eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
Anything to say on the HMRC multi million-pound Rangers Tax blunder Mr President?
Tax Officials Blamed For Rangers Downfall – HMRC Mistake Wipes Millions From Ibrox Bill (The Times)
- Thread starter ArfieldGer
- Start date
nemessis
Well-Known Member
It's probably the only person who wasn't a mhanky rabid in HMRC involved with
douzpwa
Well-Known Member
Wow means nothing? No you are wrong it means a lot and it will never be too late for any kind of justice!
Ardrossan Loyal
New Member
Probably not, he'll just get demoted like the other mentally challenged that was leaking stuff years ago.
Gheorghe_Hagi
Well-Known Member
I absolutely believe them - I don't think for a single second that they "miscalculated" anything.
Gio#56
Well-Known Member
Posted full article on other thread but snippet from Jackson on the DR article today quotes
"But the news should come as a welcome relief to the long list of EBT recipients who have been told they must only now stump up enough to cover the money the Supreme Court ruled should have been paid in income tax. "
In other words supreme court agrees HMRC were WRONG by near 50M. HMRC miscalculated! End of. Supreme court says so.
"But the news should come as a welcome relief to the long list of EBT recipients who have been told they must only now stump up enough to cover the money the Supreme Court ruled should have been paid in income tax. "
In other words supreme court agrees HMRC were WRONG by near 50M. HMRC miscalculated! End of. Supreme court says so.
DougieJones
Well-Known Member
What we don’t want is this rumbling on throughout the season. I do not want the current players and management team anywhere near this shite. Let’s focus 100% on the league then take our revenge from a position of strength.
Vote For Pedro
Well-Known Member
%^*& these bastards, years of being mocked and laughed at by all and sundry! Media with their moral high ground while they turn a blind eye to Celtic covering up and enabling a pedophile ring in the corridors of Parkhead. Telling us we let our club die when they let their club lie! Yesterday is just another insult for us, the damage is done. I’d like heads to roll, but I doubt that will happen either. We win this fucking title and bring home number 55! Then ram it up ever fucking one of them!
daviemc1872
Well-Known Member
see a proper organisation would never get dragged into something and respond via twitter , reeks of some moron who will get his p45 on his desk today
Gio#56
Well-Known Member
unless declan is the kingpin which would make sense.
Valley Bluenose
RTV? Completed it mate!
The HMRC tweet is the usual play on words and actually refutes nothing. They did win at the Supreme Court. It then says they didn’t miscalculate anything. Didn’t miscalculate anything relating to what? Taking the case to Court? Bear in mind the Court was dealing with only whether tax was due, not with amounts.
Let’s look at the facts we know and ignore, for a moment, The Times story. BDO told Creditors almost A YEAR AGO that HMRC had backed down on their claims, mostly regarding to penalties, to the tune of £26m. That is fact. Are they accusing BDO of lying? Of course they aren’t.
We also know for a fact that BDO are negotiating regarding further reductions. They’ve told us that. This story won’t do them any favours but that’s what is happening. Another pesky fact. It may, or may not, be at the level The Times are suggesting. That remains to be seen.
I’m still perplexed at why the story has ‘broken nearly 12 months after we first learned of this reduction in the HMRC bill.
Let’s look at the facts we know and ignore, for a moment, The Times story. BDO told Creditors almost A YEAR AGO that HMRC had backed down on their claims, mostly regarding to penalties, to the tune of £26m. That is fact. Are they accusing BDO of lying? Of course they aren’t.
We also know for a fact that BDO are negotiating regarding further reductions. They’ve told us that. This story won’t do them any favours but that’s what is happening. Another pesky fact. It may, or may not, be at the level The Times are suggesting. That remains to be seen.
I’m still perplexed at why the story has ‘broken nearly 12 months after we first learned of this reduction in the HMRC bill.
Blue Steel
Well-Known Member
Good post mate , why has it taken so long to run with this ? Maybe waiting to see what BDO and Murray were planning ? Murray sues , headlines etc . Who knows , but dynamite story for the times as both us and mentally challengeds will be all over it .
The Goal Machine
Well-Known Member
Financier: Rangers is fantastic club but we couldn’t buy
Greig Cameron
November 15 2019, 12:01am, The Times
Rangers attracted a lot of interest but its unknown tax bill put buyers off, a financier has saidSNS GROUP
Share
Save
A financier who looked closely at bidding for Rangers before its sale to Craig Whyte has said its tax liability was a “huge concern” for potential buyers and a factor in the decision not to pursue a purchase.
The individual, who is not based in Scotland and spoke to The Times on condition of anonymity, said investors had been extremely worried by the possible size of the bill to be handed down by HM Revenue & Customs.
Sir David Murray had been seeking to offload the club but the possibility of a charge running into the tens of millions of pounds over the use of employee benefit trusts had made it a difficult proposition.
The businessman Craig Whyte bought Rangers for a token £1MARK RUNNACLES/PA
The financier indicated that they were aware of other groups that had looked at Rangers in 2010 and 2011 and said: “It is a fantastic club but the tax situation hanging over it was a huge concern. That was one of the reasons the bid I was involved in did not go forward.”
The Times revealed that up to £50 million could be knocked off the liability owed in relation to the use of employee benefit trusts.
The initial sum HMRC claimed was £74 million, but it was later revised to £68.3 million. About £26 million in charges has already been wiped and appeals over other elements are taking place.
Sources from within the accountancy industry expect that the final bill could be closer to £20 million.
Asked whether a fixed £20 million tax bill would have put investors off, the financier said: “If you have got certainty of something then you can work with it. It would have made life a lot easier for us to get a deal done.”
Greig Cameron
November 15 2019, 12:01am, The Times
Rangers attracted a lot of interest but its unknown tax bill put buyers off, a financier has saidSNS GROUP
Share
Save
A financier who looked closely at bidding for Rangers before its sale to Craig Whyte has said its tax liability was a “huge concern” for potential buyers and a factor in the decision not to pursue a purchase.
The individual, who is not based in Scotland and spoke to The Times on condition of anonymity, said investors had been extremely worried by the possible size of the bill to be handed down by HM Revenue & Customs.
Sir David Murray had been seeking to offload the club but the possibility of a charge running into the tens of millions of pounds over the use of employee benefit trusts had made it a difficult proposition.
The businessman Craig Whyte bought Rangers for a token £1MARK RUNNACLES/PA
The financier indicated that they were aware of other groups that had looked at Rangers in 2010 and 2011 and said: “It is a fantastic club but the tax situation hanging over it was a huge concern. That was one of the reasons the bid I was involved in did not go forward.”
The Times revealed that up to £50 million could be knocked off the liability owed in relation to the use of employee benefit trusts.
The initial sum HMRC claimed was £74 million, but it was later revised to £68.3 million. About £26 million in charges has already been wiped and appeals over other elements are taking place.
Sources from within the accountancy industry expect that the final bill could be closer to £20 million.
Asked whether a fixed £20 million tax bill would have put investors off, the financier said: “If you have got certainty of something then you can work with it. It would have made life a lot easier for us to get a deal done.”
Last edited:
Derek Taylor
New Member
How is this a good thing? Its just a distraction at this point. Focus on the here and now rather than what's been and gone. We're not going to get compensation or anything we still owed millions for dodging tax. It is frustrating but there's more important things now.
Clinton Baptiste
Well-Known Member
I agree, after 7 years there is finally genuine positivity around the club. With the addition of Gerrard it has helped the club shake the poor image of Rangers=money troubles, for years that was the reputation we had.
Subway Bear
Well-Known Member
Waited a day to try to take in as much as possible before commenting. A lot of posters, some new (a lot...) some established who say concentrate on the football, let it go, turn the other cheek and to be fair they have a point, I would rather we won on the park this season than in the courts.
But why cant we do both? This bastardised country of ours has been infiltrated at high levels of office to try and take us down. We have been prodded and poked, our throats cut and what did we do? Showed contrition at every turn. We marched on Hampden to show our strength in public, we supported our club through the journey back, we got on with it, we moved on whilst the others kept trying to find a scab, picking off their bits of flesh, and still we took our medicine. Now? Now this is out and it looks like its eventually being exposed as the massive fraud that it was, F UCK MOVING ON! F UCK BUILDING BRIDGES! I doubt any individual will ever be held to account, but HMRC, SFA, SPFL the Scottish Government, the Procurator Fiscal and every other organisation who had a vested interest in seeing us hamstrung must be exposed publicly across the UK and the sporting world, let them show contrition, let them kneel before us, as we serve justice upon them, and then and only then, maybe we can move forward.
But why cant we do both? This bastardised country of ours has been infiltrated at high levels of office to try and take us down. We have been prodded and poked, our throats cut and what did we do? Showed contrition at every turn. We marched on Hampden to show our strength in public, we supported our club through the journey back, we got on with it, we moved on whilst the others kept trying to find a scab, picking off their bits of flesh, and still we took our medicine. Now? Now this is out and it looks like its eventually being exposed as the massive fraud that it was, F UCK MOVING ON! F UCK BUILDING BRIDGES! I doubt any individual will ever be held to account, but HMRC, SFA, SPFL the Scottish Government, the Procurator Fiscal and every other organisation who had a vested interest in seeing us hamstrung must be exposed publicly across the UK and the sporting world, let them show contrition, let them kneel before us, as we serve justice upon them, and then and only then, maybe we can move forward.
Bucky bear
Active Member
.
could not disagree more
What rangers fan doesn’t want the truth of this too come out.? Years of self appointed experts pontificating nonsense about our team,nonsense that was then reported as fact by media which then made the clubs position worse by scaring away honest investors and drawing vultures and charlatans to almost destroy our club. It may be too late to change things but revealing the truth and naming the promoters of untruths about the club causing what eventually was done to the club won’t give closure on it but let’s not forget the people who made the clubs situation worse by putting falsehoods forward as truth..
dirty_sanshoes
Well-Known Member
Interesting article to publish as a follow up to yesterday. Has a strategic feel about it. More to come I sense... let's hope so.
The Goal Machine
Well-Known Member
Rangers tax case claims give workers hope
Greig Cameron Scottish Business Editor
November 15 2019, 12:01am, The Times
The Times revealed yesterday that Rangers’ former operating company could have £50 million removed from its liabilityJEFF J MITCHELL/GETTY IMAGES
Share
Save
Thousands of self-employed workers battling with the tax authorities hope to see their bills cut after it emerged that millions of pounds in penalties attributed to Rangers had been dropped.
About 50,000 employee benefit trusts (EBTs) were used across the UK as a way for individuals and companies to avoid paying income tax and national insurance. The schemes were first thought to be legal but were later ruled to be disguised remuneration. That gave MR Revenue & Customs the opportunity to pursue cases running back to 1999.
The Times reported yesterday that the former Rangers operating company could have up to £50 million wiped off its liability. Some £26 million in charges has already been dropped and appeals over other elements have started.
EBTs were not only used in football or to help highly paid executives minimise tax on bonuses. Agency nurses and other health professionals as well as oil and gas workers, people in IT and consultants have been affected. Some of them had been ordered to sign up to the schemes by the companies that employed them, or were advised to do so by accountancy firms.
Andy Chamberlain, deputy director at IPSE, the trade association representing independent professionals and the self-employed, said: “This revelation about Rangers will raise further concern about HMRC’s ability to fairly implement what is already a highly controversial and, to some, devastating policy.
“People are already extremely concerned and are being hit by life-changing fines. There will now be questions over whether those fines have been correctly calculated and can we trust HMRC to get those calculations correct.”
HMRC began pursuing repayments in 2016 with estimates suggesting it was looking to claw back more than £3 billion from freelance workers.
Anyone who had not responded to settle their arrangements by April this year faced an additional penalty called a loan charge that effectively required them to pay up to 20 years of back tax in one financial year. A review into that has been ordered by the UK government led by Sir Amyas Morse, the former auditor-general, but the results will not be published until after the general election.
However, a deadline of January 31 next year is in place for declarations under the loan charge. Politicians, trade bodies and campaign groups want that to be extended.
Colin Borland, head of devolved nations at the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “The loan charge debacle has caused real problems for thousands of moderately paid individuals, many of whom had been encouraged to sign up to schemes by trusted financial advisers.
“The Morse review will hopefully lead to some concrete recommendations to prevent a similarly unsatisfactory situation arising again, though we were disappointed this important report was delayed by the general election.
“Intuitively, retrospective rule changes don’t seem fair. And if there was a risk of this outcome, you would have hoped that action could have been taken to prevent these schemes being promoted to those without specialist financial knowledge.”
Mr Chamberlain said: “We have called for the deadline to be pushed back further for the new government coming in after the election to consider the review, respond to it and explain to the people affected what the outcomes are. I don’t think there is going to be sufficient time to do that.”
Sir David Murray, the former Rangers owner, has in the past said that the unknown size of the tax liability relating to EBTs had made it extremely difficult to sell the club.
The scheme was introduced under his tenure in 2001 and ran through to 2010. Rangers was eventually bought for a token £1 by the businessman Craig Whyte in 2011.
Mr Whyte paid off £18 million of bank debt although it later emerged that he had done that by using loans based on future season ticket sales. Mr Whyte was declared bankrupt in 2015 and has been banned from being a company director.
The Rangers Football Club PLC was put into administration in February 2012 as a result of failure to pay PAYE and VAT while Mr Whyte was the majority shareholder.
A senior taxation industry source said: “You would imagine something like this Rangers story will have an impact as people try to negotiate and settle their tax bills with HMRC.”
An HMRC spokesman said: “Our policy towards penalties on disguised remuneration schemes is unchanged. Each case is treated on the facts.”
Greig Cameron Scottish Business Editor
November 15 2019, 12:01am, The Times
The Times revealed yesterday that Rangers’ former operating company could have £50 million removed from its liabilityJEFF J MITCHELL/GETTY IMAGES
Share
Save
Thousands of self-employed workers battling with the tax authorities hope to see their bills cut after it emerged that millions of pounds in penalties attributed to Rangers had been dropped.
About 50,000 employee benefit trusts (EBTs) were used across the UK as a way for individuals and companies to avoid paying income tax and national insurance. The schemes were first thought to be legal but were later ruled to be disguised remuneration. That gave MR Revenue & Customs the opportunity to pursue cases running back to 1999.
The Times reported yesterday that the former Rangers operating company could have up to £50 million wiped off its liability. Some £26 million in charges has already been dropped and appeals over other elements have started.
EBTs were not only used in football or to help highly paid executives minimise tax on bonuses. Agency nurses and other health professionals as well as oil and gas workers, people in IT and consultants have been affected. Some of them had been ordered to sign up to the schemes by the companies that employed them, or were advised to do so by accountancy firms.
Andy Chamberlain, deputy director at IPSE, the trade association representing independent professionals and the self-employed, said: “This revelation about Rangers will raise further concern about HMRC’s ability to fairly implement what is already a highly controversial and, to some, devastating policy.
“People are already extremely concerned and are being hit by life-changing fines. There will now be questions over whether those fines have been correctly calculated and can we trust HMRC to get those calculations correct.”
HMRC began pursuing repayments in 2016 with estimates suggesting it was looking to claw back more than £3 billion from freelance workers.
Anyone who had not responded to settle their arrangements by April this year faced an additional penalty called a loan charge that effectively required them to pay up to 20 years of back tax in one financial year. A review into that has been ordered by the UK government led by Sir Amyas Morse, the former auditor-general, but the results will not be published until after the general election.
However, a deadline of January 31 next year is in place for declarations under the loan charge. Politicians, trade bodies and campaign groups want that to be extended.
Colin Borland, head of devolved nations at the Federation of Small Businesses, said: “The loan charge debacle has caused real problems for thousands of moderately paid individuals, many of whom had been encouraged to sign up to schemes by trusted financial advisers.
“The Morse review will hopefully lead to some concrete recommendations to prevent a similarly unsatisfactory situation arising again, though we were disappointed this important report was delayed by the general election.
“Intuitively, retrospective rule changes don’t seem fair. And if there was a risk of this outcome, you would have hoped that action could have been taken to prevent these schemes being promoted to those without specialist financial knowledge.”
Mr Chamberlain said: “We have called for the deadline to be pushed back further for the new government coming in after the election to consider the review, respond to it and explain to the people affected what the outcomes are. I don’t think there is going to be sufficient time to do that.”
Sir David Murray, the former Rangers owner, has in the past said that the unknown size of the tax liability relating to EBTs had made it extremely difficult to sell the club.
The scheme was introduced under his tenure in 2001 and ran through to 2010. Rangers was eventually bought for a token £1 by the businessman Craig Whyte in 2011.
Mr Whyte paid off £18 million of bank debt although it later emerged that he had done that by using loans based on future season ticket sales. Mr Whyte was declared bankrupt in 2015 and has been banned from being a company director.
The Rangers Football Club PLC was put into administration in February 2012 as a result of failure to pay PAYE and VAT while Mr Whyte was the majority shareholder.
A senior taxation industry source said: “You would imagine something like this Rangers story will have an impact as people try to negotiate and settle their tax bills with HMRC.”
An HMRC spokesman said: “Our policy towards penalties on disguised remuneration schemes is unchanged. Each case is treated on the facts.”
Vote For Pedro
Well-Known Member
Not not a good thing. It shows how shafted we were and your use of the term “dodging tax” is questionable for a new member who in the same post us telling us to forget it and move on. I’m not one for calling others out, there’s plenty on here who will but I cannot let that go!
That thread is very interesting and looks like Vine is going to cover the story along with the wider story of the loan charge which has come off the back of it.
@David Edgar is there any chance you could get on the show and speak about the impact this has had?
Last edited:
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
It's a not-so-clever play on words. What they'll say is that they didn't miscalculate. The amount if income tax owed was correctly calculated. It's simply that they applied penalties on top of that, which they are now admitting do not apply.
If the penalties applied, presumably the amount of the penalties would be what they have worked out against the amount owed.
Potayto, potahto, but you can see how they're trying to unsuccessfully wriggle off the hook with semantics.
It wasn't the calculations that were wrong, it was the application of penalties.
frankfurterbear1
Well-Known Member
This miscalculation just happened to make them the biggest creditor which could dictate many aspects ..
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
No, they would have been the biggest creditor come the time of the CVA anyway - that was a completely separate thing.
The point with this news is that if they'd given us an accurate bill in the first place (rumoured circa £20m) then the club could've found a buyer other than Whyte and never have fallen into admin in the first place, making the whole creditor aspect irrelevant.
The Huguenot
Well-Known Member
Had calmed down, then watched Peter Martin, Tam Cowan and Alan Rough lecture Rangers supporters to 'move on' and 'that this has nothing to do with Scottish football'. Their condescending attitude had me raging and plenty of good bears made their feelings clear in the comments.
This is still unexplained. Cant help but think it's a complete non story
Lenzie Loyal
Well-Known Member
Sounds like something you'd expect to read on Kerrydale St.
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
I think the tweet from JM QC seems to capture the crux of things fairly succinctly:
If I'm reading it correctly, we were hit with a bill for:
£36.6m - unpaid tax
£24m - Penalties
£12m - Interest
£72.2m - Total
The £24m has already been wiped out (old news)
The £36.6m is being challenged (currently being appealed) and the suggestion is that it may come down to £20m - which HMRC are obviously contesting.
If successful, then obviously the £12m interest will drop massively too.
While I'm not sure there is any particular new info in terms of anything confirmed, I suspect The Times has been given some kind of heads up on a result of the appeal coming soon, which has had them jump to the action of kickstarting commentary around the £20m figure to be first in the queue.
Going to John McClelland for his views reads to me like they've got someone feeding them vibes that this is going in our favour and ultimately we'll see that the initial bill was significantly overstated - which was obviously a key factor in how events then unfolded.
Now, whether any of that proves to be correct in terms of the result, etc remains to be seen. The media get it wrong as often as right. However, I can see why they might jump in there now, with the outcome of the appeal pending and a new BDO report due relatively soon too.
Disclaimer - I could be getting every bit of the above wildly wrong! Just what I am gleaning from the bits and pieces posted.
John Dalrymple
Well-Known Member
Why haven't RANGERS put out a statement...
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
Because it concerns the Oldco and liquidators. Until the facts are clear and outcomes finalised, there is nothing for our current board to give any real input on without risking dragging themselves into a public mess.
Lenzie Loyal
Well-Known Member
Timing.
frankfurterbear1
Well-Known Member
Absolutely, but by inflating what was owed they were the biggest stakeholder, King would have lost more, debenture holders as well.
douzpwa
Well-Known Member
I would say not an error but a calculated act by some bitter cnut! They knew they were going to take this the whole road so would have checked to make sure their own case was watertight therefore my only conclusion is they knew exactly what they were doing and deliberately inflated their figures!
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
All of that goes back to the crux. Anything creditors are actually owed will come out in the wash and ultimately as long as HMRC had enough to vote against the CVA and stop it, then the percentages to the rest are irrelevant until the actual final figures are announced and agreed. Creditors will get what they are legally due in the end and HMRC's inflation won't matter.
Nothing back then at that point makes a difference.
All the key aspects are prior to Whyte ever getting his hands on the club.
Gio#56
Well-Known Member
media spin is in full drive with sky now saying
"The tax authority would have had to instigate fresh legal action to enforce the £24m penalties, but with little money in the pot for creditors, it did not challenge BDO's assertion. "
yet we are a test case. And there is money left in the pot. Hence why BDO have enough to take to court. They dropped the penalties because they would NOT WIN in a court of law. SIMPLES
The tax due has now proven to be lawful. The penalties they used to generate their figures - unchallenged due to the fact HMRC do not want to take to court, lol.
How much is left in the pot, anyone have Junes latest from BDO to quote?
Also have we not already won our first challenge on penaltys after the Penalty Review Consistency Panel acted in BDOs favour?
"The tax authority would have had to instigate fresh legal action to enforce the £24m penalties, but with little money in the pot for creditors, it did not challenge BDO's assertion. "
yet we are a test case. And there is money left in the pot. Hence why BDO have enough to take to court. They dropped the penalties because they would NOT WIN in a court of law. SIMPLES
The tax due has now proven to be lawful. The penalties they used to generate their figures - unchallenged due to the fact HMRC do not want to take to court, lol.
How much is left in the pot, anyone have Junes latest from BDO to quote?
Also have we not already won our first challenge on penaltys after the Penalty Review Consistency Panel acted in BDOs favour?
Last edited:
Because there will be about a million and one legalities to this and the club needs to make sure that, when they do speak, they are saying the right things.
Last edited:
Valley Bluenose
RTV? Completed it mate!
I think the tweet from JM QC seems to capture the crux of things fairly succinctly:
If I'm reading it correctly, we were hit with a bill for:
£36.6m - unpaid tax
£24m - Penalties
£12m - Interest
£72.2m - Total
The £24m has already been wiped out (old news)
The £36.6m is being challenged (currently being appealed) and the suggestion is that it may come down to £20m - which HMRC are obviously contesting.
If successful, then obviously the £12m interest will drop massively too.
While I'm not sure there is any particular new info in terms of anything confirmed, I suspect The Times has been given some kind of heads up on a result of the appeal coming soon, which has had them jump to the action of kickstarting commentary around the £20m figure to be first in the queue.
Going to John McClelland for his views reads to me like they've got someone feeding them vibes that this is going in our favour and ultimately we'll see that the initial bill was significantly overstated - which was obviously a key factor in how events then unfolded.
Now, whether any of that proves to be correct in terms of the result, etc remains to be seen. The media get it wrong as often as right. However, I can see why they might jump in there now, with the outcome of the appeal pending and a new BDO report due relatively soon too.
Disclaimer - I could be getting every bit of the above wildly wrong! Just what I am gleaning from the bits and pieces posted.
The total HMRC bill stood at circa £94m mate (£74m being the Big Tax Case). They agreed (as confirmed in the BDO report to Creditors last December) to reduce that £74m by circa £24m in penalties plus another circa £2m on other discrepancies. A total of £26m.
The effect on the total HMRC claim was to reduce it from circa £94m to £68.3m.
BDO also stated they remained in discussion over the ‘principal element’ of the Big Tax Case as it had been calculated on a ‘grossing up’ basis, with ‘further representations to be made’ on this matter as they believe it should not have been calculated in that manner.
All of the above is a matter of FACT detailed in BDOs report to Creditors in December 2018 and repeated in their Report to Creditors in June 2019.
Regardless of any ‘noise’ and posturing from HMRC that is where things stand.
The more interesting question, as I’ve said repeatedly, is what do The Times know beyond that which has prompted them to run with an 11 month old story? The only ‘new’ bit is the potential reduction in the total debt from the current agreed figure of £68.3m to the circa £20m touted by The Times.
Where is that figure coming from? What has prompted them to run the story now? Do they have more info they haven’t disclosed? Will there be a follow-up story with more information?
Bluenose1979
Well-Known Member
Yeah, my numbers (from the tweet) were obviously focused on the BTC/EBTs, which seems to be what the whole furore is about.
As above, I can only imagine they have had some kind of heads up regarding an outcome of the ongoing appeal and are trying to get ahead of the game. That said though, again, that doesn't mean their info will be correct. It's just a good foundation if it does come to pass for them to start future articles with "As exclusively revealed by The Times...".
That wouldn't be anything particularly surprising to me.
Gio#56
Well-Known Member
maybe there is proof after letters were sent to the players in question.
munkoomccoist
Well-Known Member
Probably working out their next move and trying to get some actual FACTS
TN8
Well-Known Member
I think the tweet from JM QC seems to capture the crux of things fairly succinctly:
If I'm reading it correctly, we were hit with a bill for:
£36.6m - unpaid tax
£24m - Penalties
£12m - Interest
£72.2m - Total
The £24m has already been wiped out (old news)
The £36.6m is being challenged (currently being appealed) and the suggestion is that it may come down to £20m - which HMRC are obviously contesting.
If successful, then obviously the £12m interest will drop massively too.
While I'm not sure there is any particular new info in terms of anything confirmed, I suspect The Times has been given some kind of heads up on a result of the appeal coming soon, which has had them jump to the action of kickstarting commentary around the £20m figure to be first in the queue.
Going to John McClelland for his views reads to me like they've got someone feeding them vibes that this is going in our favour and ultimately we'll see that the initial bill was significantly overstated - which was obviously a key factor in how events then unfolded.
Now, whether any of that proves to be correct in terms of the result, etc remains to be seen. The media get it wrong as often as right. However, I can see why they might jump in there now, with the outcome of the appeal pending and a new BDO report due relatively soon too.
Disclaimer - I could be getting every bit of the above wildly wrong! Just what I am gleaning from the bits and pieces posted.
I think this post nails it.
Valley Bluenose
RTV? Completed it mate!
I suspect any letters to players would simply advise them that if HMRC pursue them they will now only pursue them for the tax and interest due and not for any penalties in addition to that, since HMRC have now agreed to set aside the penalties of £26m.
Theportyunionjack
Well-Known Member
Of the figure was 20 million we'd have sold Naismith, McGregor, jelavic and David and bought replacements with the change
Northampton_Loyalist
Well-Known Member
It wont make a difference if it is corrected but it absolutely would have done if not challenged.
If there is a pot of £100 to be shared around the creditors and HMRC hold 80% of the total debt, they get £80 and leave £20 to be shared out around the rest. If that is actually only 40% of the total debt, suddenly each creditor is due 300% more of the pot than they would have received. That is an absolutely huge difference in very real terms.
