Jump to content

 

 

Ex-Rangers administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark in £21m settlement


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, the gunslinger said:

Every year for the last 3 HMRC have made the same mistake overcharging me thousands in a month. 

 

I get lot's of apologies and to live without the money for a while and spend hrs on the phone.  

 

Incompetent indeed. 

Ah yes, I get the occupational communication from them 'you haven't paid enough tax for the past year' or whatever. Call me pedantic but I don't pay any tax or NI. Its taken from me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Call me pedantic but I don't pay any tax or NI. Its taken from me.

All taxation is theft by deceit. No one has ever asked me if I'd like to pay tax or consulted me on what it would be used for. I have no control over how much of my earnings will be stolen from me, no control over when it's taken and no control over what it's used for. Worse, the harder I work and the more I earn, the greater the proportion that's stolen. When my stolen money is wasted or misspent, I have no recourse and the misuse usually results in having even more of my money appropriated. I have money stolen when I earn it, when I spend it and when I save it. I can even look forward to being robbed posthumously when I die. I'm not even free to spend what is left as I might like to - I can't buy a gun, I can't change a listed building, I can't build a still in my shed, I can't even buy spiked nunchucks ffs. Not that I particularly want to buy spiked nunchucks.

 

Beyond a minimum fund for agreed community use, taxation is the biggest confidence trick of all. The saddest thing is to see how taxation is conflated with morality in the minds of the particularly stupid who, I'm afraid to say, are oblivious to being farmed like the cattle they are. Basically, we now spend our entire lives on a treadmill, providing resources for a very small elite. It's socialism on steroids. Can you imagine what "life" will be like 50 years from now.

Edited by Bill
Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we turn this thread into a non-Rangers-related one ...

 

Quote

The cost of litigation relating to the Rangers wrongful prosecution scandal, involving Whitehouse, Clark, Charles Green and Imran Ahmad, has reached £39.9 million, government figures released last week revealed.

So that is just the "wrongful prosecution scandal". You wonder what the figure of the whole EBT-HMRC chase through the courts has cost the government (i.e. the taxpayer) ... and given the challenge of sums due by BDO, what can actually be expected in return.

 

Likewise, I was under the assumption that the last court rule on the EBTs said that we had to pay some sort of tax for it, since it was deemed some sort of income/wage/whatever after all (due to side-letters, common sense or, again, whatever). 

 

Quote

 

In the region of £30 million has already been knocked off the original sum the tax authorities thought they were due when the company, which is now known as RFC 2012, went into insolvency almost a decade ago.

The bulk of what remains, almost £48.9 million, relates to the use of employee benefit trusts for former staff and players under what came to be known as the big tax case. BDO is disputing that figure along with amounts owed under inheritance tax, £1.3 million, and a separate smaller tax case, £1 million.

Much of what BDO has admitted the oldco is due is the £10.3 million of PAYE and National Insurance which went unpaid while unpaid while Craig Whyte was owner of Rangers.

 

So of the 70-90m which were quoted and made us toxic, 30m are already off (you wonder why that was not done/possible before admin et al) and BDO are even challenging the rest too ... which I thought was ruled correct by the last court case?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, der Berliner said:

 

 

So of the 70-90m which were quoted and made us toxic, 30m are already off (you wonder why that was not done/possible before admin et al) and BDO are even challenging the rest too ... which I thought was ruled correct by the last court case?

 

 

Would love to know how much public money has been spent in total from the HMRC side pursuing this. HMRC staffing costs, multiple legal fees, court time, and then the cherry on top of the cake we went through an administrative process protecting assets which results in HMRC being able to claim very little back. I am at risk of repeating myself but the public deserve an investigation into this and the individuals responsible should be held to account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Would love to know how much public money has been spent in total from the HMRC side pursuing this. HMRC staffing costs, multiple legal fees, court time, and then the cherry on top of the cake we went through an administrative process protecting assets which results in HMRC being able to claim very little back. I am at risk of repeating myself but the public deserve an investigation into this and the individuals responsible should be held to account.

The public doesn't 'deserve' any investigation and least of all the truth. The public insists on voting for people who piss all over it year after year. The public swallows every political fantasy set in front of it. The public is greedy, shortsighted and tribal. The public is beyond stupid and deserves exactly what it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bill said:

The public doesn't 'deserve' any investigation and least of all the truth. The public insists on voting for people who piss all over it year after year. The public swallows every political fantasy set in front of it. The public is greedy, shortsighted and tribal. The public is beyond stupid and deserves exactly what it gets.

Fair point well made. Fool me once etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Sutton_blows_goats said:

Would love to know how much public money has been spent in total from the HMRC side pursuing this. HMRC staffing costs, multiple legal fees, court time, and then the cherry on top of the cake we went through an administrative process protecting assets which results in HMRC being able to claim very little back. I am at risk of repeating myself but the public deserve an investigation into this and the individuals responsible should be held to account.

I’d like to know who it was who decided to pursue this from HMRC. And whether there was political influence. And what implications are for winning in the Supreme Court in terms of chasing other EBT schemes.


Whyte was spot on when he said HMRC would appeal and appeal until they got it into the civil courts where they knew they stood a better chance of winning and they did. Whether HMRC expected to win is another matter

 

But this weeks news that BDO are contesting £51m of the £64m so-called oldco debt is very interesting indeed 

Edited by RANGERRAB
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RANGERRAB said:

...

But this weeks news that BDO are contesting £51m of the £64m so-called oldco debt is very interesting indeed 

... hence my question whether this was not established in court before? Didn`t the last court case rule that tax was due to be paid on the EBTs et al and hence I assumed that the claim was correct. Then again, BDO disputes the sum, which might be a different thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

... hence my question whether this was not established in court before? Didn`t the last court case rule that tax was due to be paid on the EBTs et al and hence I assumed that the claim was correct. Then again, BDO disputes the sum, which might be a different thing.

I presume it’s the actual sum BDO are disputing.

 

this whole thing is turning into a farce. I always remember back in 2012 the headline figure of debt owed was £134m of which £94m was owed to HMRC. BDO have already knocked £30m off that £94m leaving it now at £64m of which they’re now disputing £51m. The total value of the EBTs was around £48m so at what rate did they think they’re taxed at? >100%? 

Going back to the £134m figure, if £94m was ‘owed’ to HMRC then that leaves £40m owed elsewhere. £27m of that was owed to ticketus but D&P got the deal declared illegal and terminated it in court meaning they got nothing. That leaves £13m of which £7.7m was owed to debenture holders and just under £3m football debts which got repaid by Green. The rest was small debts 

 

The reasons for administration and then liquidation are diminishing day by day. Then there was the rejection by HMRC of Murray’s offer to settle the EBT’s.

That was refused. Doesn’t look to me HMRC got a good deal for the taxpayers in all of this

 

so was there a political  influence in all of this? the names are still out there

Edited by RANGERRAB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.