Court of Session rules in favour of HMRC + Rangers Issue Statement

[Anchorman 0]

The decision and the reasons for it seem all the more ridiculous each waking day since the decision was made, especially given the growing dismay being voiced by subject matter experts.

I can't help thinking of a boxing analogy, - two renowned heavyweights who keep having rematches because neither can ever inflict a knockout blow on the other. The fighter in the blue corner has won the last two fights on points because is a a better technical fighter and the judges are experienced enough to see beyond the flailing arms of the fighter in the red corner, and can spot the technically better punching of the 'blue' corner man. Many of the watching public see the flailing arms of the red corner man as some kind of positive aggression, especially given his loud shouts of "re-match - I'm coming back for you until I beat you" (reluctantly agreed to by the blue corner even though they will win each time within the laws of the noble art).

So a third bout is arranged. The same pattern follows, the man in the red corner comes in with nothing new. The blue corner have the upper hand technically again, which once again is there for all to see. The two men go through the formalities at the end of an identical fight to the previous two and those knowledgeable in the Marquess of Queensbury rules await the blue corner arm being raised.

BUT WAIT - the red corner arm is raised - much to everyone's astonishment!! An immediate inquest begins among those in the boxing fraternity - who are the judges - what was their motive for this decision? The red guy offered nothing technically different. the blue guy had the jabs and telling short hooks inside as before - so why? The power of the media manages to force an interview with the judges. "We decided this time to ignore technical accuracy - as is our prerogative". "WHAT??? shout the onlooking journalists. What the hell did you use as your decision making process???"

"Well we thought a subjective approach might be refreshing - and as lead judge I advised my colleagues that we should all follow our hearts and apply what we thought might be 'common sense"

ALL HELL breaks loose as the boxing world loses all credibility and goes into meltdown!!!

[BEARGER 1,829]

SPFL board to meet and consider action on Rangers Big Tax Case verdict

STV

6 November 2015 09:29 GM

The SPFL board will discuss the implications of HMRC's tax case win on Friday.SNS Group

The Scottish Professional Football League board has scheduled an emergency meeting to discuss the Rangers Tax Case after HMRC won a ruling that payments to players at Ibrox should have been taxed for almost a decade.

 

The tax authorities won an appeal at the Court of Session on Wednesday which ruled that Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) used to pay Rangers employees between 2001 and 2009 were contractual earning which were subject to tax.

 

Today, the eight-man board will now consider the verdict and decide if further action is to be taken by the league body.

 

STV understands that the meeting will take place by conference call and that though other league matters will be discussed, the EBT issue is the primary subject matter.

 

The SPFL’s predecessor, the Scottish Premier League, set up a commission headed by Lord Nimmo Smith to investigate the use of EBTs by Rangers and whether league rules has been broken. In 2013 the commission reported back and concluded that the payments should have been declared to the league.

 

Rangers oldco was fined £250,000 and ordered to pay £150,000 in costs and the payment of the fine is still in dispute with an arbitration panel yet to rule on whether Rangers newco is liable for payment.

 

At the time of Lord Nimmo Smith’s ruling, EBT payments were not considered to have been taxable earnings. Now, with that decision having been reversed on appeal, the SPFL will consider if further action can be taken.

 

The SPFL Board is made up of chief executive Neil Doncaster, chairman Ralph Topping, Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers) and Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic) and Ken Ferguson (Brechin City).

[ian1964 10,386]

Rangers: Tax case ruling will not impact previous footballing penalty

 

By Richard Wilson BBC Scotland

 

The ruling that Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts broke tax rules will not alter previous decisions made by football authorities on the matter.

 

In February 2013, a £250,000 fine was imposed on Rangers for non-disclosure of player payments from 2001 to 2010.

 

Wednesday's Court of Session verdict can be appealed against if permission is sought before 2 December.

 

The Scottish Professional Football League and its legal advisors will take time to consider future events.

 

This week's court decision is in relation to Murray Group companies and does not affect the current owners at Ibrox.

 

BDO, as liquidators of RFC plc, are the only involved party remaining that could challenge the HM Revenue and Customs court win since those companies of former Rangers owner Sir David Murray have been wound up.

 

RFC plc were charged with paying an additional £150,000 in costs, and the total of £400,000 was sought by the Scottish Professional Football League (established when the SPL merged with the Scottish Football League) from Rangers International Football Club, the company that now owns and operates Rangers.

 

RIFC disputed their responsibility to pay the fine, and asked the Scottish Football Association to convene an arbitration tribunal to make a ruling.

 

SPFL spokesman

 

"The League will take time to consider this lengthy and complex judgement"

 

Led by Lord Nimmo Smith, the SPL investigation ruled that the club should have informed the football authorities of the payments and the existence of side-letter arrangements. It did not consider the taxable status of those payments.

 

The commission also judged that their findings ruled out any sporting penalty, since the non-disclosure did not affect the eligibility of players.

 

Hence, Rangers were fined rather than stripped of the SPL titles they won in 2003, 2005, 2009 and 2010.

 

"Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements," the commission's judgement stated.

 

At the time of the judgement, the tax tribunal had ruled that Rangers Football Club plc's use of EBTs was lawful and not subject to tax, with that judgement subject to appeal by HM Revenue and Customs.

 

In the commission's ruling, it was stated that "Mr McKenzie [the lawyer representing the SPL] stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission's Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that [Tax Tribunal] decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC."

 

The tribunal met last week, and the verdict has still to be communicated to the two relevant parties - the SPFL and Rangers.

 

After RIFC took over as owners of Rangers, an agreement was reached with the football authorities for the club to enter the bottom tier of Scottish football in 2012 and they are currently top of the Scottish Championship.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34730426

[MacK1950 2,226]

See that SPFL are quick to set up new enquiry into past am full of foreboding with C----c and Dundee United on panel no doubt they will want to vilify us.

[BlueMazza 0]

Gees the mob are out with pitchforks. Will be interesting though. C*ltic - for all their soundbites otherwise - have not progressed the way they should without us. Their crowds are down dramatically. they are going backwards in Europe & are basically a selling club.

 

I don't think they will want us hit with any penalties that would prevent us coming up next season. Financial hit is most likely. They want us there, but in bad shape so they can humiliate us.

 

Surely, the other argument is that by punishing us, they yet again prove we are the same club as before.

[der Berliner 3,219]

Perhaps they (SPFL / SFA) should show enough common sense to postpone anything up until after any possible appeal, whether or not they are even contemplating any further punishment.

Edited November 6, 2015 by der Berliner

[MacK1950 2,226]

SPFL/SFA would like to ask WHAT IS COMMON SENSE we know of a Chris Commons is it him has he changed his surname????

[ian1964 10,386]

Rangers: SPFL board to discuss tax case verdict

 

By Chris McLaughlin BBC Sport

 

The Scottish Professional Football League's board is to discuss the latest twist in Rangers' tax case saga on Friday.

 

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs won its appeal against the club's former parent company's use of a controversial tax scheme between 2001 and 2010.

 

Questions have been asked about whether the scheme gave Rangers an unfair sporting advantage.

 

A previous league investigation ruled it did not.

 

But that was before this week's ruling at the court of session.

 

Rangers won five titles during the time the Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) were being used by the Ibrox regime.

 

News of the SPFL meeting follows suggestions on Thursday that this week's decision in the the Court of Session in Edinburgh will not alter previous decisions made by football authorities on the matter.

 

In February 2013, a £250,000 fine was imposed on Rangers for non-disclosure of player payments from 2001 to 2010.

 

Wednesday's verdict can be appealed against if permission is sought before 2 December.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34743917

 

You would almost think Gollum is pushing for Rangers to be stripped of titles!,or just stirring the shit?

[MacK1950 2,226]

All this from a guy twice banned from Ibrox and on live television could only refer to us as "this club" whilst reporting outside the stadium a total loser if you ask me.

[ian1964 10,386]

SPFL chiefs hold talks over what action to take against Rangers after judgement on Big Tax Case

 

 

 

The Scottish Professional Football League is to hold an emergency meeting at Hampden Park to discuss whether the Rangers Big Tax Case ruling means sporting sanctions are either justified or workable.

 

The move comes after the taxman won its latest challenge over its claim Rangers were liable for a £46.2 million bill over the use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) to make payments to players, managers and staff.

 

The SPFL's nine-man board are expected to discuss any possible options available to them.

 

An SPFL source said the board will review the events but is not likely to make any firm decision on sanctions at the Friday afternoon conference call.

 

The Big Tax Case decision has brought the debate over "tainted titles" into the public arena with some calling for the club to be stripped of titles and competitions won in the years the EBTs were used.

 

Rangers used the EBT scheme from 2001 until 2010 to give millions of pounds of what the club said was tax-free loans to players and other staff.

 

"They will discuss what might happen next," said the source. "It's a review of what the latest development means. It's to get the board on the one page."

 

In what is one of the biggest tax claims it has ever pursued, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) went to the Court of Session in July to contest a decision of upper tier judge Lord Doherty in largely dismissing an appeal against a first-tier tax tribunal (FTT) decision in the so-called Big Tax Case.

 

The challenge over the EBTs that were concerns the company which ran Rangers until 2012.

 

Wednesday's judgement decided that the EBTs were a way of providing players and staff with earnings and therefore should have been taxed.

 

Liquidators of the Rangers oldco have confirmed that £72m of the £94.4m owed to HMRC relies on the taxman's claim that Rangers was liable for its use of EBTs.

 

It was widely thought the spectre of a massive loss in the tax case which the club could not pay was main reason for the financial implosion that led to the club's operating company entering liquidation.

 

Rangers lifted five league titles, four Scottish Cups and five League Cups between 2001 and 2010.

 

An independent commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith, ruled in 2013 that Rangers had breached regulations by failing to disclose the payments.

 

The oldco was fined £250,000 by the SPL, after being found guilty of failing to correctly register players. The fine was never paid.

But, Lord Nimmo Smith insisted in his 42-page verdict that he was satisfied no sporting advantage was gained.

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/13949684.SPFL_chiefs_hold_talks_over_what_action_to_take_against_Rangers_after_judgement_on_Big_Tax_Case/