BDO granted leave for Supreme Court appeal

[RANGERRAB 3,336]

if the EBT's were proved to comply with the law at the time HMRC will get nothing

[der Berliner 3,310]

And where did you get this from ? Kerryfail St ?

 

That was tongue in cheek, no doubt ;-)

 

As for the EBTs and complying with law, this is the bone various tribunals have sit, gnawed and disagreed upon.

[boabie 230]

if the EBT's were proved to comply with the law at the time HMRC will get nothing

 

HMRC are saying that though there was some latitude in the wording of the rules at the time, Murrays companies crossed the line while using the scheme. Murray told them about what he was doing at the time but HMRC retrospectively decided to take action. Their positition is the scheme Rangers used was never at any time "legal". The only way HMRC will get nothing is if the supreme court decide Murray acted appropriately.Even then it looks like the announcement made at the budget yesterday will see the individuals who benefited from the scheme made personally liable for any taxes due. That could lead to them chasing Murray to pay imo.

Edited March 17, 2016 by boabie

[Bluedell 5,366]

That could lead to them chasing Murray to pay imo.

 

Their contract was with Rangers and not Murray so I can't see that there's any way that they could come after him.

 

There was always the possibility that HMRC could go after those whop benefited, even before yesterday's announcement.

[RANGERRAB 3,336]

5,000 UK companies used EBT schemes before they were closed.

What was it about Rangers scheme that made HMRC chase Rangers & not others?

[pete 2,499]

My understanding is that HMRC are pushing for the tax, interest and penalties to be paid.

I believe, if my memory serves me right,( it doesn't always) the penalties alone were about 42million.

[boabie 230]

Their contract was with Rangers and not Murray so I can't see that there's any way that they could come after him.

 

There was always the possibility that HMRC could go after those whop benefited, even before yesterday's announcement.

 

The EBT's were administered via MIH if my memory is not failing me. MIH put money into a trust which then loaned to employees including Rangers staff. I'll stand corrected if wrong BD.

[Bluedell 5,366]

The EBT's were administered via MIH if my memory is not failing me. MIH put money into a trust which then loaned to employees including Rangers staff. I'll stand corrected if wrong BD.

 

MIH is also in liquidation, so it's pointless for those benefiting to go after it, mate. As for Murray himself, there's no relationship between those benefiting and him so they can't go after him personally.

[craig 5,199]

That is what they want, with exorbitant penalties and fees and whatnot, 74m or the like. Yet, question would be whether they have a legal basis for such a claim IF the law is only changed now. One would agree that they might want the tax in full, but wanting penalties for something retrospectively demanded?

 

Essentially, this is de jure nothing that will concern the club. Any demands will fall into the liquidators lap. De facto the SFA and SPFL might want to revitalise the title-witch hunt (for which they had and still have no rulings ... apart from some mumbo-jumbo lines that they might twist and bend to their liking).

 

Yes, they have legal basis to claim interest and penalties even if the law is only changed now. Seems unfair to me too, but that is what tax Statute allows for.

[RANGERRAB 3,336]

Yes, they have legal basis to claim interest and penalties even if the law is only changed now. Seems unfair to me too, but that is what tax Statute allows for.

 

So HMRC could claim despite the fact that the tax laws in place at the time of EBT's may have been adhered to???