Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte appears in court...

[Bluedell 5,356]

As long as it is not liquidated you still have the chance to pull it out of Liquidation . If the axe has fallen there can be no point of return. I would imagine it is that way anyway.

 

That's my understanding too. I'd guess that oldco would need to pay HMRC everything it's due before that happens. I understand that there will be a payout due to the court case win but I doubt it's sufficient to give 100% so it seems to me that it's unlikely that it will be reversed.

[RANGERRAB 3,299]

That's my understanding too. I'd guess that oldco would need to pay HMRC everything it's due before that happens. I understand that there will be a payout due to the court case win but I doubt it's sufficient to give 100% so it seems to me that it's unlikely that it will be reversed.

 

so why did HMRC allow Whyte to build up this debt?

(assuming we're not talking about the EBT's)

Edited April 20, 2016 by RANGERRAB

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Potato potato.

[der Berliner 3,287]

so why did HMRC allow Whyte to build up this debt?

 

Methinks they did not. IIRC, big companies like ours get some leeway in paying their taxes and if they don't HMRC sends out mail asking for the tax to be paid. If the "normal" routine was applied, the admin event happened exactly at the "right" time, i.e. when HMRC people come calling with orders in hand. Or so it was said.

 

That aside, Whyte was chased by HMRC people even when he walked into Ibrox for the first time and how that escape Lloyds et al ... or why HMRC did not whisper into someone's ear at the time (when they whispered so much else ... ) remains a mystery though.

 

Ex-Rangers owner Craig Whyte was being chased by the taxman for £3.74m BEFORE he started his catastrophic reign at Ibrox

 

 

07:30, 5 Aug 2014

Updated 07:39, 5 Aug 2014

By Keith Jackson

 

HMRC had instructed debt enforcers to chase Whyte with a bill for almost £4million and threaten him with bankruptcy in May 2011 - the same month that he bought Rangers.

 

 

 

THE taxman was chasing Craig Whyte for £3.7million before he took over Rangers.

 

HMRC focused on Whyte’s personal finances and made several failed attempts to get him to pay his dues before, during and after his catastrophic reign at Ibrox.

 

The taxman regarded Whyte as a “flight risk”, fearing he might flee the country without settling his huge tax bill.

 

Documents seen by the Record show:

 

* The authorities instructed debt enforcers to chase Whyte with a bill for almost £4million and threaten him with bankruptcy in May 2011, the same month that he bought Rangers.

 

* It was the culmination of a probe begun the previous year when the taxman learned Whyte had returned to the UK in 2005.

 

* Whyte was continually warned he was failing to submit satisfactory tax returns and risked being fined.

 

* He actually claimed at one stage to have a UK taxable worth of just £24 in accrued bank interest.

 

* Yet when he struck the notorious deal with Ticketus for funds to finance his Rangers takeover, he gave the firm a personal guarantee he was worth nearly £33million.

 

This “guarantee”, which was obtained by HMRC, helped them calculate Whyte’s £3,741,835.29 tax bill but he continued stalling tactics to avoid coughing up.

 

At the same time he was able to run up a further £15million in unpaid taxes and penalties during his nine months in charge of Rangers.

 

Whyte had bought Rangers for £1 from Sir David Murray in May 2011, while agreeing to wipe out the club’s £18million debts.

 

But on February 14, 2012, he made a legal move to have the Ibrox outfit placed into administration.

 

By then the club’s debt had rocketed to around £50million.

 

HMRC then rejected a Company Voluntary Arrangement, forcing the club’s owners to be liquidated in a move which also saw Rangers having to start again in the lowest tier of Scottish football.

 

David Murray has long blamed the taxman for the demise of Rangers, saying the spectre of the Big Tax Case – a potential bill of between £46m and £100million, hanging over the club forced his hand in selling up.

 

But a sizeable proportion of Rangers fans still hold Murray at least partly responsible for the club’s demise, arguing he should not have sold to Whyte, whose reputation had already been questioned.

 

Ultimately, Rangers won the Big Tax Case when a tribunal ruled Employee Benefit Trusts paid to players were in fact loans not subject to tax – and HMRC’s appeal against that judgment was rejected this year.

 

Fans remain furious at the taxman for bringing the case in the first place, and the latest documents from July 2012 obtained by the Record are unlikely to quell their anger.

 

They show HMRC began building their case against Whyte from the moment his proposed take over first hit the headlines in November 2010, six months before he was eventually handed the keys to Ibrox.

 

The paperwork from the taxman’s high net worth unit states: “HMRC became aware that Whyte had returned to live in the UK when the press carried stories in 2010 that he was potentially going to purchase Rangers Football Club plc.

 

“HMRC discovered that Whyte had been back in the UK since 2005. He did not notify HMRC of his return to the UK, nor did he complete tax returns.”

 

The documents go on to chronicle various atttempts by the taxman to force Whyte to detail his finances and warnings of fines he faces if he fails to comply.

 

In the absence of his co-operation, the tax office made their own calculations and issued Whyte with demands for £1million for the financial year 2006-07 and £1.2million for the following year.

 

Whyte did finally submitted some returns. But the documents note: “The returns contained entries in respect of net UK bank interest of £24 for 2006-07 and £491 for 2007-08.”

 

This pattern continues throughout the reports, until a damning revelation centring on Whyte’s takeover of Rangers when he secured funding from Ticketus to head off the club’s future debt in exchange for money from season ticket sales.

 

Presumably to convince Ticketus he was a genuine businessman, Whyte gave his own word that he was good for the investment, according to the HMRC documents.

 

They state: “The personal guarantee included a statement of Whyte’s net worth, signed by him, which showed he had net assets with a value of £32,956,843.”

 

This was the evdience HMRC needed to slap Whyte with the tax bill of £3,741,835.29 at the time of his takeover.

 

Just four days after he posed for pictures with the SPL trophy at Rugby Park following a thrilling last day climax to the league campaign, a letter was written to Whyte by HMRC’s higher debt manager detailing the claim and giving him seven days to pay in full.

 

Whyte was warned that a warrant would be served on him by a sheriff officer who would also provide him with a leaflet entitled Dealing with Debt to help him assess his options.

 

The letter continues: “If the debt remains unpaid, I will arrange to present a sequestration petition in your local sheriff court. The effect of this is that you are likely to be made bankrupt and a Trustee appointed to sell your assets and pay your creditors.”

 

Even then Whyte continued to stall, appealing to a tribunal against the judgment. As HMRC do not discuss private tax dealings, the outcome as yet remains unknown.

 

But the emergence of HMRC’s serious concerns about Whyte before his takeover prompted further anger among senior Rangers figures.

 

Alastair Johnston, Rangers chairman at the time, pleaded with Murray not to sell the club to Whyte. He was subsequently axed.

 

Presented with the revelations last night, he said: “On the back of this, I would welcome a full-scale, independent investigation into the actions of HMRC around the Rangers issue.”

 

Former director Paul Murray added: “I have always said that what has happened to Rangers has been nothing short of disgraceful.

 

“The club has been the victim of a fraud. A lot of people have made a lot of money at the club’s expense and it has to end.

 

“It is in the public interest to find out exactly what has happened and then to take action. Justice must be done and be seen to be done.”

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415

[boabie 230]

" But a sizeable proportion of Rangers fans still hold Murray at least partly responsible for the club’s demise, arguing he should not have sold to Whyte, whose reputation had already been questioned. "

 

Yes. I remember it well. I was permitted two posts raising the alarm and refusing to join in on the party welcoming him before getting a perma-ban from a Rangers forum. The information was already out there but nobody wanted to listen.

[Bluedell 5,356]

so why did HMRC allow Whyte to build up this debt?

(assuming we're not talking about the EBT's)

 

Don't know, but it's not that relevant to the liquidation process.

 

We may feel it's unfair given their actions, but the cash is due and whether they allowed it to build up deliberately or not doesn't take away from that fact.

 

Even if in the extremely unlikely case that HMRC were found to have acted maliciously in allowing the debt to build up, the debt will not be waived and HMRC's general attitude to liquidation will not be changed.

[colinstein 294]

" But a sizeable proportion of Rangers fans still hold Murray at least partly responsible for the club’s demise, arguing he should not have sold to Whyte, whose reputation had already been questioned. "

 

Yes. I remember it well. I was permitted two posts raising the alarm and refusing to join in on the party welcoming him before getting a perma-ban from a Rangers forum. The information was already out there but nobody wanted to listen.

 

as a matter of interest.....what forum was that ?

[boabie 230]

as a matter of interest.....what forum was that ?

 

We'll leave it at that mate. There's nothing to be gained now.

[jhunter 0]

as a matter of interest.....what forum was that ?

 

I know not but was banned almost immediately from rangersmedia for daring to suggest that whyte didn't have a pot to piss in.

 

the same site that had a bona fide explanation of where 70M had went in 2 years.

[pete 2,499]

Can we leave other websites off the agenda please. If you have a problem with them then you can better send them an e-mail rather than discussing it here.