Scott7 5,255 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 If I were President of the Supreme Court I'd say I was persuaded by the reasoning and eloquence of Revenue Counsel and not convinced by the Appellants' Counsel. On the other hand, this is the Rangers and WATP, so the Appeal is upheld and mon the 'Gers. That's one of many, many reasons why I'm not President of the SC. Seriously, this stuff is 'way over my head but the revenue guy was helluva good. The body language of the judges, especially Hodge looked ominous. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 The lawyer for HMRC made me think of Columbo. Looks like a dithering idiot but probably as sharp as nails. I found the HMRC guy VERY difficult to follow - he didn't appear as concise as the RFC guy. Also felt like the was a lot of jumping about his note/evidence/case, not sure where he was, where he was going etc. The RFC guy came across as a lot better prepared - that's not to say his evidence/case was better though....just felt he put it across better. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I found the HMRC guy VERY difficult to follow - he didn't appear as concise as the RFC guy. Also felt like the was a lot of jumping about his note/evidence/case, not sure where he was, where he was going etc. The RFC guy came across as a lot better prepared - that's not to say his evidence/case was better though....just felt he put it across better. That is the reason I thought he looked like Columbo he always came across as a dithering idiot but always came good in the end. I hope the difference is that the RFC lawyer wins in the end. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onevision 1,455 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) One of the things the Judges cannot and should not be allowed to lose sight of is this was not tax evasion but tax avoidance using a scheme that used a loop hole in the tax law as it was at the time, these type schemes have only recently been out-lawed. Edited March 16, 2017 by onevision 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,299 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 HMRC 'moving goal posts' on Rangers FC case M Revenue & Customs has been accused of applying rules retrospectively over its pursuit of Glasgow Rangers Football Club's alleged use of a trust structure to avoid paying tax on players' salaries. The case relates to the club's use of an "employee benefits trust" to make tax-free loans to Rangers employees. These structures allow employers to loan money to employees, on the understanding that the money will be paid back. But HMRC claims these these so-called loans were in fact payments, and that income tax and national insurance charges therefore apply. It claims it is owed £46.1m in unpaid tax. HMRC won an appeal on this case at the Scottish Court of Session in November 2015. The case is now being heard at the Supreme Court. But tax lawyer Tom Wesel, partner at Milestone International Tax Consultants, claimed HMRC was applying rules introduced in 2011 retrospectively. He claimed the Revenue was "moving the goalposts" by "adapting an argument it succeeded with in a dispute with a footballer back in 1991". The case in question was a payment of £75,000 to Southampton player Peter Shilton by his club. Mr Wesel said the court decided it was part of his pay for his subsequent transfer and so taxable as salary. "HMRC is now using this to argue that loans made before the rules were changed in 2011 are still taxable because without this perk of a tax-efficient loan, the footballers would have received a higher salary or left the club. "This is victimisation based on envy and HMRC are going around like gangsters extracting protection money from football clubs by a selective reinterpretation of the law prior to 2011," he claimed. A spokesperson for HMRC would not comment on the ongoing case, but said: "HMRC behaves professionally at all times." Allan Maxwell, a business adviser and director of Corporate Benefits Consulting, said he had only ever seen employee benefits trusts used for very high earners. "It's not something I would go anywhere near," he said, adding it was the sort of complicated arrangement that required a tax lawyer to set up. He said the risk of attracting a tax bill meant it was not worth the trouble for most employers. "If arrangements like this did start to crop up, you can be sure HMRC would take a look at it," he said. He added that, if the Supreme Court rules in favour of HMRC, it could give it freedom to pursue other football clubs that have operated similar schemes across the UK. https://www.ftadviser.com/regulation/2017/03/16/hmrc-moving-goal-posts-on-rangers-fc-case/ While much of that is correct, methinks what might break "our" side's back is the existence of side-letters. BTW, one FFer noted that Thornhill asked "what would happen if the loanees pay the money back to the Trust, would they get a refund of taxes paid" ... or something to this extend. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 The full court decision is here for anyone interested. It certainly blows the new club debate out of the water. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7 Quite so: However, as submitted by Mr Sandison that is not what happened to Rangers. It was either unchallenged evidence or a matter of admission, that what happened to Rangers at the material time was this: the Rangers Football Club Plc sold inter alia the one share in the SPL to Sevco Scotland Limited. That sale required the approval of at least 8 of the members of the SPL. That application was refused. It was thus no longer eligible to play in the SPL. It thereafter applied to the SFL and was permitted to join the lowest league of the SFL (the five part agreement). The foregoing process cannot be described as being moved by anyone to a lower division, or being moved down or demoted. The dictionary definitions are not apt to cover what happened to Rangers. I am satisfied that what did not happen was that the SPL moved or demoted Rangers to a lower division. Rangers ended up in a lower division by the entry into a contract which allowed them to join the SFL in the third division. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 5,255 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) Lord Carnwath might be with us. Edited March 16, 2017 by Scott7 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boabie 230 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 I got the main gist of what Thornhill was saying earlier about HMRC being mistaken about the "protector" of the scheme. It's all a bit above my head though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Can't get the link to open, must be a lot of folk watching. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,186 Posted March 16, 2017 Author Share Posted March 16, 2017 (edited) It's very dry stuff and Julian Ghosh is difficult to watch - think of a gulping Spiers at the end of every sentence and times it by ten. Not very easy for the layman to follow and the Justices don't give much away. Edited March 16, 2017 by Frankie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.