Big tax case delay

[RANGERRAB 3,358]

The Supreme Court does not deal in 'common sense'.

[pete 2,499]

The Supreme Court does not deal in 'common sense'.

 

And it shouldn't. No court should. The court is there to judge if anything is correct in the eyes of the law and not what 3 judges think common sense is.

[calscot 0]

The problem is that there was common sense when we needed professional sense. Where was the sense in making tax rules and then punishing people for not breaking them? Where was it when changing rules and back dating them? Where was it when some large companies were allowed to settle but one company was refused and hounded mercilessly? Where was the sense in with all that, pushing a company with huge public interest into an illegal sale and subsequent liquidation?

 

There wasn't much sense applied at all. The "common" sense was certainly that - equivalent of taking some common person on the street and asking for their sense to decide on a very complex tax issue, rather than the sense of experts on these matters.

[BEARGER 1,829]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/12173675/Rangers-liquidators-dispute-with-HMRC-deferred-again.html

 

Rangers' liquidators' dispute with HMRC deferred again

Hearing has been rescheduled and is now docketed for Tuesday, March 8

Rangers' liquidators' dispute with HMRC deferred again

It's been an extremely turbulent few years for Rangers FC

Roddy Forsyth By Roddy Forsyth5:23PM GMT 25 Feb 2016CommentsComment

The resolution of the so-called “big tax case” – the long running dispute between HMRC and the liquidators of Rangers oldco over the use of Employment Benefit Trusts (EBTs) – has been deferred yet again. A hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, had been scheduled for Wednesday to consider a request from the liquidators, BDO, for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against a verdict in favour of HMRC in November.

On that occasion, three Court of Session judges ruled that Rangers oldco had been in breach of tax rules when they used EBTs for employees to enhance salaries through the disbursement of loans. The tax authority contended that these loans, few of which were repaid, were effectively disguised remuneration.

Two lower level tribunals disagreed but HMRC were backed at the third attempt, prompting BDO to ask for permission to take the issue to the Supreme Court in London. However, because of an issue relating to what a court representative described as “judicial availability”, the hearing has been rescheduled and is now docketed for Tuesday, March 8.

BDO can appeal to the Supreme Court even if their request for leave to do so is denied, but they are required to approach the Court of Session in the first instance. A total of £47 million was paid out through EBTs to 87 trusts on behalf of players, coaching staff and administrative employees between 2001 and 2010.

Recipients included the club’s £12 million record signing, Tore Andre Flo, and the former Dutch international midfielder, Ronald de Boer – now assistant coach at Ajax – as well as current Scotland and Aston Villa defender, Alan Hutton, and the recently appointed manager of St Mirren, Alex Rae.

Meanwhile, the Telegraph understands that criminal trials arising out of the liquidation of the oldco are now very unlikely to be heard until the spring of 2017 at the earliest. This week the Crown Office announced that it is contemplating fresh charges against Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, who acted as administrators of the oldco, and Charles Green, who formed a consortium to purchase the available assets after the business was liquidated in the summer of 2012.

Prior charges against the three have been deserted or dismissed recently, but the Crown Office issued a statement which said: “The Crown will give consideration to raising a fresh indictment against Paul Clark, David Whitehouse and Charles Green within the statutory time limits.”

Elsewhere, the Scottish Professional Football League will continue to pursue the possibility of introducing facial recognition technology to identify troublemakers at grounds despite a refusal by the Scottish Government to fund the project.

The SPFL had asked for £4 million to implement the scheme – the first of its kind in British football – which is designed to identify those who engage in sectarian singing and the use of flares, amongst other activities. However, after vociferous protests from fans groups, the Scottish Government has declared that the project raises “a number of concerns” and has stated that it is for Scottish football’s governing bodies to fund it themselves.

In response, an SPFL spokesman said: “With our colleagues at the Scottish FA we had a positive meeting with the Scottish Government this week to discuss potential measures to help combat unacceptable conduct at Scottish football grounds, ensuring they remain safe places for people to enjoy our sport.

“The SPFL’s submission of tentative funding costs – specifically for technology to assist with identification of individuals engaged in unacceptable conduct – followed previous discussions with the Scottish Government where we built on quotes based on the top two divisions only.

“We remain committed to tackling unacceptable conduct where it occurs in SPFL grounds – indeed an Independent Commission recently found Motherwell FC guilty of breaches of SPFL Rules in this area.

“The overwhelming majority of Scottish football supporters behave impeccably, are the best possible ambassadors for our national sport and are a force for positive change. We remain keen to work in partnership and on an ongoing basis with the Scottish Government and others to tackle unacceptable conduct and to use the unique power of football and of football clubs in their local communities to assist with tackling other positive changes in society, including in health, lifestyle and wellbeing.”

[der Berliner 3,365]

However, because of an issue relating to what a court representative described as “judicial availability”, the hearing has been rescheduled and is now docketed for Tuesday, March 8.

 

So that is regarding the "leave to appeal", right? I.e. the judges who whipped up the "common sense" stuff had some time troubles to sit on this again? Wonder of wonders. If I were inclined to do so, I'd bet that they will not grant leave to appeal. Out of ... common sense (for their own scalps).

 

Meanwhile, the Telegraph understands that criminal trials arising out of the liquidation of the oldco are now very unlikely to be heard until the spring of 2017 at the earliest.

 

That is in a year from now. You do wonder what takes that long, as they have dwelled on it for years already.

[pete 2,499]

So that is regarding the "leave to appeal", right? I.e. the judges who whipped up the "common sense" stuff had some time troubles to sit on this again? Wonder of wonders. If I were inclined to do so, I'd bet that they will not grant leave to appeal. Out of ... common sense (for their own scalps).

 

 

That is in a year from now. You do wonder what takes that long, as they have dwelled on it for years already.

 

Get them to sing the Billy boys and they will be in court on Monday:shifty:.

[SteveC 150]

That Spring 2017 date is a worry in a number of ways, not least that King didn't want to have a share issue until after it. (unless my aged memory is at it)

Edited February 26, 2016 by SteveC

[boabie 230]

That Spring 2017 date is a worry in a number of ways. not least that King didn't want to have a share issue until after it. (unless my aged memory is at it)

 

The tax case has no bearing on our club as it stands right now. I suspect there will be no thoughts of a share issue until the criminal trial involving Whyte, etc is done and dusted.

[SteveC 150]

The tax case has no bearing on our club as it stands right now. I suspect there will be no thoughts of a share issue until the criminal trial involving Whyte, etc is done and dusted.

 

oooooooooooops I was getting my cases mixed up.