calscot 0 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 That four years and the fact there are two appeals again questions the integrity, morality and motivation of this HMRC department. The tax system should not punish the innocent - and an innocent company is in liquidation because of this. It seems to me that the crown should not be wasting time and money on a unwinnable witch-hunt. They should have bowed out after the fist tribunal. If the second appeal has indeed failed, then that means HMRC have lost THREE times and heads should roll for this; it's completely unacceptable and a total waste of tax payers' money. It shows complete incompetence and lack of judgement and was totally irresponsible. Lawyers would be sacked or demoted for this kind of stuff. Should the Old Co not be "entitled" to huge compensation for this? Really, the message they are sending is, "We are such a fair system that if you don't pay what we demand, we will put you out of business - even if what we demand is completely wrong and utterly outrageous." What kind of way is that to run a country? I think for every one of us and hundreds of thousands of other Rangers fans, it sends a message that you just cannot trust the tax office. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,856 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) HMRC have used the process in place and their legal counsel must have advised them that they thought they had a chance of winning. HMRC may have thought it worth their time and money (or rather the taxpayers) balanced against what they may have stood to gain (EBT precedent). "Innocence" isn't established until the fat lady sings so I see no legal recourse for oldco, unless perhaps if you could prove 'ulterior motives' which you seem to allude to. I personaly very much doubt this can be done or in fact, that they exist. IIRC a 'high' judicial authority (can't remember exactly what) had to grant HMRC leave for this latest appeal, having to be satisfied that what HMRC were bringing to the new party justified a further appeal. This was obviously granted. In the case of a further defeat for HMRC then it would certainly be a particular process that they should review from their side, learn from and if individuals are found to be incompetent, foolhardy or whatever. Then they should be made to take responsibility for and made accountable. I can't remember the guys name but there was a senior HMRC employee who seemed to have behaved 'dubiously' when making 'deals' with certain corporate giants. My guess is that he didn't have to bear full responsibility or accountability and is doing very well for himself elsewhere..........and this unfortunately seems typical of the corporate and political sectors today. ----------------------------- I'm no expert on tax matters and would invite any advice on errors above. Edited October 9, 2015 by buster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,856 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 HMRC official I made reference to in the previous post was Dave Hartnett "Deloitte appoints official criticised over 'sweetheart' tax deals" http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/may/27/deloitte-appoints-dave-hartnett-tax Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) HMRC have used the process in place and their legal counsel must have advised them that they thought they had a chance of winning. HMRC may have thought it worth their time and money (or rather the taxpayers) balanced against what they may have stood to gain (EBT precedent). The point is that for something like a tax system to keep the hearts and minds of a nation, it should be benevolent rather than appearing malevolent. Whether the latter was intentional or not is irrelevant, appearances are important. They have "entitlements" to go after tax but the citizens and companies in a democratic country should also be entitled to expect that to go with a responsibility towards their well-being. The decision should not be based on purely monetary considerations for HMRC in isolation. Like in all laws, there is a spirit which is more important than the letter. A tax man only caring about the amount of tax he can rake in at the expense of the subjects is NOT a picture of a healthy, democratic society and government. This is especially so when you consider we're talking about tax avoidance, not evasion. We're also talking about the application of rules that are NOT considered fair in other parts of our society. For instance, would it be fair for Rangers to retrospectively charge season ticket holders a fee for use of the toilets at Ibrox, back date it ten years and then fine you and charge you interest for non-payment, leading to the bill crippling you financially? When applied to normal life, it's just ludicrous. "Innocence" isn't established until the fat lady sings My post was based on the assumption that we won and HMRC admit defeat or are refused further appeal. so I see no legal recourse for oldco, unless perhaps if you could prove 'ulterior motives' which you seem to allude to. I personaly very much doubt this can be done or in fact, that they exist. I expect if you were put under house arrest for 4 years and your health suffered as a result, and you were then found innocent in three trials for the same crime, you'd expect compensation. That option might not exist but perhaps it should. If we win, then the current system is obviously highly flawed and not fit for purpose. As I said, tax is a delicate matter and innocent people and companies should not suffer badly in its hands. HMRC should be designed to sort it out quickly and decisively. They should put their case together as quickly as possible and withdraw when they lose - unless there are very exceptional circumstance where the public would greatly benefit. In this case they severely wounded a national institution and the collateral of severely wounding the national sport. What they have done has been horrendous and it looks like they didn't have good reason to do so. The game will take massive amount of time to recover, if ever, and there has been extensive cultural schism highly exaccerbated which will only get worse, once we are back in top flight. The ill thought out HMRC actions, have had a massive negative impact on our nation. People say SDM played hard and fast with the fate of our club, but at least he was pretty much in the right. HMRC have done the same and also played hard and fast with our fragile national sport and by extension, national pride, and they seem to be totally in the wrong - and using an unfair and possibly immoral ethos as mentioned above. Murray is a boisterous schoolboy in comparison. I think people are really missing how irresponsible that a government institution has been. If ever there was ever a time to play a softer game to protect the good of the nation, this was it. In the case of a further defeat for HMRC then it would certainly be a particular process that they should review from their side, learn from and individuals made to take responsibility for and made accountabe,.... If seen to be incompetent, foolhardy or whatever. I can imagine a bit of sweeping under the carpet and the more that is done, the more likely that corruption and malevolence is at the core. In fact there is already a lot of smoke in that respect, with refusals to investigate the leaks and to provide the tally of the cost of the action. In fact I think the RFFF should offer to pay the costs of counting this tally and see if they still refuse. I suspect that the cost excuse is erroneous and disingenuous. HMRC have not acted in an obviously open way that suggests innocence - not in the slightest. I realise shiftiness doesn't prove guilt but it highly raises the suspicions. I can't see how it can be ignored in the context of a hidden agenda and as I say again, the tax system not only should BE fair, it needs to be SEEN to be fair. In that respect HMRC are plain as day guilty as charged. Edited October 9, 2015 by calscot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) Can I just point out that there seems to be an impression that HMRC had a decent case and good reason to go after us. Does losing three times in court not pretty much point to them having a pretty shaky and ill-advised case? Remember this must have cost millions, not including the 10 million offered by Murray, and the additional losses by single handedly creating a situation where the company was moribund and open to abuse by criminals which led to a loss of about another 10 million. Does it not look like they have really dropped the ball big time and don't understand their own rules - which is incredibly worrying for the rest of us? Does it not shake your faith in the accuracy of your own tax bill? Edited October 9, 2015 by calscot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) Can I just point out that there seems to be an impression that HMRC had a decent case and good reason to go after us. Does losing three times in court not pretty much point to them having a pretty shaky and ill-advised case? Remember this must have cost millions, not including the 10 million offered by Murray, and the additional losses by single handedly creating a situation where the company was moribund and open to abuse by criminals which led to a loss of about another 10 million. Does it not look like they have really dropped the ball big time and don't understand their own rules - which is incredibly worrying for the rest of us? Does it not shake your faith in the accuracy of your own tax bill? Well Cal we have to speculate that its costing millions - seeing as Her Majesty's Agency for ensuring that people keep meticulous records of their accounts are incapable of doing it themselves. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13196677.Taxman_will_not_disclose_cost_of_Rangers_case/ https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/amount_of_tax_payers_money_hmrc Edited October 9, 2015 by D'Artagnan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Well Cal we have to speculate that its costing millions - seeing as Her Majesty's Agency for ensuring that people keep meticulous records of their accounts are incapable of doing it themselves. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13196677.Taxman_will_not_disclose_cost_of_Rangers_case/ https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/amount_of_tax_payers_money_hmrc You took the words right out my mouth D'Art. That is what I was thinking through all of the last posts. That they don't have to produce a total cost account is incredible and heads should roll on that one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,856 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) My answers in quotes and bold text. The point is that for something like a tax system to keep the hearts and minds of a nation, it should be benevolent rather than appearing malevolent. Whether the latter was intentional or not is irrelevant, appearances are important. They have "entitlements" to go after tax but the citizens and companies in a democratic country should also be entitled to expect that to go with a responsibility towards their well-being. The decision should not be based on purely monetary considerations for HMRC in isolation. Like in all laws, there is a spirit which is more important than the letter. A tax man only caring about the amount of tax he can rake in at the expense of the subjects is NOT a picture of a healthy, democratic society and government. This is especially so when you consider we're talking about tax avoidance, not evasion. We're also talking about the application of rules that are NOT considered fair in other parts of our society. For instance, would it be fair for Rangers to retrospectively charge season ticket holders a fee for use of the toilets at Ibrox, back date it ten years and then fine you and charge you interest for non-payment, leading to the bill crippling you financially? When applied to normal life, it's just ludicrous. Tax systems don't tend to be put in place to win "hearts & minds" and I don't think it's a matter of being seen to be benevolent or malevolent, rather it should be seen as fair, just, and consistent. As for how it is run, we'd need someone who knew more about the actual mechanics and politics within to be able to go beyond ideals of how we think it should be run. However in any organisation there will be those who take the important decisions and in the expected failure of the latest appeal then you'd imagine someone or various people will have to carry the can in some way. Then again the infamous exploits of David Hartnett whilst an employee of HMRC seems to only have secured him another lucrative post. Some public bodies do seem to get to waste an awful lot of money for not a great deal in return. As for your toilet example, I'm afraid tax authorities do tend to be able to get wide ranging powers (eg. VAT investigators) or are able to squeeze the maximum out of folk when found to be in the wrong......thems the rules. I expect if you were put under house arrest for 4 years and your health suffered as a result, and you were then found innocent in three trials for the same crime, you'd expect compensation. That option might not exist but perhaps it should. If we win, then the current system is obviously highly flawed and not fit for purpose. As I said, tax is a delicate matter and innocent people and companies should not suffer badly in its hands. HMRC should be designed to sort it out quickly and decisively. They should put their case together as quickly as possible and withdraw when they lose - unless there are very exceptional circumstance where the public would greatly benefit. In this case they severely wounded a national institution and the collateral of severely wounding the national sport. What they have done has been horrendous and it looks like they didn't have good reason to do so. The game will take massive amount of time to recover, if ever, and there has been extensive cultural schism highly exaccerbated which will only get worse, once we are back in top flight. The ill thought out HMRC actions, have had a massive negative impact on our nation. Yes, a faster process would have been better for everyone except lawyers and silks but the only practical way I can see it have being fast enough to possibly materially change events as they developed for our club was if HMRC had accepted the offer of a settlement from the Murray group.Although we now see all kinds of possibilities 'known unknowns' arise because of other very long processes (police investigations into takeovers, etc and the subsequent due process). You certainly won't be able to hurry the police or courts and unfortunately this (timescale) may be another negative for our club. People say SDM played hard and fast with the fate of our club, but at least he was pretty much in the right. HMRC have done the same and also played hard and fast with our fragile national sport and by extension, national pride, and they seem to be totally in the wrong - and using an unfair and possibly immoral ethos as mentioned above. Murray is a boisterous schoolboy in comparison. I think people are really missing how irresponsible that a government institution has been. If ever there was ever a time to play a softer game to protect the good of the nation, this was it. I can imagine a bit of sweeping under the carpet and the more that is done, the more likely that corruption and malevolence is at the core. In fact there is already a lot of smoke in that respect, with refusals to investigate the leaks and to provide the tally of the cost of the action. In fact I think the RFFF should offer to pay the costs of counting this tally and see if they still refuse. I suspect that the cost excuse is erroneous and disingenuous. HMRC have not acted in an obviously open way that suggests innocence - not in the slightest. I realise shiftiness doesn't prove guilt but it highly raises the suspicions. I can't see how it can be ignored in the context of a hidden agenda and as I say again, the tax system not only should BE fair, it needs to be SEEN to be fair. In that respect HMRC are plain as day guilty as charged. HMRC will have a lot of questions to answer and I hope there is some kind of mechanism for this to be made public. The scale would IMO warrant something along the lines of a public parlimentary inquiry. My answers in quotes and bold text. Edited October 9, 2015 by buster. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) You took the words right out my mouth D'Art. That is what I was thinking through all of the last posts. That they don't have to produce a total cost account is incredible and heads should roll on that one. Have a read of this Pete it will raise your ire even more. http://www.taxation.co.uk/taxation/Articles/2014/07/29/328541/they-think-it-s-all-over In particular this sentence :- These points have, of course, been challenged unsuccessfully before in the cases of Dextra Accessories ([2005] STC 1111) and Sempra Metals ([2007] STC 1559), yet HMRC continue to put forward this argument. Which prompted this from me. http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/article.php?i=36&a=more-than-just-a-club---more-than-just-a-scandal Edited October 9, 2015 by D'Artagnan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,357 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) Methinks it was pointed out before that HMRC can't use our case as a test-case for chasing other people either, as each case is being considered "different". So in essence, the only message they send is that "we'll set hell and heavens in motion to get you (whether you are right or wrong), so better pay up when we ask you to do so". Which is of course rather disturbing. Edited October 10, 2015 by der Berliner Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts