Poor R*ngers Theads Merged.....

[bluto]

Regardless of the SPL outcome Newco are stripped of 54 tiles

That'll cause a hell of a watery mess in dressing room.

Up to their OLD tricks...

[Bloomsbury Bud]

This is a interesting reaction to FTT result:

http://www.mlmsolutions.co.uk/Blog/uncategorized/guest-blog-by-chartered-tax-adviser-hmrc-rangers-big-tax-case-judgement.html

[Guest somner9]

This is a interesting reaction to FTT result:

http://www.mlmsoluti...-judgement.html

HMRC are bound to appeal not least because of the number of EPL clubs who coughed up when their EBT's were looked at. If they didn't appeal a whole host of claims would be winging their way to HMRC for previous out of court settlements. HMRC will appeal before christmas, this will run for years inspite of all the scumco mouthpieces aclling for the SL to drop their investigation (which by dint of the FTT just got easier to prove)

Edited November 26, 2012 by somner9

[bluto]

This is a interesting reaction to FTT result:

http://www.mlmsoluti...-judgement.html

Great! Ta.

I enjoyed the sign-off line.

[Bloomsbury Bud]

HMRC are bound to appeal not least because of the number of EPL clubs who coughed up when their EBT's were looked at. If they didn't appeal a whole host of claims would be winging their way to HMRC for previous out of court settlements. HMRC will appeal before christmas, this will run for years inspite of all the scumco mouthpieces aclling for the SL to drop their investigation (which by dint of the FTT just got easier to prove)

Hi Somner9, I'm not so sure that HMRC will appeal. Oldco have no money and my guess is HMRC can turn their attention to case where there's revenue for them to collect.

It would be smashng if HMRC prove me wrong by declaring intent to appeal on Xmas Eve, maintaining successive horrid Xmas Eve's for Mordor.

[insaintee]

I think its worth pointing out that if Rangers were still alive, there would be no doubt HMRC would appeal. It would be nice (but not really relevant) if they did. Newco are not liable for oldco debt and as Somner says, the FTT verdict is pretty damming on the subject of side letters/double contracts. A succesfull appeal would help to shut up the "we wir innocent," numpties. What part of found guilty means innocent?

The big worry for Newco (or should that be worries) is getting through to the end of the season without entering administration/liquidation.

[Qarsaan]

Hi Somner9, I'm not so sure that HMRC will appeal. Oldco have no money and my guess is HMRC can turn their attention to case where there's revenue for them to collect.

It would be smashng if HMRC prove me wrong by declaring intent to appeal on Xmas Eve, maintaining successive horrid Xmas Eve's for Mordor.

Agree with that.

I can't believe what OldCo were up to was isolated. I have read it was common practice at the time in the EPL. If my memory is correct, when this started, OldCo were seen very much a test case. So there may still be something for the taxman to go after. I hope they appeal.

[RickMcD]

Agree with that.

I can't believe what OldCo were up to was isolated. I have read it was common practice at the time in the EPL. If my memory is correct, when this started, OldCo were seen very much a test case. So there may still be something for the taxman to go after. I hope they appeal.

I've actually read the whole judgement thingy through twice. The second time was just to see how many characters from Captain Scarlet got a mention. Think someone had a sense of humour but why no Mysterons? Maybe there were.

No wonder Dr.Poon wanted to say her own thing. When you read the whole thing the number of occasions when all three judges mention the lack of candour from MIM and Rangers management is mentioned time and again. There was a total lack of cooperation with the investigating tax inspectors, no replies to correspondence and very clear evidence that files of many Rangers 'employees' had been altered. Several witnesses were described as being vague, devious and suddenly got amnesia. The actual judgement on the trusts is cloudy due to legal jargon but I had some experience of this kind of trust in my occupation. i'm no expert but I really find the result surprising. One thing it is not is a victory for Rangers or whoever the hell. It must have created a bit of a minefield. If a loan is non repayable then it's a gift. I cannot believe that there can be no onus on the recipient to pay income tax. I wonder if the two dissenting honourable gentlemen are having second thoughts. I think HMRC will almost have to appeal as the decision seems incompatible with what went on in the inquiry.

It will be interesting to see what BDO actually do. If they don't crack the whip i have this sinking feeling that Charlie Farley Green might just make himself a right few million for himself even if Rangers go down the pan again.

[Guest somner9]

Agree with that.

I can't believe what OldCo were up to was isolated. I have read it was common practice at the time in the EPL. If my memory is correct, when this started, OldCo were seen very much a test case. So there may still be something for the taxman to go after. I hope they appeal.

There were several EPL clubs with EBT schemes, but as far as I'm aware all setteld up with HMRC when tackled on them. So if HMRC don't appeal then those EPL clubs will be sueing for their cash back plus interest!

[Bloomsbury Bud]

There were several EPL clubs with EBT schemes, but as far as I'm aware all setteld up with HMRC when tackled on them. So if HMRC don't appeal then those EPL clubs will be sueing for their cash back plus interest!

You could well be proved correct, I think you do have a good point.

However, I doubt its only football that used the EBT scheme and another case may not only deliver precedence for HMRC but also backdated tax revenue; by my reckoning oldco RFC can only deliver precedence and might now have lost its attraction to HMRC, as it won't deliver backdated revenue.

If RFC is the best HMRC have to close down EBT avoided tax revenue then I'm, as things stand, I left wondering just how strong HMRC's position is on this matter.

An appeal may allow some other evidence, I'm insufficiently versed in what is allowed at an appeal (Upper Tribunal) but if MIM are only taken over the same points, it seems like a lot of HMRC expense to hear the same again.

[Bloomsbury Bud]

I've actually read the whole judgement thingy through twice. The second time was just to see how many characters from Captain Scarlet got a mention. Think someone had a sense of humour but why no Mysterons? Maybe there were.

No wonder Dr.Poon wanted to say her own thing. When you read the whole thing the number of occasions when all three judges mention the lack of candour from MIM and Rangers management is mentioned time and again. There was a total lack of cooperation with the investigating tax inspectors, no replies to correspondence and very clear evidence that files of many Rangers 'employees' had been altered. Several witnesses were described as being vague, devious and suddenly got amnesia. The actual judgement on the trusts is cloudy due to legal jargon but I had some experience of this kind of trust in my occupation. i'm no expert but I really find the result surprising. One thing it is not is a victory for Rangers or whoever the hell. It must have created a bit of a minefield. If a loan is non repayable then it's a gift. I cannot believe that there can be no onus on the recipient to pay income tax. I wonder if the two dissenting honourable gentlemen are having second thoughts. I think HMRC will almost have to appeal as the decision seems incompatible with what went on in the inquiry.

It will be interesting to see what BDO actually do. If they don't crack the whip i have this sinking feeling that Charlie Farley Green might just make himself a right few million for himself even if Rangers go down the pan again.

Hi Rick

I'm not sure about your level of experience and I do not expect you to state it on this forum. As you stated you have some experience can I ask your opinion on a couple of matters for my own understanding:

1. Are income and gifts both always taxable but loans are not?

2 Is there a statute to 'loans' for instance after 5 years the recipient can assume its now their property. If so does that shift tax burden/declaration from trust to recipient?

3. Lastly, did RFC get distance because the trust paid the loan and the directors didnt instruct the trust?

4. Am i missing the heart of the matter?

Cheers

[oaksoft]

Hi Rick

I'm not sure about your level of experience and I do not expect you to state it on this forum. As you stated you have some experience can I ask your opinion on a couple of matters for my own understanding:

1. Are income and gifts both always taxable but loans are not?

2 Is there a statute to 'loans' for instance after 5 years the recipient can assume its now their property. If so does that shift tax burden/declaration from trust to recipient?

3. Lastly, did RFC get distance because the trust paid the loan and the directors didnt instruct the trust?

4. Am i missing the heart of the matter?

Cheers

This is what Rick gets for being a smart arse.

I can help you here Rick. It's in English. That's the limit of my help.

Good luck brave fellow.

We're here for support if you need us.

[RickMcD]

This is what Rick gets for being a smart arse.

I can help you here Rick. It's in English. That's the limit of my help.

Good luck brave fellow.

We're here for support if you need us.

Thanks, Oaksoft, I always thought you might prove useful one day. I hadn't in fact seen Bloomsbury Bud's post or I would have responded before now. If you pay attention you may learn a little, not a lot because I certainly don't know all the answers.

[RickMcD]

Hi Rick

I'm not sure about your level of experience and I do not expect you to state it on this forum. As you stated you have some experience can I ask your opinion on a couple of matters for my own understanding:

1. Are income and gifts both always taxable but loans are not?

2 Is there a statute to 'loans' for instance after 5 years the recipient can assume its now their property. If so does that shift tax burden/declaration from trust to recipient?

3. Lastly, did RFC get distance because the trust paid the loan and the directors didnt instruct the trust?

4. Am i missing the heart of the matter?

Cheers

Hi B/Bud,

Sorry for delay. I would have seen your post at some point. The Rangers thing was compulsive reading but it's past its best now. As I said I'm no expert in trusts. For a long time I worked for a company which described themselves as actuaries, pension consultants and employee benefit consultants. I kind of wore two hats. Primarily I was on the employee benefits side but occasionally it overlapped with the group pension side. My involvement with trusts went back quite a long way in fact but it was almost all in association with Capital Transfer Tax as it was known then. The life assurance route to avoid having to pay 'death duties' out of your estate has stood the test of time because in fact the tax was still payable but came from the proceeds of a life assurance policy, written under a trust and typically using the MWPA. It is still a viable thing to do. You'll know that there is no Inheritance Tax payable between husband and wife as long as there is a crossover will. The policy pays out on the death of the second spouse so it can be a fairly cost effective way of preserving your estate for children or whoever.

When EBTs started to become popular, our company view, off the record, was that it sailed so close to the wind that it was damned near tax evasion. Not avoidance. We were I think it's fair to say a bit more comfortable with them if they were used in IHT planning as long as it was quite clear who the beneficial owner was. The trouble is that rich men or even comfortably off men like to have their cake and eat it. They like the concept of the trust but they still want income from it. I'm old fashioned but I think if income is taken it effectively negates the trust and any income must count as taxable income. HMRC I'm sure still think so too.

The company I work for was in fact approached by an EPL club and asked for advice about more or less exactly what Rangers did. I know we didn't do the business with them (I don't know whether they did it with anyone) but I know we told them that income from the trust should be declared to the revenue. That killed it stone dead. We didn't say it was definitely taxable, that's up to HMRC, but we believed it would be taxable. The club shall be nameless but it was not one of the really big clubs.

We regarded EBTs as legitimate tools almost as an extension or adjunct to Keyman insurance. I'm sure you are aware of the basics. For maybe a few vital employees or directors prudent companies make special arrangements and part of the reason was to hopefully keep them employed long term. It strikes me as a contradiction to apply any of those benefits to footballers who change clubs fairly regularly for merely an additional five or ten thousand a week. I'm fairly sure the revenue share that view.

I've given that background for two reasons. Firstly to show that I do have some experience of trusts but no way am I an expert. The company I worked for would have nothing to do with any arrangement that had even a whiff of evasion so I was never involved with anything remotely like the Rangers racket. It clearly was a racket and I don't care what the majority of two say. When you read what went on their decision was incomprehensible. From the piece you posted it's perfectly clear who Mr.Verdigris thought got it right.

Finally getting to your questions. Almost all income is taxable apart from the obvious like Peps, and 5% withdrawls from investment bonds although with them you have to be careful not to create a chargable event. Loans are generally not taxable. If it's a business or personal loan you pay interest so it would be a bit unfair to have to pay tax as well. With the Rangers thingy, when is a loan not a loan? The interest rate is quoted but not charged and the understanding is the loans will never be called to be repaid. How Rangers players can take 'income' from them, and apparently they virtually all did, and have no tax liability beggars belief. It strikes me that the six foreign players who are the only ones to have had to repay the loans should ask for it back. If only there was somebody to ask.

I have no idea if there is a statute for loans. I wonder if it would be covered by the six year rule for debts? If it is the taking of income from the trusts acknowledges the debt so it could presumably be repaid or recalled, again if there is anyone left to claim it. I think there must be an onus on the recipient and I can't imagine the revenue will let it go.

So far as Rangers getting distance is concerned, I suppose that must have been accepted. Bearing in mind, though, that they dropped Equity like a stone when Equity, rightly, got uneasy and they switched to Trident, is that keeping distance? And how about the brown envelope to Mrs.Crimson of Trident in the hotel on the night before she gave evidence? Documents she had never seen before. Again it beggars belief.

I don't know if any of this has moved you on even by an inch. I've been out of the firing line for a long time and things change. Tax avoidance both with Income and Inheritance Tax is a continual battle between tax planners and the Revenue. A lot will have changed in the twelve years since I called it a day.

I think HMRC will appeal because they won't want the decision to stand due to precedence as you suggested. I've prattled on enough but I'll give you an anecdotal story which makes me think they will. The 'guru' in the company I worked with who looked after EBT involvement was a Scottish guy. He was a qualified CA who then went on to become an actuary. He was also a qualified pilot so we're talking clever bugger. He had to handle a big EBT enquiry from a mega rich business magnate. I won't even hint who the guy was or what he did. He wanted to use an EBT for IHT planning and we're really talking big, big money. We were less than happy apparently with what he wanted to do but believe he did it anyway through another adviser. I wasn't involved and didn't know any details. Our guru guy left the company about the same time as me (He fell on his sword when the FSA fined us a lot for accidental breaches of rules) and we lost contact. By chance a few years back I met him in Stranraer. I was waiting on a very badly delayed ferry and Gordon was waiting to collect his parents off said ferry. So we did what any self respecting Scotsmen would do- got agreement that our wives would drive and we went to the pub. He told me that night what actually went on and what the billionaire guy had done and Gordon asked me if I had heard about the MacDonald v Dextra case. I hadn't but Gordon explained and I see it was quoted in the Rangers hearing. You can look it up if you're interested enough. Anyway, the MacDonald v Dextra case had just rendered our billionaire guy's scheme ineffective. He is a very old man now and if he had listened to us he would be a lot better off today. He's probably down to his last couple of billion, poor soul.

The Revenue just love MacDonald v Dextra and that's why I think they will appeal. They don't want to hear precedent in the Rangers case quoted at them.

My apologies for this being so long. I stress again, not from an expert but a retired and happy amateur.

[Bloomsbury Bud]

Thanks Rick, that obviously took you both time and care to produce, its sincerely appreciated. I will take a look at the MacDonald v Dextra.

As for whether this will move my current position (i.e. I think the race has been run) will take me a few days to consider, I like to be pursuaded and reasoaned into changing my opinion.

Again, thanks for the reply.

Allan

[RickMcD]

Thanks Rick, that obviously took you both time and care to produce, its sincerely appreciated. I will take a look at the MacDonald v Dextra.

As for whether this will move my current position (i.e. I think the race has been run) will take me a few days to consider, I like to be pursuaded and reasoaned into changing my opinion.

Again, thanks for the reply.

Allan

It didn't take me long to think about but typing with one finger does. I use quite a lot of bad words when I'm typing.

I think the Revenue will appeal but in many ways I'd like them to so I suppose it colours my judgment a bit. There's no point throwing good money after bad but the precedent point might just tempt them. They're not good losers.

[Guest somner9]

Charlie Green set for big press conference at 4:00pm today to reveal the re-branding of Greyskull???????

Tah-Dah!!!!!!!!

Welcome to

"THE 50% OFF, CLEARANCE SHELL SUIT ARENA"

[davidg]

Bawbags talking about boycotting their cup tie away to Dundee United. Don't they know they get half the money?

[buddiecat]

Bawbags talking about boycotting their cup tie away to Dundee United. Don't they know they get half the money?

haha they don't know anything do they, but shhh don't tell them.

biggest shock of the day was them getting drawn away from home - must be to save on the undersoil heating and hot water in the bogs

[shull]

Pat Bonner - Green Vermin Tadger

If we were a sectarian team funded by bigot f**kwits, we'd be top of the league tae.

Shite goalie.

[davidg]

haha they don't know anything do they, but shhh don't tell them.

biggest shock of the day was them getting drawn away from home - must be to save on the undersoil heating and hot water in the bogs

I hope Dundee United take them to a replay before beating them. This way they will get half of the Ibrox gate

[scottd]

HMRC plan to appeal tax case verdict. Still some mileage in this one by the look of it.

[shull]

HMRC plan to appeal tax case verdict. Still some mileage in this one by the look of it.

Great news !

Go get the Blue Vermin cheating cnuts !

[bluto]

Just read this great line in the The Scottish Football Monitor:

They just don’t do irony – People on RM now complaining about HMRC wasting their taxes on an appeal!

[Kendo]

Rangers BOD have decided not to take their ticket allocation for Tanadice.