Tax officials blamed for the downfall of Rangers

[compo 6,129]

So what were our legal beagles and accountants getting paid for if anyone gets a huge tax demand they look through the books and fight it our boys just seemed to roll over was pressure put on them from elsewhere. 

[Frankie 8,149]

Clearly last night's exclusive from The Times is a very big story, even if there's not much meat to the bones at this stage.

 

Because of the figures HMRC claimed (and disputed at the creditor's meeting), they were able to force the oldco into liquidation as the biggest creditor.  All along, credible people involved have questioned the whole process and what was claimed by HMRC but what is fairly clear is that:

 

Murray was arguably forced into selling by LBG due to the fear of any potential bill.

Whyte arguably stopped paying PAYE because of same and likelihood of admin.

HMRC refused a CVA because of their claim.

HMRC have spent millions pursuing this claim.

Scores of people lost their jobs.

Since admin Rangers has lost potentially hundreds of millions of pounds as Celtic had free rein to reign.

 

I'd like to ask for some sort of enquiry but the evidence would be lost anyway.

 

 

[Bluedell 5,329]

7 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

If nothing else rifc had to pay the football debts of a company that should have been able to pay them. 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

Every rangers fan and former shareholder may be able to raise a class action suit here. Emotional distress and loss of shares respectively. 

 

Dave king might be about to get a huge amount if cash. The rst? 

 

This could go on for years. 

1. The football debts that newco paid were voluntary. They weren't legally due to pay them.

2. Oldco went into administration due to Whyte not paying the PAYE as much as anything else.

3. Our financial position under Whyte meant we couldn't meet the EBT tax charge without the penalties, so at that point, did the additional penalties make that much difference?

 

We can point back to that being the reason for Murray selling to Whyte but Murray wanted to sell his shares anyway and may have done so without the penalties. Nobody can prove anything one way or another.

 

Trying to trace the eventual outcome of administration back to the penalties is legally tenuous and legally remote and it's unlikely anyone would be successful in legal action. Even if there was, would Craig Whyte not be the major shareholder and therefore beneficiary?

 

We may all want to lash out and blame someone but there's no proof that anyone acted illegally or through bad faith, even though we all have our suspicions. 

 

What is does prove is that HMRC are confirming that there was no fraudulent or negligent behaviour by the club and HMRC have put that in writing, and it blows up the claims that we "cheated" one and for all.

 

Things are going well for the club. Let's not get distracted by this sideshow which has no relevance to the club right now.

[compo 6,129]

We should send a polite enquiry to see if the football authorities will return the points deduction ? .

[buster. 4,808]

1 minute ago, Bluedell said:

 

1. The football debts that newco paid were voluntary. They weren't legally due to pay them.

2. Oldco went into administration due to Whyte not paying the PAYE as much as anything else.

3. Our financial position under Whyte meant we couldn't meet the EBT tax charge without the penalties, so at that point, did the additional penalties make that much difference?

 

We can point back to that being the reason for Murray selling to Whyte but Murray wanted to sell his shares anyway and may have done so without the penalties. Nobody can prove anything one way or another.

 

Trying to trace the eventual outcome of administration back to the penalties is legally tenuous and legally remote and it's unlikely anyone would be successful in legal action. Even if there was, would Craig Whyte not be the major shareholder and therefore beneficiary?

 

We may all want to lash out and blame someone but there's no proof that anyone acted illegally or through bad faith, even though we all have our suspicions. 

 

What is does prove is that HMRC are confirming that there was no fraudulent or negligent behaviour by the club and HMRC have put that n writing, and it blows up the claims that we "cheated" one and for all.

 

Things are going well for the club. Let's not get distracted by this sideshow which has no relevance to the club right now.

Agreed, very little to nowt will come of this.

 

Regards your point (2) ...Was the amount owing to HMRC outwith the BTC enough to trigger the 25% threshold regards right to refuse CVA ?

 

 

[Bluedell 5,329]

Just now, buster. said:

 

Regards your point (2) ...Was the amount owing to HMRC outwith the BTC enough to trigger the 25% threshold regards right to refuse CVA ?

Probably, although I 'm not going back to check. There's been too much emotional baggage on this over the years and I don't want to get dragged back into it. 

[compo 6,129]

Maybe we should play the old Beatles song at half times, Taxman. 

[buster. 4,808]

4 minutes ago, Bluedell said:

Probably, although I 'm not going back to check. There's been too much emotional baggage on this over the years and I don't want to get dragged back into it. 

Again, I'd agree.

[pete 2,499]

41 minutes ago, Frankie said:

Naming influential people without any evidence isn't very clever.

 

Let's box sensibly please.

I never blamed him for anything. I just said his name springs to mind.

[RANGERRAB 3,256]

The question now needs to be asked whether individuals within HMRC deliberately got the tax amount wrong for oldco. And also if there were outside influences at work.

 

I’m no accountant or tax expert but I simply do not believe this was an unfortunate error