Tax officials blamed for the downfall of Rangers

[buster. 4,808]

10 hours ago, RANGERRAB said:

I highly doubt it was just one person who was responsible for all of this within HMRC.

 

Ive always believed that there was a high level yahoo mission both within HMRC and LBG with the aim of financially  destroying  Rangers.

 

We can only hope today’s news will lead to some sort of internal investigation within HMRC to allow us to get to the truth of what really went on.

 

 

 

 

Sir Duped was the main culprit by a country mile.

 

Thereafter, there were opportunistic dodgy geezers from Motherwell, Yorkshire, London, Manchester etc who wanted some of the action with some still at it.

IMO the conspiracies are amongst those who were more visible and not within HMRC or LBG.

 

[JFK-1 1,671]

So now HMRC have made a comment on twitter no less. Apparently it's almost unknown for them to comment on specific cases but in this instance they have. 

 

 

[Uilleam 5,410]

9 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

So now HMRC have made a comment on twitter no less. Apparently it's almost unknown for them to comment on specific cases but in this instance they have. 

 

 

There's nothing quite like making yourself a hostage to fortune. 

 

 

 

 

[Frankie 8,150]

That's a very strange tweet indeed.

 

I suspect the high heid yins in the Revenue won't be happy with it.

[buster. 4,808]

22 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

So now HMRC have made a comment on twitter no less. Apparently it's almost unknown for them to comment on specific cases but in this instance they have. 

I said at the time, the Saga that we were embroiled within would have huge repercussions and be the thing of case studies, court battles and (various types of)  media wars... in all manner of areas. Regards the court battles, the travesty IMO are those that never materialised.

 

It gave a very public glimpse into a dark and complicated world where the public tend to end up paying the price and the dodgy geezers often make hay.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by buster.

[cooponthewing 1,139]

31 minutes ago, Uilleam said:

There's nothing quite like making yourself a hostage to fortune. 

 

 

 

 

That’s an incredible tweet from HMRC? Wow! I guess their calculations were potentially correct, it’s just a pity they were motivated by perceived hatred and sectarian bigotry. They are now perhaps being amended to reflect their prejudicial calculations. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by cooponthewing

[Frankie 8,150]

15 hours ago, Big Jaws said:

Forgive me if I'm wrong on this mate, from memory, didn't Murray contest a) that there was tax due on the EBT's and b) at the same time make an initial £9mil offer to HMRC with a further £10mil payable over a number of years? From my perspective it seems fairly obvious that he knew it would eventually be found to be taxable but that the HMRC figure was outlandish and when you look at the numbers involved £47 paid into EBT's the figure Murray had isnt a kick in the arse off what was actually owed before HMRC 'sexed it up'!

Yes, as I said in my earlier post, MIH did offer to settle but, unlike what happened with Arsenal, HMRC refused and no wonder if they thought they could get the best part of £100m.

 

That was 2010 and like I said it would be interesting to know what figure MIH and HMRC were working off at that point.  For example, did HMRC say £94m then because, if so, then there's no way MIH/LBG were even going to meet them half-way so a sale was inevitable and SDM's words of the mid-noughties where he said he'd only sell to the right person were about as tangible as the other moonbeams he spraffed on about in that period.

 

Enter Whyte and Murray being 'duped'. 

 

To be clear, there's no doubt in my mind HMRC have played fast and loose here but proving it is another matter entirely.  

[RANGERRAB 3,256]

Looks to me we’re entering a crucial stage of oldco liquidation process regards HMRC.

 

The total value of Rangers EBT’s was £48m. How much tax was due to be paid by oldco on this amount following the court verdict?

 

For the past few years we’ve had all sorts of figures quoted by slabbering yahoo journalists. Most of these figures included penalties which I understand can only be applied for ‘deliberate behaviour ‘

 

I suspect the real figure will be around half of the £48m. And HMRC won’t have miscalculated 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by RANGERRAB

[buster. 4,808]

HMRC were more interested in winning the case to set a precedent.

 

The quantums they were thinking more about were those attainable if the precedent went in their favour.

[Uilleam 5,410]

3 minutes ago, cooponthewing said:

That’s an incredible tweet from HMRC? Wow! I guess their calculations were correct, it’s just a pity they were motivated by hatred and sectarian bigotry. They are now being amended to reflect their prejudicial calculations. 

 

10 minutes ago, Frankie said:

That's a very strange tweet indeed.

 

I suspect the high heid yins in the Revenue won't be happy with it.

It seems uncommon strange for HMRC to tweet  at all in that manner, and to that effect, if the message is genuine, and not, say, a false flag, or a hack. 

 

If it is a hack, then we should all be worried about the security of our personal data.