eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
Anything to say on the HMRC multi million-pound Rangers Tax blunder Mr President?
It's probably the only person who wasn't a mhanky rabid in HMRC involved withTheir editor said their source was reliable according to here
means nothing now to us now, only Murray will get benefit
There is no way that The Times haven't ran this past their lawyers before running with it. This story will grow arms and legs.
Where's that deckchair gif?
Probably not, he'll just get demoted like the other mentally challenged that was leaking stuff years ago.Declan from HMRC Social Media Department will be waking up shortly to an almighty hangover & his P45.
Declan from HMRC Social Media Department will be waking up shortly to an almighty hangover & his P45.
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 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.
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.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.
.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.
could not disagree moreI 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.
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.NGERS
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 wou
NGERS
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 wou
NGERS
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.”
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!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.
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.
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.
This miscalculation just happened to make them the biggest creditor which could dictate many aspects ..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.
This miscalculation just happened to make them the biggest creditor which could dictate many aspects ..
This is still unexplained. Cant help but think it's a complete non storyThe 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.
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.
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.
Why haven't RANGERS put out a statement...
Why haven't RANGERS put out a statement...
Absolutely, but by inflating what was owed they were the biggest stakeholder, King would have lost more, debenture holders as well.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.
I absolutely believe them - I don't think for a single second that they "miscalculated" anything.
Absolutely, but by inflating what was owed they were the biggest stakeholder, King would have lost more, debenture holders as well.
Why haven't RANGERS put out a statement...
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?
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?
Why haven't RANGERS put out a statement...
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.
maybe there is proof after letters were sent to the players in question.
It wont make a difference if it is corrected but it absolutely would have done if not challenged.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.