Tax Officials Blamed For Rangers Downfall – HMRC Mistake Wipes Millions From Ibrox Bill (The Times)

The big question has always been just how proactive Muir and Lloyd’s were in Whyte’s sudden materialising.

Did he really just think to himself one day, “I reckon I could jump in there and make a quick killing on this lot”, or in the absence of any credible and more altruistic buyers, did Muir and McGill start getting desperate and began flicking through the dodgier names in their little black book?
[/QUO Im sure in one of the papers at the time it said that David grier (Duff and phelps) and Donald muir were old pals from school days
 
I am no fan of Minty but it is worth remembering that the scheme operated by MIM was perfectly legal at the time, it was retrospectively changed & then we fell foul.
Staggers me that this could be the case but ...
It was never a question of its legality,Ebts are legal,It was the question of whether they were taxable or not mate.
 
Think this is only finished until next BDO report or the one following in 2020.

It is they who are contesting HMRC's "grossing up" calculation and if it has been correctly applied. This is what the Times seem to be alluding to well as highlighting the not well reported previous reduction of £26m to total tax due.

Whether the Times has the inside track on the "grossing up" I do not know, but when HMRC started tweeting in defence against the report, the Times responded saying their source was "impeccable".

Take from that what you will, but time will have to show who is right, one way or another.
I know which side I would rather trust to tell the truth in all this. But as you say, time will tell.
 
Muir and Greer are from Barrhead. Whyte would have been refused by the Bank if they had carried out due diligence on him but they didn’t.
He borrowed from Ticketus against future season ticket sales which was improper and possibly illegal
He didn’t need any indemnity from HMRC because he could always put the Company down.
The whole system failed us.

That's not how the Ticketus model works.

Ticketus do not provide loans, they buy tickets in advance, at a discount, they then sell them on at full price and that is where they get their profit from. The fact that they sell them through the club themselves means that people buying those tickets do not realise who they are buying from.
 
The more this is unravelled the angrier I get. If this being the ticketus method, then how is whyte able to have their money in his collier bristow account before he takes ownership of the club? Surely that must mean murray was not only savvy to this deal, but sanctioned it himself.
 
The more this is unravelled the angrier I get. If this being the ticketus method, then how is whyte able to have their money in his collier bristow account before he takes ownership of the club? Surely that must mean murray was not only savvy to this deal, but sanctioned it himself.

Murray did not sell for just £1, part of the deal was that the Lloyds debt was also repaid.

The money came from Ticketus, to Lloyds, via the Collyer Bristow escrow account. Whyte effectively sold tickets in advance in order to finance the purchase (the debt clearance part of it)

As Murray had the agreement with Lloyds that he could have his company if he sold Rangers and also cleared the debt there is no doubt whatsoever that Murray, Lloyds and Whyte all knew what was happening.

I find it amazing that people have gone back to defending Murray on this.
 
The more this is unravelled the angrier I get. If this being the ticketus method, then how is whyte able to have their money in his collier bristow account before he takes ownership of the club? Surely that must mean murray was not only savvy to this deal, but sanctioned it himself.
It still bursts me mate.

Whyte couldn’t buy Rangers until Ticketus gave him the money but Ticketus couldn’t give him the money until he owned Rangers.

It’s also illegal to use a company’s assets to buy said company.
 
Totally agree. There are soo many scumbags involved in this and the truth will out one day. Murray created the weakness, scum expoited it and murray saved himself in the process.
 
Murray did not sell for just £1, part of the deal was that the Lloyds debt was also repaid.

The money came from Ticketus, to Lloyds, via the Collyer Bristow escrow account. Whyte effectively sold tickets in advance in order to finance the purchase (the debt clearance part of it)

As Murray had the agreement with Lloyds that he could have his company if he sold Rangers and also cleared the debt there is no doubt whatsoever that Murray, Lloyds and Whyte all knew what was happening.

I find it amazing that people have gone back to defending Murray on this.
It's not a case of defending Murray. Lloyds forced the sale of the club to Whyte even though our debt was coming down year after year and was perfectly manageable. HMRC were leaking information left right and centre and the media were only too happy to portray us in a negative light. Murray does have a lot to answer for but I think the start of our problems lay firmly with Lloyds and HMRC. I'd also like to know who carried out the due diligence to find Whyte fit and proper especially with what we now know. This has been orchestrated against us and hopefully the whole truth will come out.
 
It's not a case of defending Murray. Lloyds forced the sale of the club to Whyte even though our debt was coming down year after year and was perfectly manageable. HMRC were leaking information left right and centre and the media were only too happy to portray us in a negative light. Murray does have a lot to answer for but I think the start of our problems lay firmly with Lloyds and HMRC. I'd also like to know who carried out the due diligence to find Whyte fit and proper especially with what we now know. This has been orchestrated against us and hopefully the whole truth will come out.

Due diligence was carried out by the Independent Board Committee chaired by Alastair Johnston.

They recommended that Whyte's bid was not accepted.

David Murray accepted it.
 
It still bursts me mate.

Whyte couldn’t buy Rangers until Ticketus gave him the money but Ticketus couldn’t give him the money until he owned Rangers.

It’s also illegal to use a company’s assets to buy said company.
Is it illegal though? It's allowed here as a leveraged buy-out, but I know it got banned in English football. Genuine question, I thought it was allowed.

This is where, however, Whyte might have been cute. Would the 18m have actually been part of the "sale." The sale could have been the 1 GBP. The debt maybe wasn't part of the actual sale, but something which was to be dealt with after the exchange of ownership.
 
Due diligence was carried out by the Independent Board Committee chaired by Alastair Johnston.

They recommended that Whyte's bid was not accepted.

David Murray accepted it.
I don't think Murray had a choice as it was stated that the bank was running the club. I believe Lloyds forced the sale which allowed them to get their money.
 
Is it illegal though? It's allowed here as a leveraged buy-out, but I know it got banned in English football. Genuine question, I thought it was allowed.

This is where, however, Whyte might have been cute. Would the 18m have actually been part of the "sale." The sale could have been the 1 GBP. The debt maybe wasn't part of the actual sale, but something which was to be dealt with after the exchange of ownership.


Is a leveraged buy out what the Glazer did at Man U. They borrowed in their own name to buy shares and once control was established they reversed the debt from themselves to the Club. Whyte raised money against an asset he didn’t own and I cant see how this is legal.
 
Is a leveraged buy out what the Glazer did at Man U. They borrowed in their own name to buy shares and once control was established they reversed the debt from themselves to the Club. Whyte raised money against an asset he didn’t own and I cant see how this is legal.

The transactions were carried out through a lawyer's escrow account as I understand it.

So the money from Ticketus went into that account, but no-one could touch it until Murray sold to Whyte, if that fell through the money went back to Ticketus.

As soon as the deal was done re the sale of shares the money was released to Lloyds to fulfill the other part of the deal, the debt clearance.

It is therefore arguable that Whyte did own the business prior to the sale of tickets being finalised.

The point is, everyone involved knew what was going on, and wanted it to happen. Murray, Whyte, Lloyds and Ticketus all knew the deal and wanted it to go ahead.
 
At the time (and im no expert) there was a legal term mentioned (which ive forgot) the gist being that its illegal so use the assets of a company that you dont own, in order to secure ownership. I thought legal leverage would be class as assets or money from a completeley different source. As the fella mentioned earlier, ticketus it would apear are not a "different" source but in fact the buyer themselves. I dont see how whyte has broken the law, as at the time he doesnt own the seats to sell them! Whereas murray did...... even said in court he "didnt care how the money was sourced so long as the money was legal"

Im even open to the idea that murray outright sold the seats prior to whyte taking ownership. Yes the taxman stitched us up, yes it was well "coordinated" but murray aint telling all. Im sure the truth must lie within the oldco books, an obvious paper trail that you would think the press would be shouting about ;(
 
The transactions were carried out through a lawyer's escrow account as I understand it.

So the money from Ticketus went into that account, but no-one could touch it until Murray sold to Whyte, if that fell through the money went back to Ticketus.

As soon as the deal was done re the sale of shares the money was released to Lloyds to fulfill the other part of the deal, the debt clearance.

It is therefore arguable that Whyte did own the business prior to the sale of tickets being finalised.

The point is, everyone involved knew what was going on, and wanted it to happen. Murray, Whyte, Lloyds and Ticketus all knew the deal and wanted it to go ahead.
That would explain a lot, so the escrow thing is ticketus paying for the seats upfront, but in a holding account to be completed only when whyte took ownership. I think I finally get it, cheers.

But murray still knew we had just lost 4/5 of ticket sales right???
 
That would explain a lot, so the escrow thing is ticketus paying for the seats upfront, but in a holding account to be completed only when whyte took ownership. I think I finally get it, cheers.

But murray still knew we had just lost 4/5 of ticket sales right???

In my opinion Murray couldn't have cared less.

His deal with Lloyds was sell Rangers, get it way from your other businesses, get our debt paid and you can keep your metals business.

Of course he had a choice, he chose the above.
 
Bizarrely in my professional life I have worked with two people who played a part (of some sorts) in our mess but for various reasons we never properly discussed it.

A guy who was at pwc and very briefly placed at the porn stars firm who ran MIH group EBT scheme. Good guy who came in to work on a project in our place and a Fulham fan from London. Didn’t really say much other than “no wonder the ebt scheme was a disaster, they were a shambles and didn’t do anything right”.

And way way more interesting, the head of business management in our place worked in the Lloyds corporate recovery team and worked on our case. But a two minute conversation we had once told me my blood would boil if I ‘heard more when less busy’ like she offered. Part of me regrets not taking her up and getting some inside info but probably for the good of my career I never did.
 
I guess you either agree in principle with the idea behind tax avoidance, or you don't. I don't. Murray did, unfortunately. HMRC may have stitched us up but they were given the opportunity.
I don't agree with the principle of tax evasion but most people use tax avoidance in some form or other. Putting money into an ISA is one example where many people legally avoid tax.
 
I am sure I read Paul Murray had a survival plan on the table which would have meant a share issue to raise 25 million and then enter talks with HMRC to try and sort things out without the burden of MIH.
 
I don't agree with the principle of tax evasion but most people use tax avoidance in some form or other. Putting money into an ISA is one example where many people legally avoid tax.

I get that, but then savings/earnings will already have been subject to income tax. Tax relief is actually encouraged by HMRC but ‘disguised remunerations’ were far more aggressive and risky. Not evasion, but also not acceptable in the eyes of most people I’d say. Murray was a lot of things but he wasn’t daft.
 
Sorry don't know how to put link on but The Mirror online has a piece that Wayne Rooney ,Jimmy Carr and a number of celebs have won a court case against the HMRC regarding a £263m Investment scheme and will be able to claim money back don't know if it matters to us or if HMRC have just made a total cvnt of the lot of it
 
Sorry don't know how to put link on but The Mirror online has a piece that Wayne Rooney ,Jimmy Carr and a number of celebs have won a court case against the HMRC regarding a £263m Investment scheme and will be able to claim money back don't know if it matters to us or if HMRC have just made a total cvnt of the lot of it

 
How long did we use EBT's, around 10 years, which were generally accepted by both HMRC and the football authorities ? The retrospective regulations suddenly introduced on EBT's were the key.

I'm trying to think back, but is this not a red herring?

This wasn't about a retrospective rule being applied that triggered payments that were previously untaxable.

This was about the manner in which Rangers specifically exercised the EBTs, which meant they'd never been effective as a means of tax avoidance.

The authorities were chasing after the fact, but it was nothing to do with changing the rulebook after the fact.
 
What was and still is baffling - HMRC likewise never blocked or even attempted to chase Whyte when he walked on British soil again?

Ex-Rangers owner Craig Whyte was being chased by the taxman for £3.74m BEFORE he started his catastrophic reign at Ibrox

HMRC had instructed debt enforcers to chase Whyte with a bill for almost £4million and threaten him with bankruptcy in May 2011 - the same month that he bought Rangers.

By
Keith Jackson


  • 07:30, 5 AUG 2014
  • Updated07:39, 5 AUG 2014
THE taxman was chasing Craig Whyte for £3.7million before he took over Rangers.

HMRC focused on Whyte’s personal finances and made several failed attempts to get him to pay his dues before, during and after his catastrophic reign at Ibrox.

The taxman regarded Whyte as a “flight risk”, fearing he might flee the country without settling his huge tax bill.

Documents seen by the Record show:

* The authorities instructed debt enforcers to chase Whyte with a bill for almost £4million and threaten him with bankruptcy in May 2011, the same month that he bought Rangers.

* It was the culmination of a probe begun the previous year when the taxman learned Whyte had returned to the UK in 2005.

* Whyte was continually warned he was failing to submit satisfactory tax returns and risked being fined.

* He actually claimed at one stage to have a UK taxable worth of just £24 in accrued bank interest.

* Yet when he struck the notorious deal with Ticketus for funds to finance his Rangers takeover, he gave the firm a personal guarantee he was worth nearly £33million.



This “guarantee”, which was obtained by HMRC, helped them calculate Whyte’s £3,741,835.29 tax bill but he continued stalling tactics to avoid coughing up.

At the same time he was able to run up a further £15million in unpaid taxes and penalties during his nine months in charge of Rangers.

Whyte had bought Rangers for £1 from Sir David Murray in May 2011, while agreeing to wipe out the club’s £18million debts.

But on February 14, 2012, he made a legal move to have the Ibrox outfit placed into administration.

By then the club’s debt had rocketed to around £50million.

HMRC then rejected a Company Voluntary Arrangement, forcing the club’s owners to be liquidated in a move which also saw Rangers having to start again in the lowest tier of Scottish football.

David Murray has long blamed the taxman for the demise of Rangers, saying the spectre of the Big Tax Case – a potential bill of between £46m and £100million, hanging over the club forced his hand in selling up.

But a sizeable proportion of Rangers fans still hold Murray at least partly responsible for the club’s demise, arguing he should not have sold to Whyte, whose reputation had already been questioned.

Ultimately, Rangers won the Big Tax Case when a tribunal ruled Employee Benefit Trusts paid to players were in fact loans not subject to tax – and HMRC’s appeal against that judgment was rejected this year.

Fans remain furious at the taxman for bringing the case in the first place, and the latest documents from July 2012 obtained by the Record are unlikely to quell their anger.

They show HMRC began building their case against Whyte from the moment his proposed take over first hit the headlines in November 2010, six months before he was eventually handed the keys to Ibrox.

The paperwork from the taxman’s high net worth unit states: “HMRC became aware that Whyte had returned to live in the UK when the press carried stories in 2010 that he was potentially going to purchase Rangers Football Club plc.

“HMRC discovered that Whyte had been back in the UK since 2005. He did not notify HMRC of his return to the UK, nor did he complete tax returns.”

The documents go on to chronicle various atttempts by the taxman to force Whyte to detail his finances and warnings of fines he faces if he fails to comply.

In the absence of his co-operation, the tax office made their own calculations and issued Whyte with demands for £1million for the financial year 2006-07 and £1.2million for the following year.

Whyte did finally submitted some returns. But the documents note: “The returns contained entries in respect of net UK bank interest of £24 for 2006-07 and £491 for 2007-08.”

This pattern continues throughout the reports, until a damning revelation centring on Whyte’s takeover of Rangers when he secured funding from Ticketus to head off the club’s future debt in exchange for money from season ticket sales.

Presumably to convince Ticketus he was a genuine businessman, Whyte gave his own word that he was good for the investment, according to the HMRC documents.

They state: “The personal guarantee included a statement of Whyte’s net worth, signed by him, which showed he had net assets with a value of £32,956,843.”

This was the evdience HMRC needed to slap Whyte with the tax bill of £3,741,835.29 at the time of his takeover.

Just four days after he posed for pictures with the SPL trophy at Rugby Park following a thrilling last day climax to the league campaign, a letter was written to Whyte by HMRC’s higher debt manager detailing the claim and giving him seven days to pay in full.

Whyte was warned that a warrant would be served on him by a sheriff officer who would also provide him with a leaflet entitled Dealing with Debt to help him assess his options.

The letter continues: “If the debt remains unpaid, I will arrange to present a sequestration petition in your local sheriff court. The effect of this is that you are likely to be made bankrupt and a Trustee appointed to sell your assets and pay your creditors.”

Even then Whyte continued to stall, appealing to a tribunal against the judgment. As HMRC do not discuss private tax dealings, the outcome as yet remains unknown.

But the emergence of HMRC’s serious concerns about Whyte before his takeover prompted further anger among senior Rangers figures.

Alastair Johnston, Rangers chairman at the time, pleaded with Murray not to sell the club to Whyte. He was subsequently axed.

Presented with the revelations last night, he said: “On the back of this, I would welcome a full-scale, independent investigation into the actions of HMRC around the Rangers issue.”

Former director Paul Murray added: “I have always said that what has happened to Rangers has been nothing short of disgraceful.

“The club has been the victim of a fraud. A lot of people have made a lot of money at the club’s expense and it has to end.

“It is in the public interest to find out exactly what has happened and then to take action. Justice must be done and be seen to be done.”


https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport...ws/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415


Given the amount of info leaked by HMRC since 2012, it is rather curious that nothing about this came out in 2011/2012 ... and IMHO leads to the conclusion that it might have been withheld at the time for heinous reasons.
 
What was and still is baffling - HMRC likewise never blocked or even attempted to chase Whyte when he walked on British soil again?




https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport...ws/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415


Given the amount of info leaked by HMRC since 2012, it is rather curious that nothing about this came out in 2011/2012 ... and IMHO leads to the conclusion that it might have been withheld at the time for heinous reasons.

So HMRC were chasing the pr1ck to bankrupt him but LBG forced SDM to sell to him.

How can that little nugget of info have been buried for the past 7 years?
 
So HMRC were chasing the pr1ck to bankrupt him but LBG forced SDM to sell to him.

How can that little nugget of info have been buried for the past 7 years?

Looks like it was actually more nor less the same time as the purchase of the club. The debt was calculated based on his declaration of his personal wealth in the guarantee he gave Ticketus. They were using that as an argument that his previous tax returns must be wrong as they did not disclose a basis whereby he could be worth that much.

HMRC did clearly know what Whyte was by then though - they'd already had to deal with him re his previous company collapse and the Directors ban etc.
 
It still bursts me mate.

Whyte couldn’t buy Rangers until Ticketus gave him the money but Ticketus couldn’t give him the money until he owned Rangers.

It’s also illegal to use a company’s assets to buy said company.

Is this not what the Glazers did with Man Utd?
 
I think this is where the Ticketus verdict shows what went on.
On the 09/05/2011 instead of providing funds (£18M) to Bidco for the acquisition of the shares in Rangers, Whyte bought the shares for £1 and the funds were provided direct to Rangers

I am in no way able to explain this situation in legal terms but for me this needs to be explained by Murray why the terms of sale were suddenly amended allowing Whyte to purchase the shares for the £1
???????????
 
Don’t think so mate.

Not the ticketus bit but I'm sure they used Man Utd's money to buy Man Utd. I don't know enough about business but I know the Man Utd fans weren't happy with the situation.

Edit

The Glazers began purchasing their shares in Manchester United in 2003 through a holding company known as Red Football. ... As part of the takeover, the Glazers saddled the club with a large amount of debt. Around £265 million was secured by the club's assets, with the total amount of debt around £660 million.
 
Anyone else find it strange that this news story has been allowed to disappear considering it's potentially one of the biggest scandals in Scottish football.
I agree with you but it is what the SMSM do with a positive story about Rangers. They ignore it until the initial interest passes and they obviously try to change the narrative to something that suits their own agenda.
 
To be fair, until its confirmed otherwise, the story is mostly speculation. Yes, for sure, HMRC have reduced their bill for penalties by a whopping £26m - but that's a year old story. The reduction in the actual tax calculation that takes the overall bill down to circa £20m has not been confirmed, quite the opposite in fact. Even BDO say they don't expect a decision on that until next year.

I remain puzzled by The Times running this story without either a follow-up angle or imminent confirmation of the error in the 'grossing up' calculation. It would appear neither is about to happen - so why has this year-old story gone to print? What has prompted it?
 
To be fair, until its confirmed otherwise, the story is mostly speculation. Yes, for sure, HMRC have reduced their bill for penalties by a whopping £26m - but that's a year old story. The reduction in the actual tax calculation that takes the overall bill down to circa £20m has not been confirmed, quite the opposite in fact. Even BDO say they don't expect a decision on that until next year.

I remain puzzled by The Times running this story without either a follow-up angle or imminent confirmation of the error in the 'grossing up' calculation. It would appear neither is about to happen - so why has this year-old story gone to print? What has prompted it?
There remains more unanswered questions due to it, and why did it go to print is one. But maybe some in the press are pissed off at their profession making them look like an embarrassment given their constant need to batter us in their shit publications!
 
EJ1GF4KW4AEGhgs

Saw this posted by a Bear on twitter.
 
EJ1GF4KW4AEGhgs

Saw this posted by a Bear on twitter.

Simply confirms - from last year - that HMRC had backed down on the penalties to the tune of £26m. Looks like they had threatened pursuing the beneficiaries (players) individually for the tax arrears, penalties and interest due and this letter will reduce the sum they are pursuing them for by the appropriate penalty. No doubt they will still be pursued for the tax and interest. Though there is the ongoing discussion on the ‘grossing up’ process so the figure may be reduced further.

That’s my understanding at least.
 
Simply confirms - from last year - that HMRC had backed down on the penalties to the tune of £26m. Looks like they had threatened pursuing the beneficiaries (players) individually for the tax arrears, penalties and interest due and this letter will reduce the sum they are pursuing them for by the appropriate penalty. No doubt they will still be pursued for the tax and interest. Though there is the ongoing discussion on the ‘grossing up’ process so the figure may be reduced further.

That’s my understanding at least.

So, would interest have been charged on the penalties and if so presumably this would have been a part of the initial claim. If interest was chargeable would it be included in this value.
 
So, would interest have been charged on the penalties and if so presumably this would have been a part of the initial claim. If interest was chargeable would it be included in this value.

I‘m only guessing here but I’d say there would be three elements making up the ‘debt’: the unpaid tax, the interest due on the unpaid tax and a penalty for the non-payment of the tax. So, if I’m correct, I don’t think there would be interest on the (now abandoned) penalty.

Just a guess, I stress.
 
Back
Top