BDO big tax case appeal decision to be made by court on 21st February

[Frankie 8,151]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14205216.Date_set_for_new_bid_to_have_Rangers__Big_Tax_Case__put_to_Supreme_Court_appeal/?ref=twtrec

 

THE LIQUIDATORS of Rangers oldco will formally launch their legal challenge against the taxman's victory in the long-running 'Big Tax Case' next month.

 

It has been confirmed that BDO's application to the Court of Session to be granted leave to make a final appeal to the Supreme Court, the highest appeal court in the land will be heard on February 24.

 

Court of Session judges decided in November that Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) from 2001 until 2010 to give millions of pounds of tax-free loans to players and other staff broke tax rules.

 

The move makes the liquidators the prime movers in the challenge of the decision by three judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) broke tax rules.

 

According to the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, from September 22, any party wishing to overturn decisions of the Inner House of the Court of Session, Scotland's upper appeal court must now ask that court for permission before seeking to bring a further appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

 

The Supreme Court has confirmed that if the inner house refuses permission, BDO could then go directly to its judges for permission to appeal. The permission will normally only be given if the appeal raises a point of "general public importance".

 

Previously, appellants from Scotland had an automatic right of appeal in civil matters, provided that two advocates certified an appeal as reasonable.

 

The big tax case decision brought the debate over "tainted titles" into the public arena again with some calling for the club to be stripped of titles and competitions won in the years the EBTs were used claiming Rangers had obtained an unfair sporting advantage.

 

But an appeal would put any question of further sporting sanctions on the back burner.

 

Court of Session judges agreed with HM Revenue and Customs which argued that the use of EBTs were a way of paying players, managers and other staff and should be taxable like all salaries. Former owner Sir David Murray had twice successfully argued at tax tribunals that they were loans and therefore exempt.

 

The appeal judges, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young ruled that if income was derived from an employee's services, in their capacity as an employee, it was an emolument or earnings and "thus assessable to income tax".

 

The argument expected to be put forward by way of challenge is that the application of common sense over the substance of the law, was wrong.

 

In the financial year 2014/15, the Supreme Court received ten appeals or references from Scotland 'as of right', and received five applications for permission to appeal where the appellant needed to seek it - typically in relation to 'devolution issues'.

 

In 2013/14, the figures were 13 appeals as of right, and three applications for permission to appeal.

 

Liquidators have previously 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.

 

Many believe the threat of the potentially crippling tax case led to the bank insisting the club debts were cleared, resulting in a disastrous sale to venture capitalist Craig Whyte, a subsequent liquidation, and the decision to put Rangers in the Third Division.

 

A taxman victory meant that the maximum amount of debt potentially left by the oldco would remain at the £168.8 million and would undoubtedly result in minimal payouts to other creditors.

 

However the extra costs from a protracted court case will further reduce the creditors pot which in September stood at £18 million.

[der Berliner 3,247]

A taxman victory meant that the maximum amount of debt potentially left by the oldco would remain at the £168.8 million ...

 

Ahem, where do the 170m come from again?

[Frankie 8,151]

Ahem, where do the 170m come from again?

 

No idea but that jumped out at me as well.

[boabie 230]

" the maximum amount of debt potentially left by the oldco would remain at the £168.8 million ."

Eh ? Who wrote that, Gillivan ?

[andy steel 0]

I've just read some frothing at the mouth political stuff on the Herald by someone called Michael Settle, and now this 'report' with random debts and 'tainted titles'.

 

What happened to our city's newspaper? I doubt anyone expects more than a horoscope and Cliff Hanley (showing my age now) from the Evening Times, and I don't remember the Eveneing Citizen, but the Herald used to be better than this.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

two points

 

1) If HMRC were owed £94.4m & £72m was the BTC that leaves £22.4m for Whyte not paying PAYE/NI plus the wee tax case. Is that correct? Doesn't £22m seem excessive?

2) If debts were £168.8m(stop laughing at the back) that means the remaining debts not owed to HMRC were £74.4m. Who were owed that amount? Seems excessive

 

Or maybe pondlife mhedia making up stories & figures again?

[Mountain Bear 0]

I've just read some frothing at the mouth political stuff on the Herald by someone called Michael Settle, and now this 'report' with random debts and 'tainted titles'.

 

What happened to our city's newspaper? I doubt anyone expects more than a horoscope and Cliff Hanley (showing my age now) from the Evening Times, and I don't remember the Eveneing Citizen, but the Herald used to be better than this.

 

Sad but true.

 

Between the Metro & the BBC news website stealing its readership, fragmented media channels diluting its advertising revenues and the ever reducing numbers (and quality) of journalists, it looks like that once fine newspaper is in terminal decline.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

two points

 

1) If HMRC were owed £94.4m & £72m was the BTC that leaves £22.4m for Whyte not paying PAYE/NI plus the wee tax case. Is that correct? Doesn't £22m seem excessive?

2) If debts were £168.8m(stop laughing at the back) that means the remaining debts not owed to HMRC were £74.4m. Who were owed that amount? Seems excessive

 

Or maybe pondlife mhedia making up stories & figures again?

Bond holders. Tickets 27 or 33 million or some such.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Kings 20 million claim. I suspect 168 million is perfectly correct.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

Bond holders. Tickets 27 or 33 million or some such.

 

Didn't think it was anywhere near that figure?