rules is possible and that does not mean it's acceptable.

 

So the question is whether they abused their powers which calls the second question about should they be allowed? You might think there's nothing to be said but it says you can't think beyond, "rules are rules".

 

You have a complaint, then take it to the tax authorities and explain to them how you felt that Rangers were abused or treated immorally and they will simply point you to the HMRC guidelines.

 

You don't think that's an incredibly poor attitude? You don't think abuse and possible corruption within the rules should still have an avenue for complaint?

 

You are indeed correct, SDM was absolutely well within his rights to sell the Club to Craig Whyte.

 

So is there "nothing more to be said"?

 

He made a poor choice there though, as we all know.

 

So you can see this for Murray but not for HMRC? The point people are making is that HMRC made a poor choice. A poorer choice than Murray as they had better alternatives than him. Their choices had worst repercussions for even just themselves (ie the amount of money they brought in), than Murray's own for himself had he defied LBG.

 

As for making legal immoral stuff illegal - you would be there forever trying to amend the legislation and you would also have unintended consequences, almost certainly. A root and branch change of the tax legislation ? Whilst it would probably be the best thing to do it is impractical and virtually impossible to happen.

 

There is a point there, although, some of the rules they have used seem to give excessive power that is out-with what I would guess most people would find acceptable. Backdating punishments on people that didn't know they were breaking a rule, to the extent they are bankrupt, and you won't hear many saying it's fair. Backdating a change in the rules is just plain stupid.

 

But as you've shown, for me there is a case for there to be guidelines for the fairness of applying the rules, someone to ensure it's followed and an avenue of complaint.

 

Out of order simply because I said "similar to Celtic fans" ? I was not suggesting Rab is a Tim, not by any stretch. But if you are once again offended by a nothing remark and Rab is too then I will happily apologise to him. I find you to be getting awfully precious recently cal.

 

I'm no more precious than you have been, and I'd say less. I was merely asking you to apply your own style of judgement on yourself.

 

LBG, in my opinion, still didn't force him to sell. Pressured is a far better word.

 

I tried to pre-empt this by saying it was semantics, but to no avail. You do know that pressure is force divided by area? Therefore you can use a moderate force on a small area and create a very large amount of pressure. Apply that to the right place and it can be very damaging.

 

If SDM felt that he was being unduly pressured then I am sure he would have had an Ombudsman that he could have complained to.

 

I have no idea what you're on about. You can pressure people without breaking laws or rules. It's what business is all about and I shouldn't have to tell you that.

 

 

You don't think that sort of thing happens all the time ? I certainly saw it with a client of mine where he owed the Bank TONS of money... they let it slide for as long as they could but eventually had no option but to call in the debts - he ended up losing the business. Were LBG trying to protect themselves ? Of course they were, and they are entitled to do so.

 

You seem to be arguing against your own point here, and for mine.

 

Were they doing so illegally ? We probably will never know.

 

That wasn't even being questioned.

 

Can you provide the proof that HMRC "certainly acted illegally" please - I haven't seen any such evidence.

 

I could be wrong, but I think the evidence they did act illegally is the stuff they gave to the RTC website and the BBC. Maybe it's not illegal, but it must be against some rules somewhere. But it's just another huge black mark against HMRC that shows that they were not acting with integrity or for the greater good of the tax payer.

 

In this case, they seem not to be fit for purpose. Tax need to be fair, and seen to be fair, or tax avoidance and even evasion becomes difficult to condemn.

[Bluedell 5,342]

Sure, one can throw the EBTs at Murray all day long, but it was common practise and we did not do much wrong with them - as of now. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, Rangers use of the EBTs was a perfectly legal way to avoid tax at the time. In essence, those saying SDM was (primarily) to blame for our fall in 2011 do leave some rather important facts out of the equation.

 

I'm not sure that describing Rangers' use of EBT was "perfectly legal". if it was like that then there wouldn't be a BTC and a lot of what happened would not arise.

 

Not everything is black and white when it comes to tax and many tax avoidance schemes move into a grey area. The EBTS were a grey area, but it was ruled that our use was on the right side of it, but it wasn't a 100% certainty.

 

It was SDM who oversaw the use of the scheme and he should have known that there was some sort of risk involved as there is with most tax avoidance schemes at that level. It was a risk he was willing to take, but it's not unreasonable for people to criticise him for taking that risk, particularly with hindsight, and the resultant fallout.

[calscot 0]

It has to be said that any guilt implied on Murray over the EBTs, can now (after winning two cases) only be asserted in the context of the apparent "vindictiveness" of HMRC.

 

Take away that vindictiveness and just what did he do wrong?

 

But unless he's arrested and convicted for something, it seems he did nothing he wasn't "entitled" to do, which makes him completely exonerated, right?

[calscot 0]

I'm not sure that describing Rangers' use of EBT was "perfectly legal". if it was like that then there wouldn't be a BTC and a lot of what happened would not arise.

 

Not everything is black and white when it comes to tax and many tax avoidance schemes move into a grey area. The EBTS were a grey area, but it was ruled that our use was on the right side of it, but it wasn't a 100% certainty.

 

It was SDM who oversaw the use of the scheme and he should have known that there was some sort of risk involved as there is with most tax avoidance schemes at that level. It was a risk he was willing to take, but it's not unreasonable for people to criticise him for taking that risk, particularly with hindsight, and the resultant fallout.

 

It seems the main risk he failed to assess, is that HMRC would not play the game in a fair and consistent way. Had that been the case, the risk would have been the £10m he offered them. If he can be criticised, I think HMRC can be criticised infinitely more. He's just a lone, slightly maverick businessman, HMRC are an institution that are part of the fabric of our society. They let us down big time.

 

I am far more forgiving of the odd misguided and possibly corrupt individual, than a misguided and possibly corrupt institution.

[Bluedell 5,342]

It has to be said that any guilt implied on Murray over the EBTs, can now (after winning two cases) only be asserted in the context of the apparent "vindictiveness" of HMRC.

 

Take away that vindictiveness and just what did he do wrong?

 

But unless he's arrested and convicted for something, it seems he did nothing he wasn't "entitled" to do, which makes him completely exonerated, right?

He took risks with the club. Was he entitled to? Yes. Was HMRC entitled to question then and come after us for £m's? Yes.

 

The fact that we won the case doesn't completely exonerate him as he put us in the position to be questioned by gambling by using a tax scheme that had a high degree of risk. There was never a 100% chance of a successful outcome. He exposed the company to the possibility of an HMRC investigation.

[Bluedell 5,342]

It seems the main risk he failed to assess, is that HMRC would not play the game in a fair and consistent way. Had that been the case, the risk would have been the £10m he offered them. If he can be criticised, I think HMRC can be criticised infinitely more. He's just a lone, slightly maverick businessman, HMRC are an institution that are part of the fabric of our society. They let us down big time.

 

I am far more forgiving of the odd misguided and possibly corrupt individual, than a misguided and possibly corrupt institution.

 

I'd disagree with your first sentence, but would agree that both SDM and HMRC can criticised.

 

HMRC don't just behave that way with Rangers unfortunately. You said above that "just another huge black mark against HMRC that shows that they were not acting with integrity or for the greater good of the tax payer. In this case, they seem not to be fit for purpose. Tax need to be fair, and seen to be fair," which is a view I have sympathy with as HMRC ceased to act with fairness or integrity a long time ago and are often out to maximise their income by any means possible (and which is something that SDM should have been well aware of).

Edited September 16, 2015 by Bluedell