The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[Tasavallan]

I think you are wrong Geoff

HMRC now are owed the tax by the individuals- they are incredibly clear on this matter

Tax affairs are the responsibility of the individual involved, NOT the employer.

I was wrongly tax coded by an employer for 6 months - it was me who was hammered.

My accountant screwed uo something else- I had to pay it back

There is nothing absolves you of responsibility for your tax affairs

Hence why the Jimmy Cars etc have to fork out- not their advisers

 

That is how I read it.   HMRC will now go after the individuals to get their unpaid EBT tax paid.  This has nothing to do with Oldco or Newco.,

[Unknown user]

I think you are wrong Geoff

HMRC now are owed the tax by the individuals- they are incredibly clear on this matter

Tax affairs are the responsibility of the individual involved, NOT the employer.

I was wrongly tax coded by an employer for 6 months - it was me who was hammered.

My accountant screwed uo something else- I had to pay it back

There is nothing absolves you of responsibility for your tax affairs

Hence why the Jimmy Cars etc have to fork out- not their advisers

This was discussed earlier, I was told that the tax is payable by the employer, it's deemed to be an amount on top of what the players were paid, not a portion of what they were paid. It makes sense, otherwise, how can old rangers have this larger tax liability now?

[busby1985]

Valuing Ibrox at ?62 million or what ever could turn out to be a very silly move.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

I wouldn't say that Geoff. If the sale of the assets for ?5M to Sevco is found to be fraudulent, surely it would be void and the assets go to the highest bidder? This would ensure a bigger pot for the creditors of the old club which means more money for HMRC and possibly a new landlord for Sevco.

Only if BDO try and overturn the sale. I very much doubt that will happen.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I think you are wrong Geoff

HMRC now are owed the tax by the individuals- they are incredibly clear on this matter

Tax affairs are the responsibility of the individual involved, NOT the employer.

I was wrongly tax coded by an employer for 6 months - it was me who was hammered.

My accountant screwed uo something else- I had to pay it back

There is nothing absolves you of responsibility for your tax affairs

Hence why the Jimmy Cars etc have to fork out- not their advisers

 

If that were the case why was it only Rangers who were in the dock and not everybody who received an EBT, surely HMRC would need to establish that every single individual who received an EBT was due HMRC tax on that EBT so surely everybody who got an EBT should have been in the dock as well.

 

My ex-employer took tax & NI from my wages but didn't pay that money to HMRC, I wasn't pursued for this money by HMRC, my ex-employer was, could not the recipients of the EBT's claim that they thought any tax had already been taken off at source, that is why HMRC would need to establish that the EBT recipients are liable but it's only Rangers Oldco who have been found liable.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Stuart Lyon]

 

Alex Thomson on twitter about an hour ago.

 

Be interesting to see the reply he gets

Edited November 5, 2015 by Stuart Lyon

[jambovambo]

Alex Thomson.png

 

Alex Thomson on twitter about an hour ago.

 

Be interesting to see the reply he gets

Edited November 5, 2015 by jambovambo

[Stuart Lyon]

SPFL reply to Alex Thomson just on twitter

 

"It would take time to carefully consider this lengthy and complex judgement" usual crap from them.

[Rudolf]

Only if BDO try and overturn the sale. I very much doubt that will happen.

It's still a risk though and that was my point.

[The Don]

Is HMRC still fighting this case just so they can legally continue their policy of pursuing mis-users of EBTs for lost tax revenue or do they have any chance of actually getting any money from Oldco, Sevco or any individuals involved?

What I want to know really is can this hurt Sevco in any way?

HMRC said in their statement they firmly believe there is more money to be had. Now they could have just meant that their share increases however it's my strong opinion they believe there is money hiding that the liquidation was not carried out to its fullest. That's why I said previously we will know s lot more about Hectors hand once legal cases are finished and we have verdicts or what evidence is to come out of the trials.

 

It can hurt Sevco immensely if the sale of Ibrox, the car park and Murray Park are deemed illegal and it is ruled that these must be returned to liquidators for sale of true value. Ashley has security of these he would then maybe call in monies owed to him that's just one possible scenario there are multitudes of scenarios that could happen and the vast majority are not good for Sevco.

 

The thing is this is likely to go on for a very long time, certainly enough time to maybe allow Sevco to rebuild properly and then have enough income or money aside to cover any losses it could make out if any scenario happening.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hagar the Horrible]

It's possible but I wouldn't hold your breath irrespective of the Green and Whyte cases.

2 things Geoff,  I think and only think, that those still domiciled in the UK, the Oldco will be hit first and then the clients???

 

Also the court case might find that Fraudco in not a newco but the oldco is the sameco and a pheonixco then they will become feckedco

[Rudolf's Mate]

They can try but there's nothing to stop those players saying "yeah, I'm paying it back in 30 years, thanks for calling"

 

 

Not so. 

 

HMRC will make contact with all individuals who benefited asking for full payment. It will then be up to the individuals to make an offer to HMRC which will be considered. If it's paying it back in full over 3-5 years they might just accept that. Theyt'll also be open to accepting an up front lump sum as full and final settlement. What they won't accept it someone taking the piss saying we'll pay back a pittance over 10+ years or a derisory offer.

 

The end result is should HMRC refuse any offer they'll take the individual to court and go after assets. 

[The Don]

I think you are wrong Geoff

HMRC now are owed the tax by the individuals- they are incredibly clear on this matter

Tax affairs are the responsibility of the individual involved, NOT the employer.

I was wrongly tax coded by an employer for 6 months - it was me who was hammered.

My accountant screwed uo something else- I had to pay it back

There is nothing absolves you of responsibility for your tax affairs

Hence why the Jimmy Cars etc have to fork out- not their advisers

 

 

Not correct. The judgment by the 3 Lords yesterday in court stated the opposite.

 

 

The judgement ends: "We accordingly conclude that the primary argument presented for HMRC is correct: the payments made by the respondents to the Trustee of the Principal Trust in respect of employees were emoluments or earnings and are accordingly subject to income tax.

"Furthermore, those payments were made at the time of payment to the trustee of the Principal Trust, with the result that the obligation to deduct tax under the PAYE system fell on the employer who made such a payment."

[doctor jambo]

If that were the case why was it only Rangers who were in the dock and not everybody who received an EBT, surely HMRC would need to establish that every single individual who received an EBT was due HMRC tax on that EBT so surely everybody who got an EBT should have been in the dock as well.

 

My ex-employer took tax & NI from my wages but didn't pay that money to HMRC, I wasn't pursued for this money by HMRC, my ex-employer was, could not the recipients of the EBT's claim that they thought any tax had already been taken off at source, that is why HMRC would need to establish that the EBT recipients are liable but it's only Rangers Oldco who have been found liable.

They did not pursue YOU because you did not ever receive the money. The tax was taken off you then not passed on.

Remember these are LOANS that were not subject to tax- but have now been deemed income subject to PAYE and NI and employers NI .

And ignorance is no excuse on the part of the players- "I thought it was taxed"- erm no. Where are your statements?

Remember in these matters you need to prove your innocence NOT the other way around now- and following to change to the rules HMRC take the money then you have to prove you don't owe it to get it back

[flecktimus]

alex thomson ?@alextomo  14 mins14 minutes ago

Am asking SFA if Campbell Ogilvie will now pay the tax owed on his EBT and if he is considering his position as pres of SFA

[Boris]

 

alex thomson ?@alextomo  14 mins14 minutes ago

Am asking SFA if Campbell Ogilvie will now pay the tax owed on his EBT and if he is considering his position as pres of SFA

 

 

Shameful that Alex Thomson is the only journalist asking these sorts of questions.

 

Mark Daly gives it that he's the bigshot investigative journalist, why isn't he asking the same thing?

 

Our our press? (don't laugh now...)

[Jambo-Jimbo]

They did not pursue YOU because you did not ever receive the money. The tax was taken off you then not passed on.

Remember these are LOANS that were not subject to tax- but have now been deemed income subject to PAYE and NI and employers NI .

And ignorance is no excuse on the part of the players- "I thought it was taxed"- erm no. Where are your statements?

Remember in these matters you need to prove your innocence NOT the other way around now- and following to change to the rules HMRC take the money then you have to prove you don't owe it to get it back

 

It has only just been proved that the EBT's were not loans but extra wages payments so everybody up until yesterday could quite legitimately say it was a loan because that's what it was until yesterday's ruling.

PAYE are the responsibility of the employer not the employee hence the ruling by the Law Lords yesterday.

"Furthermore, those payments were made at the time of payment to the trustee of the Principal Trust, with the result that the obligation to deduct tax under the PAYE system fell on the employer who made such a payment."

[SUTOL]

They did not pursue YOU because you did not ever receive the money. The tax was taken off you then not passed on.

Remember these are LOANS that were not subject to tax- but have now been deemed income subject to PAYE and NI and employers NI .

And ignorance is no excuse on the part of the players- "I thought it was taxed"- erm no. Where are your statements?

Remember in these matters you need to prove your innocence NOT the other way around now- and following to change to the rules HMRC take the money then you have to prove you don't owe it to get it back

The way an EBT is set up is that it is a discretionary payment to an individual.

The way Rangers ran them it was part of contractual pay.

 

So what needs cleared up is if the employer told the employee they had deducted tax at source or not.

 

I wonder what is in the side letters?

[Unknown user]

The way an EBT is set up is that it is a discretionary payment to an individual.

The way Rangers ran them it was part of contractual pay.

 

So what needs cleared up is if the employer told the employee they had deducted tax at source or not.

 

I wonder what is in the side letters?

It doesn't really matter, the judge has ruled that oldco are liable.

That's why the amount oldco owe to HMRC has gone up since the ruling

[doctor jambo]

Not correct. The judgment by the 3 Lords yesterday in court stated the opposite.

Simples.

Remember that Rangers oldco still exist.

Oldco liquidators can recall the loans from the players and then take the tax off it and NI then hand the dosh to HMRC, so the players will see half of it, and rangers cover their liability ( apart from the fines and interest that I suspect will be waived)

[Unknown user]

Simples.

Remember that Rangers oldco still exist.

Oldco liquidators can recall the loans from the players and then take the tax off it and NI then hand the dosh to HMRC, so the players will see half of it, and rangers cover their liability ( apart from the fines and interest that I suspect will be waived)

Do the liquidators have the legal right to recall the loans? They don't have any power over the trustees of the EBT schemes do they?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Do the liquidators have the legal right to recall the loans? They don't have any power over the trustees of the EBT schemes do they?

Correct

[reaths17]

Simples.

Remember that Rangers oldco still exist.

Oldco liquidators can recall the loans from the players and then take the tax off it and NI then hand the dosh to HMRC, so the players will see half of it, and rangers cover their liability ( apart from the fines and interest that I suspect will be waived)

your not quite getting it.

 

the ruling stated that payments made into the trust were wages and were taxable at the point of being paid into the trust, so they were never loans to start with, they were always remuneration for services "wages" and were never loans.

[The Don]

Simples.

Remember that Rangers oldco still exist.

Oldco liquidators can recall the loans from the players and then take the tax off it and NI then hand the dosh to HMRC, so the players will see half of it, and rangers cover their liability ( apart from the fines and interest that I suspect will be waived)

No as quoted several times the ruling clearly lays blame at employer not with the player. It's in black and white, yesterday's verdict overrules any previous judgement.

 

What HMRC and will do is go after the employer in this case DM and his groups.

 

Someone put figures up earlier on how HMRC will look at payments. If a player received ?600,000 then HMRC would look at that as a payment made of ?1,000,000 and look to recoup ?400,000 from David Murray and the employer. Not the individuals.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jambovambo]

alex thomson ?@alextomo 47m47 minutes ago

Aha - seems C Ogilvie left SFA in June. Still like to know tho.

[Mysterion]

Here's the thing - it all comes down to whether or not they broke any rules that they are required to comply with by the association in terms of putting players on the pitch.

 

I reckon this is how they (the Associations) will focus on things going forward and shutdown any demand for justice etc citing LNS as clearing things.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Mysterion

[jambovambo]

View From Gorgie chips in : http://viewfromgorgie.co.uk/index.php/articles/youngy-s-view/14-strip-tease

[reaths17]

Here's the thing - it all comes down to whether or not they broke any rules that they are required to comply with by the association in terms of putting players on the pitch.

 

I reckon this is how they (the Associations) will focus on things going forward and shutdown any demand for justice etc citing LNS as clearing things.

LNS was flawed because of what was known at the time. rangers payments were deemed as fine as per the court rulings in rangers favour at that time, which said as these payments were legal it was open for all teams to abuse it if they so wished, now that it has been found to be illegal to avoid tax in this way the LNS ruling is void, now under the ruling it would be deemed illegal to take part in the scheme rangers had going.

 

rangers were initial fined for not inform the SFA/SPL that they were using this separate from wages scheme to enhance their players wages, so that was considered an administration error, rather than cheating. now that its deemed illegal, its a whole new ballgame, it seems pretty plain to me, they were using the scheme to hire players out of their and everybody else in the leagues reach by illegally abusing the tax system of the time to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else.

Edited November 5, 2015 by reaths17

[Deevers]

LNS was flawed because of what was known at the time. rangers payments were deemed as fine as per the court rulings in rangers favour at that time, which said as these payments were legal it was open for all teams to abuse it if they so wished, now that it has been found to be illegal to avoid tax in this way the LNS ruling is void, now under the ruling it would be deemed illegal to take part in the scheme rangers had going.rangers were initial fined for not inform the SFA/SPL that they were using this separate from wages scheme to enhance their players wages, so that was considered an administration error, rather than cheating. now that its deemed illegal, its a whole new ballgame, it seems pretty plain to me, they were using the scheme to hire players out of their and everybody else in the leagues reach by illegally abusing the tax system of the time to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else.

y

 

 

Seems to me that this whole issue should be revisited - there are considerable matters of "sporting integrity " to be addressed as well as the financial losses to other teams as a result of this now very apparent cheating over a considerable period of time. For the SFA not to do this would open another can of worms as far as they are concerned with big question marks about their integrity.

[reaths17]

y

 

 

Seems to me that this whole issue should be revisited - there are considerable matters of "sporting integrity " to be addressed as well as the financial losses to other teams as a result of this now very apparent cheating over a considerable period of time. For the SFA not to do this would open another can of worms as far as they are concerned with big question marks about their integrity.

murray set out from the beginning to infiltrate the ruling bodies/media with good rangers men and succeeded.

 

unfortunately, those current and in the last 20 years will never regain their integrity, current ones may gain a little of their dignity back by resigning immediately after they sort this mess out properly but as they have no integrity that's highly unlikely.

[Jammy T]

The SFA and SPFL consider Sevco and Oldco to be the same 'club' don't they?

 

Can't it now be categorically stated that this 'club' has brought the game into disprepute by grand scale tax dodging alone irrespective of the sporting integrity point.

 

I look forward to this 'club' being charged.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Jammy T

[The Don]

View From Gorgie chips in : http://viewfromgorgie.co.uk/index.php/articles/youngy-s-view/14-strip-tease

 

 

Good blog.

 

As mentioned they keep claiming they are the same club, BUT not only that they held onto the history including all the title wins and cup wins during this time, so unless they now want to hand back the history (which would be their entire history) and claim themselves as an entirely new club with no major honours then they are bang to rights. They won those titles whilst cheating so therefore have to be punished as they claim it is their history.

 

IMO there is no getting away from the fact they cheated, there has to be punishment, It may be time to start reviving the fan bases and start emailing our clubs as all fans did before, because I believe the SFA and SPFL will try everything at their disposal to wriggle themselves and sevco out of this without punishment

[OmiyaHearts]

Good blog.

 

As mentioned they keep claiming they are the same club, BUT not only that they held onto the history including all the title wins and cup wins during this time, so unless they now want to hand back the history (which would be their entire history) and claim themselves as an entirely new club with no major honours then they are bang to rights. They won those titles whilst cheating so therefore have to be punished as they claim it is their history.

 

IMO there is no getting away from the fact they cheated, there has to be punishment, It may be time to start reviving the fan bases and start emailing our clubs as all fans did before, because I believe the SFA and SPFL will try everything at their disposal to wriggle themselves and sevco out of this without punishment

They seem to get around it by claiming that it was the company who ran the club who were liquidated.

[The Don]

They seem to get around it by claiming that it was the company who ran the club who were liquidated.

 

Thats been the excuse of the past however they can no longer use that excuse under these circumstances.

 

If they want the history they have to accept they cheated and take the deserved punishment. The Clubs history not any of the companies is what is at stake here. The cheating ties in with the honours they won. Their only way to avoid punishment would be to make a statement claiming they have nothing to do with their history, they are a completely new and different club with NO history. which they cant and won't do. 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

I now need our new owner (who I love) to stand up and be counted. I want her to do what she and every non OF fan in this country knows is right and call out Newco and the idiots running and ruining our game.

This charade needs to end.

[Unknown user]

A couple of weeks ago King, and many others of a Rangers ilk, were keen on resurrecting oldco, now oldco are of no relevance or interest at all and are completely unrelated.

 

Weird that eh?

[...a bit disco]

Cheer up Billy Dodds,

 

Oh what can it mean,

 

To owe sooo much money,

 

To your beloved Queen.

[Hagar the Horrible]

Can anybody explain how Phil loadsanames, never predicted this from his wealth of reliable sources?  How come he never used his knowlege of invesigative prowess, by using their full names in other words  Lord Carloway  as Mr Colin John Maclean Sutherland? 

 

 

I got that reliable info from an inside source, I cant name him but his alias and code name is Google!!!!

[Maroon tinted glasses 2]

Hold on, was part of the 5 way agreement (for newco to take the footballing license from oldco) not that all "Footballing debt" be paid up?

 

So in my simple approach does NI, Tax and Employers tax that should have been paid by oldco on behalf of the players (who played football for oldco) then not count as a footballing debt and therefor as per the agreement now be covered by newco?

[Jodami]

I now need our new owner (who I love) to stand up and be counted. I want her to do what she and every non OF fan in this country knows is right and call out Newco and the idiots running and ruining our game.

This charade needs to end.

She won't and she is sensible not to. Funny as I find the ongoing omnishambles at Rangers and the founding father Charles Green's The Rangers she is way too classy to get involved and our recent past is not exactly squeaky clean either. I actually think she is too busy on the plans for our future, hopefully with news of a new stand before the end of the year, to be bothered about any other Scottish club.

[Rudolf's Mate]

I appreciate that the courts have stated in black and white where the fault lies. That said I thought this differed because oldco didn't make any deductions in respect of PAYE and it was the employee who directly benefited. Someone with more knowledge will no doubt know.

[Hungry hippo]

Hold on, was part of the 5 way agreement (for newco to take the footballing license from oldco) not that all "Footballing debt" be paid up?

 

So in my simple approach does NI, Tax and Employers tax that should have been paid by oldco on behalf of the players (who played football for oldco) then not count as a footballing debt and therefor as per the agreement now be covered by newco?

Tax isn't counted as football debt. Hearts weren't made to pay the money which was due to HMRC after it was written off via the CVA.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

They seem to get around it by claiming that it was the company who ran the club who were liquidated.

 

However the counter argument is that it was the "club" who played the games with what was now Illegal players and it's the "clubs" name which is on the trophies not the company that owned the club.

 

Rangers, their fans and the football authorities only want to separate "club" from "company" when it suits them or when the question of titles being stripped from them comes up, the rest of the time they are all happy to refer to Rangers as being the same club as before.

 

Well as it was the same Rangers who won those trophies whilst playing Illegal players the sanctions must apply to the "club" and not the company which owned them, surely.

[jambovambo]

Ken McColl ?@kenmccoll 17m17 minutes ago

Had to be done @WingsScotland

 

[JamboAl]

They can try but there's nothing to stop those players saying"yeah, I'm paying it back in 30 years, thanks for calling"

I don't know where you got that idea from.

[reaths17]

She won't and she is sensible not to. Funny as I find the ongoing omnishambles at Rangers and the founding father Charles Green's The Rangers she is way too classy to get involved and our recent past is not exactly squeaky clean either. I actually think she is too busy on the plans for our future, hopefully with news of a new stand before the end of the year, to be bothered about any other Scottish club.

your really trying to compare us to the cheating huns, getting into debt trying to compete is totally different from cheating the system to win.

 

if we as hearts supporters require justice then as our club representative ann budgie should get involved, unless of course your saying that we as a club and ann as a person should have no association with integrity and fair play.

[maroonlegions]

 A list of clubs who missed out on potential Euro pay days due to Rangers strengthening their squad via EBTs.

 

 

[JamboAl]

It has only just been proved that the EBT's were not loans but extra wages payments so everybody up until yesterday could quite legitimately say it was a loan because that's what it was until yesterday's ruling.

PAYE are the responsibility of the employer not the employee hence the ruling by the Law Lords yesterday.

"Furthermore, those payments were made at the time of payment to the trustee of the Principal Trust, with the result that the obligation to deduct tax under the PAYE system fell on the employer who made such a payment."

The highlighted part is fine insofar as it goes bearing in mind only the employer "was in the dock".  It could have gone on to say  "In the event that tax cannot be got from the employer HMRC may choose to seek payment from those who benefitted from these untaxed salaries".

A couple of points may delay or cloud the issue.  Firstly can HMRC get a bigger share of Oldco ashes enough to satisfy the debt or can the sale of Oldco assets now be deemed to be illegal or otherwise fraudulent.

I suspect HMRC will go after the beneficiaries because despite the employer's failure it is without doubt they gained pecuniary advantage from these payments which I understand were included in discussing contract terms.

 

PS  If HMRC do not chase the beneficiaries just think of this scenario.  If Mr A was MD of a company and paid his employees ?100k each without deducting tax and then went into liquidation with no business or personal assets of any value, would HMRC just say to the employees "Oh that's OK.  Your boss has no money".

[Jodami]

your really trying to compare us to the cheating huns, getting into debt trying to compete is totally different from cheating the system to win.

 

if we as hearts supporters require justice then as our club representative ann budgie should get involved, unless of course your saying that we as a club and ann as a person should have no association with integrity and fair play.

Not as cheats no but we were in administration and people lost out. My preference is we concentrate on the present and the future. Channelling our energies into campaigning for retrospective reallocation of titles or trophies is a waste of time and money. If other clubs want to use their resources to do this then that's their prerogative.

If some of our supporters "require justice" as you dramatically put it then they should spend their own time and money pursuing it. 

[reaths17]

Not as cheats no but we were in administration and people lost out. My preference is we concentrate on the present and the future. Channelling our energies into campaigning for retrospective reallocation of titles or trophies is a waste of time and money. If other clubs want to use their resources to do this then that's their prerogative.

If some of our supporters "require justice" as you dramatically put it then they should spend their own time and money pursuing it.

so your saying its acceptable for rangers to cheat and we should just turn a blind eye to it, let lance have his glory and trophies back, give Johnson his gold medals back.

 

sport is meaningless if it condones cheating and the only way to stop it is to be brave enough to highlight it and take the appropriate action, not to shrug your shoulders and say it happens, lets just move along.

 

wow theres a guy just got hit with a car.....aye it happens lets just continue on. a sad way to live, pretending everythings ok rather than facing up to lifes problems.

 

 

you have also devalued every trophy, hearts or any other club has won, your saying that we could all have cheated to win these. as we should sweep the rangers corrupt exploits under the table, who's to say that everyone else didn't cheat as its acceptable and they just didn't get caught.

 

move along nothing to see here.

Edited November 5, 2015 by reaths17