BDO lose BTC appeal

[jhunter 0]

I would imagine so, yes. Bankruptcy looms for many, I suspect. Perhaps then they will finally stop lauding SDM.

 

surely the "side letters" will endemnify the players

 

notice how celtc cleverly let the players take the risk while using their scheme

 

although there is no way in the world they weren't being adviced by someone at that club.

[boabie 230]

Is it not the former players who used this system that should be worried?, can they be chased for the tax due?

 

I think it was at the last budget that the government announced, irrespective of the BTC that HMRC would be going after those who benefited from such schemes. Every single one of them will personally be facing huge bills.

[der Berliner 3,234]

Scotland. 21st Century. Think again. (Or at least qualify "should" with "nae f@cking chance".)

 

As I wrote in the very same quote, this is not the matter of thepublic to decide, but whether or not SFA and SPFL stand by LNS' findings.

[der Berliner 3,234]

I think it was at the last budget that the government announced, irrespective of the BTC that HMRC would be going after those who benefited from such schemes. Every single one of them will personally be facing huge bills.

 

I would assume, not least for the foreign players involved, interesting legal battles with each player's lawyer may be the order of the day for HMRC and Murray then.

Edited July 5, 2017 by der Berliner

[ascender 352]

Is it not the former players who used this system that should be worried?, can they be chased for the tax due?

 

Yes, that's as I understood it all along - as much as the sensationalist headlines focused on the club, ultimately the players were liable for the tax due.

[SteveC 150]

surely the "side letters" will endemnify the players

 

notice how celtc cleverly let the players take the risk while using their scheme

 

although there is no way in the world they weren't being adviced by someone at that club.

 

My understanding - going back about 3 years - is that they would not protect the players.

[der Berliner 3,234]

From the club:

For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers have not lost the case. There is no question of any liability impacting on our club, its history or any member of the Rangers International Football Club plc Group.

 

‘Rangers Football Club and the entities which currently own and manage it are not party to these proceedings nor do we have any say in what happens. The proceedings are a matter for those affected by them. We note that the assessments for tax which were the subject for appeal and which are referred to as the Big Tax Case relate to Murray Group Holdings Limited, Murray Group Management Limited, The Premier Group Property Limited, GM Mining Limited and RFC 2012 PLC (in liquidation).

 

Source to follow.

 

An FFer summarized it here:

They were a way of avoiding tax.

 

HMRC have now decided that the loophole they exploited was not actually valid and the tax is now owed.

 

The courts eventually agreed with them.

 

The tax that was initially avoided will now be paid.

 

And that's about it really.

 

Nothing 'illegal' about it, the club thought that they were a legitimate way of avoiding tax. They even noted their use on the annual statements each year (typically people involved in illegal activities do not broadcast it to the public/authorities)

 

It's the equivalent of you being self employed and filling out a tax return, thinking you do not owe anything and indeed may get a refund, only for HMRC to hit you with a bill for a couple of grand as they reckon that you don't qualify for certain deductions that you claimed.

 

You then pay the couple of grand and that's it.

 

Press summary of the appeal verdict:

PRESS SUMMARY

 

RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) (formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) (Appellant) v Advocate General for Scotland (Respondent) (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 45

 

On appeal from [2015] CSIH 77

 

JUSTICES: Lord Neuberger (President), Lady Hale (Deputy President), Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge

 

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

 

RFC 2012 Plc (“RFC”) was a member of a group of companies whose parent company was Murray

International Holdings Ltd. By a deed dated 20 April 2001, Murray Group Management Ltd, which

was also a member of the group, set up a trust known as the Remuneration Trust (“the Principal

Trust”). When a group company wished to benefit an employee it made a payment to the Principal

Trust. On payment, the employing company asked the trustee of the Principal Trust to resettle the

sum on to a sub-trust and requested that the sub-trust income and capital should be applied in

accordance with the employee’s wishes. The trustee of the Principal Trust had a discretion whether to

comply with those requests, but, in practice, the trustee without exception created the requested subtrust.

The employee was appointed as protector of the sub-trust with the power to change its

beneficiaries.

 

When RFC negotiated the engagement of a footballer, RFC would explain the sub-trust mechanism, in

particular, that the prospective employee could obtain a loan of the sum paid to the sub-trust from its

trustee which would be greater than the payment net of tax deducted under PAYE if he were to be

paid through RFC’s payroll. The trust fund would be held for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the

sub-trust, being members of the footballer’s family whom he specified. On the footballer’s death, the

loans and interest would be repayable out of his estate, thereby reducing its value for Inheritance Tax

purposes. RFC used the same mechanisms in paying discretionary bonuses to its senior executives.

The Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions Act) 2003 (“ITEPA”) governs RFC’s liability to income tax

on employment income during the relevant tax years from 2003/04 to 2008/09. Section 6 imposes a

tax on “general earnings”. Section 7 defines “general earnings” by reference to section 62. Section

62(2) provides “[E]arnings, in relation to an employment, means (a) Any salary, wages or fee, (b) Any

gratuity or other profit or incidental benefit of any kind obtained by the employee if it is money or

money’s worth, or © Anything else that constitutes an emolument of the employment”. The Income

and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (“ICTA”) applied in the tax years 2001/02 and 2002/003. The

relevant provisions in ICTA, under which income tax is charged on “emoluments”, are essentially to

the same effect as those in ITEPA.

 

In accordance with the Income Tax (Employments) Regulations 1993 and the Income Tax (Pay As

You Earn) Regulations 2003 (“the PAYE Regulations”), employers who pay emoluments or earnings

which are assessable to tax are required to deduct income tax from their payments to their employees

under the “pay as you earn” (“PAYE”) regime. Under the PAYE Regulations, HM Revenue and

Customs Commissioners determined that RFC had failed to pay income tax and National Insurance

Contributions (“NICs”) on the sums paid to the trusts as remuneration. The parties to the appeal

agreed that the determination of the appeal in relation to income tax governs the liability to NICs.

 

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

 

Parliament Square London SW1P 3BD T: 020 7960 1886/1887 F: 020 7960 1901 http://www.supremecourt.uk

 

The First-tier Tribunal (“the FTT”) held that the scheme was effective in avoiding liability to income

tax and NICs because the employees had only received a loan of the moneys paid to the trusts. The

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) upheld the FTT’s decision. The Inner House allowed

HMRC’s appeal. It held that income derived from an employee’s work is assessable to income tax,

even if the employee agrees that it be redirected to a third party. The central issue in this appeal is

whether it is necessary that the employee should himself or herself receive, or at least be entitled to

receive, the remuneration for his or her work in order for that payment to amount to taxable earnings.

 

JUDGMENT

 

The Supreme Court unanimously dismisses RFC’s appeal. Lord Hodge gives the judgment, with which

the other Justices agree.

 

REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT

 

Three aspects of statutory interpretation are important in determining this appeal. First, provisions in

the tax code imposing specific tax charges do not militate against the existence of a more general

charge to tax which may have priority over or qualify the specific charge. Secondly, it is necessary to

pay close attention to the statutory wording and not be distracted by judicial glosses which have

enabled the court to apply the statutory words in other factual contexts. Thirdly, a purposive approach

to the interpretation of the taxing provisions must be adopted [15].

 

As a general rule, the charge to tax on income extends to money that the employee is entitled to have

paid as remuneration irrespective of whether it is paid to the employee or to a third party [41]. The

relevant ICTA and ITEPA provisions do not restrict the concept of earnings by requiring payment to

a specific recipient [38]. Section 62(2)(b) ITEPA confines the charge on perquisites and profits to

benefits received by the employee, but there is no such restriction in section 62(2)(a) or 62(2)© [49].

Nothing in the wider purpose of the legislation excludes from the tax charge remuneration which the

employee is entitled to have paid to a third party [39]. Parliament has sought to tax remuneration paid

in money or money’s worth. There is no rationale for excluding from the scope of this tax charge

remuneration in the form of money which the employee agrees should be paid to a third party [59].

For the purposes of PAYE it is necessary to determine whether there has been a payment of earnings

from which deductions were required. Misplaced reliance on judicial glosses in relation to the concept

of “payment” is evident in the case law leading up to the appeal [51]. There is no basis for establishing

a general rule that a payment is made for the purposes of PAYE only if the money is paid to or at least

placed unreservedly at the disposal of the employee [54]. The references to making a relevant payment

“to an employee” or “other payee” in the PAYE Regulations fall to be construed as payment either to

the employee or to the person to whom payment is made with the agreement of the employee [58].

The sums paid to the trustee of the Principal Trust for a footballer constituted the footballer’s earnings

[64]. The risk that the trustee might not set up a sub-trust or give a loan of the sub-trust funds to the

footballer does not alter the nature of the payments made to the trustee of the Principal Trust [65].

The discretionary bonuses made available to RFC’s employees through the same trust mechanisms also

fall within the tax charge as these were given in respect of the employee’s work [66]. Payment to the

Principal Trust should have been subject to deduction of income tax under the PAYE Regulations

[67]. As the sums paid into the Principal Trust were earnings in the first place, the specific provisions

of the tax code which deem the benefit of loans to be earnings cannot apply [69].

 

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2016-0073-press-summary.pdf -> opens PDF file

[der Berliner 3,234]

Snatched from FF

 

From STV Grant who's spoken to someone at Hampden:

The stance from Hampden is very much that LNS ruled on concealment of side letters, not legality of scheme. Reopening case not on the table.

 

+ + +

 

SPL state they'll look at judgement before making further comment

 

+ + +

 

It was confirmed by the board at the agm before last it would be illegal. And it was alluded to they had already spoken to the governing bodies about it.

Edited July 5, 2017 by der Berliner

[SteveC 150]

As I wrote in the very same quote, this is not the matter of thepublic to decide, but whether or not SFA and SPFL stand by LNS' findings.

 

i followed all that. I think you are ignoring the shitstorm that will be applied to said bodies and that they are, in any case, Celtic placemen in charge of both.

 

However, the knock on compensation claims from clubs and individuals (missed Euro places, unjust relegations due to points dropped against us) may be the sticking point beyond which Scottish football can go no further. I also expect that King, if they do try and title strip, will hit back with what he has hinted at in the records as "the club being treated unfairly". Either way - I foresee football unrest escalating beyond anything we can imagine as neither side (Rangers - rest of the country) getting what they think is just and, alas, turning into civil unrest on a wider scale.

 

Like the much of the Western world - we are busy turning the clocks a-back.

Edited July 5, 2017 by SteveC

[ian1964 10,409]

An SPFL spokesman said: "The Board of the SPFL notes today's judgement of the Supreme Court. We will now take time to examine the ‎judgement in detail and to consider any implications for the SPFL."

 

Read more at http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-statement-74/#HPXljRDZekGw4ahe.99