BDO granted leave for Supreme Court appeal

[ian1964 10,474]

THE LIQUIDATORS of Rangers oldco formally launch their delayed legal challenge against the taxman's victory in the long-running 'Big Tax Case' today (Tuesday).

 

BDO will make an 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.

 

They are seeking to contest a Court of Session decision 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 case will come before Lord Menzies (left) and Lord Drummond Young, who along with Lord Carloway, were the appeal judges who found in favour of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in November.

 

The judgement meant the taxman, in one of the biggest tax claims it has ever pursued, won its claim Rangers were liable for a £46.2 million bill over the use of EBTs.

 

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.

 

The appeal puts any question of further sporting sanctions on the back burner.

 

Court of Session judges previously agreed with HMRC 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.

 

It is understood that BDO has already made contact with former Rangers owner David Murray over the case.

 

A group of Murray firms including parent company Murray Group Holdings Ltd, had originally defended the claims, however the courts have been told they have since gone into liquidation leaving BDO and the Rangers oldco as the only opponents.

 

The case was due to be heard last month, but was put back due to a court scheduling problem.

 

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HRMC) lost a first-tier tax tribunal and a subsequent 2014 appeal over the payments made by Mr Murray's group of companies.

 

At the time, the tax authority had argued that payments made to players and other employees should be taxable but the Murray Group, which formerly owned Rangers, successfully argued they were loans.

 

The November judgement overturned a decision of upper tier judge Lord Doherty in largely supporting a first-tier tax tribunal (FTT) decision in favour of the Murray Group.

 

But 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 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.

 

Court reform rules which came in in September meant that an automatic right of appeal to the UK Supreme Court over Court of Session decisions ceased to exist. Leave to appeal must be sought by the Court of Session in the first instance.

 

According to the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, it will only be granted if the court "considers that the appeal raises an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court".

 

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 of £18 million were cleared, resulting in a sale to venture capitalist Craig Whyte, a subsequent liquidation, and the decision to admit Rangers into the bottom tier of the Scottish league ladder.

 

The hearing comes as Rangers announced it has slashed operating losses to £500,000 in the final six months of last year - despite taking just £127,000 from its controversial merchandising deal with Sports Direct supremo Mike Ashley.

 

The loss was down from £4.6 million from the same period for 2014, according to unaudited financial results.

 

The figures emerged as club chairman Dave King made a new appeal to Sports Direct supremo Mike Ashley to come to an agreement over renegotiating the controversial Rangers Retail joint venture to avoid potential legal action.

 

The interim results, which were reviewed by the club's auditors Campbell Dallas shows the club took just £127,000 in their share of income as part of the club's retail deal.

 

Operating expenses also fell by £2.2m over the same period from £13.952m to £11.757m - about £367,000 a month, "mainly a result of a reduction of staff and legal costs incurred by the previous regime".

 

Directors said they had secured £9.25million of interest-free loans from shareholders by the end of December with more funds committed to cover the club to June 2016.

 

Chairman Dave King, who swept to power with allies a year ago, said the business arrangements with Sports Direct "remain problematic" and pledged that the board would "continue to challenge" decisions made prior to regime change "if they are damaging to our ambitions for Rangers".

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14327302.Liquidators_finally_begin_moves_for_Rangers__Big_Tax_Case__Supreme_Court_appeal/

[pete 2,499]

THE LIQUIDATORS of Rangers oldco formally launch their delayed legal challenge against the taxman's victory in the long-running 'Big Tax Case' today (Tuesday).

 

BDO will make an 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.

 

They are seeking to contest a Court of Session decision 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 case will come before Lord Menzies (left) and Lord Drummond Young, who along with Lord Carloway, were the appeal judges who found in favour of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) in November.

 

The judgement meant the taxman, in one of the biggest tax claims it has ever pursued, won its claim Rangers were liable for a £46.2 million bill over the use of EBTs.

 

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.

 

The appeal puts any question of further sporting sanctions on the back burner.

 

Court of Session judges previously agreed with HMRC 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.

 

It is understood that BDO has already made contact with former Rangers owner David Murray over the case.

 

A group of Murray firms including parent company Murray Group Holdings Ltd, had originally defended the claims, however the courts have been told they have since gone into liquidation leaving BDO and the Rangers oldco as the only opponents.

 

The case was due to be heard last month, but was put back due to a court scheduling problem.

 

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HRMC) lost a first-tier tax tribunal and a subsequent 2014 appeal over the payments made by Mr Murray's group of companies.

 

At the time, the tax authority had argued that payments made to players and other employees should be taxable but the Murray Group, which formerly owned Rangers, successfully argued they were loans.

 

The November judgement overturned a decision of upper tier judge Lord Doherty in largely supporting a first-tier tax tribunal (FTT) decision in favour of the Murray Group.

 

But 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 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.

 

Court reform rules which came in in September meant that an automatic right of appeal to the UK Supreme Court over Court of Session decisions ceased to exist. Leave to appeal must be sought by the Court of Session in the first instance.

 

According to the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, it will only be granted if the court "considers that the appeal raises an arguable point of law of general public importance which ought to be considered by the Supreme Court".

 

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 of £18 million were cleared, resulting in a sale to venture capitalist Craig Whyte, a subsequent liquidation, and the decision to admit Rangers into the bottom tier of the Scottish league ladder.

 

The hearing comes as Rangers announced it has slashed operating losses to £500,000 in the final six months of last year - despite taking just £127,000 from its controversial merchandising deal with Sports Direct supremo Mike Ashley.

 

The loss was down from £4.6 million from the same period for 2014, according to unaudited financial results.

 

The figures emerged as club chairman Dave King made a new appeal to Sports Direct supremo Mike Ashley to come to an agreement over renegotiating the controversial Rangers Retail joint venture to avoid potential legal action.

 

The interim results, which were reviewed by the club's auditors Campbell Dallas shows the club took just £127,000 in their share of income as part of the club's retail deal.

 

Operating expenses also fell by £2.2m over the same period from £13.952m to £11.757m - about £367,000 a month, "mainly a result of a reduction of staff and legal costs incurred by the previous regime".

 

Directors said they had secured £9.25million of interest-free loans from shareholders by the end of December with more funds committed to cover the club to June 2016.

 

Chairman Dave King, who swept to power with allies a year ago, said the business arrangements with Sports Direct "remain problematic" and pledged that the board would "continue to challenge" decisions made prior to regime change "if they are damaging to our ambitions for Rangers".

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14327302.Liquidators_finally_begin_moves_for_Rangers__Big_Tax_Case__Supreme_Court_appeal/

 

So the people who made the judgement now have to judge that they got it wrong. What the f is that.

 

We can forget that then.

[SteveC 150]

So the people who made the judgement now have to judge that they got it wrong. What the f is that.

 

We can forget that then.

 

We can indeed and the rule change in September had killed us in this

Edited March 8, 2016 by SteveC

[RANGERRAB 3,336]

It can still go to the Supreme Court. If the three buffoons dont grant the appeal BDO can make an appeal direct to the Supreme Court.

[BlueMazza 0]

The appeal puts any question of further sporting sanctions on the back burner.

 

Um no. The SFA had their chance, tried to blackmail us and then agreed to abide Nimmo's decisions. There is no question of stripping titles.

[Widget 1]

A court of law can only judge on law. It cant make rulings on 'common sense' over rule of law.

[der Berliner 3,310]

Article

The judgement meant the taxman, in one of the biggest tax claims it has ever pursued, won its claim Rangers were liable for a £46.2 million bill over the use of EBTs.

 

I had to laugh at that. Vodaphone, Starbucks and various others spring to mind. If they had used witch hunt though ....

 

 

BlueMazza

Um no. The SFA had their chance, tried to blackmail us and then agreed to abide Nimmo's decisions. There is no question of stripping titles.

 

If I remember correctly, it looked like that at first glance, but they included some mumbo-jumbo sentence in there who could be read like: until we hear something different to that judgement in the future. And, like in that statement, the SFA/SPFL rules don't say anything about title stripping because of "financial doping", but IIRC have a similar mumbo-jumbo line or two, giving them exclusive power to do what they want. Haven't got the time right now to double check ... but with these people and their organisations, I would not say "never". IMHO, it is very important that BDO goes to the Supreme Court and they do a final ruling.

 

Regarding the "leave to appeal", I was wondering about this the last two rounds already, when both tribunals allowed appeals. We had hoped that we'd win the last one and, since no new evidence was presented, the Supreme Court would not allow an appea to them. Now it looks like we face up to that scenario (and there is any reason to believe that the three judges won't want to look like fools and thus do not allow an appeal (whether or not this is actually legal remains to be seen). So thank Heavens for the rule that BDO can go to the SC directly if denied by the Common-Sense-Gang.

[SteveC 150]

It can still go to the Supreme Court. If the three buffoons dont grant the appeal BDO can make an appeal direct to the Supreme Court.

 

I'd missed that bit. I was reading on the phone in the middle of the night

[SteveC 150]

double post.................

Edited March 8, 2016 by SteveC

[Bluedell 5,366]

So the people who made the judgement now have to judge that they got it wrong. What the f is that.

 

Scottish law is now a joke. It's crazy that those making a decision get to decide whether their decisions can be appealed. How often are they going to allow other people to sit and pour over their own judgements.

 

A QC said to me recently that we should expect the Court of Session decisions to be come increasingly bizarre as, in a vast majority of cases, they will have nobody reviewing their decisions.

 

It can still go to the Supreme Court. If the three buffoons dont grant the appeal BDO can make an appeal direct to the Supreme Court.

 

We can but there's a different set of criteria that have to met for the appeal to be allowed. It's got to be in the public interest. Whether an obscure point on EBT taxation is in the public interest may be open to doubt. I know there are arguments to say that it is in the public interest but it's not a given that the appeal would be allowed.