jicrw
Well-Known Member
Sounds Guid Tae Me! I know many that do just that and I dont know any, that pay much LOL.
Ex-Rangers stars face huge tax bills
- Thread starter peter robertson
- Start date
Sounds Guid Tae Me! I know many that do just that and I dont know any, that pay much LOL.
jicrw
Well-Known Member
Southernlion
Well-Known Member
I thought that, providing there was no evasion, that the taxman could only re-assess over 7 years prior.
Perhaps someone more savvy than me could comment
Perhaps someone more savvy than me could comment
KuwaitBear
Well-Known Member
Wasn't spouting off, I was genuinely asking, I haven't had any need to know about U.K. tax for a long time.
Football players are employees of a club. At what level of earnings does an employee no longer have PAYE deducted at source, requiring them to submit a tax return re tax due on their wages?
Mearns Bluenose
Well-Known Member
Earnings over 100k I think require a tax return. The PAYE will still be deducted at source via the clubs payroll though. A number of players will also have property income and savings interest income to declare so it will be more than just PAYE that they need to put in their SA return.
McQueen
Well-Known Member
@Peekaboo has got it spot on above.
The PAYE regs state that the employer has an obligation to withhold PAYE on employment income it pays to its employees, based on the tax code provided by HMRC. If the employer does that but the tax code was wrong and that meant the employee didn’t pay enough, that’s not the employer’s problem. HMRC will seek the underpayment from the employee.
If the employer unilaterally decides not to withhold PAYE on employment income, HMRC will pursue the employer for the underpaid tax as the employer failed in their obligation to withhold PAYE.
This is fundamentally why HMRC pursued Rangers and not the employees for the tax due on payments into the EBT.
That would have been the end of it were it not for the new “loan charge” legislation which is being introduced. This new charge says that any loans made since April 1999 which are still outstanding on 5th April 2019 must either be repaid or have income tax paid on them.
The loan charge tax liability will principally fall on the employer. However, where HMRC cannot collect the tax from the employer, the debt transfers to the employee.
There’s been a lot of noise about this recently as it goes against the legal norm of legislation not being changed which applies retrospectively. The government and HMRC say that’s not the case here (as its technically a new charge). However, you can see how you might have entered into an agreement years ago and now be hit with a tax bill which didn’t exist at the time you were provided with the loan facilities.
It is really draconian and will ruin some people. There are genuine concerns that people will commit suicide because they can’t pay.
The PAYE regs state that the employer has an obligation to withhold PAYE on employment income it pays to its employees, based on the tax code provided by HMRC. If the employer does that but the tax code was wrong and that meant the employee didn’t pay enough, that’s not the employer’s problem. HMRC will seek the underpayment from the employee.
If the employer unilaterally decides not to withhold PAYE on employment income, HMRC will pursue the employer for the underpaid tax as the employer failed in their obligation to withhold PAYE.
This is fundamentally why HMRC pursued Rangers and not the employees for the tax due on payments into the EBT.
That would have been the end of it were it not for the new “loan charge” legislation which is being introduced. This new charge says that any loans made since April 1999 which are still outstanding on 5th April 2019 must either be repaid or have income tax paid on them.
The loan charge tax liability will principally fall on the employer. However, where HMRC cannot collect the tax from the employer, the debt transfers to the employee.
There’s been a lot of noise about this recently as it goes against the legal norm of legislation not being changed which applies retrospectively. The government and HMRC say that’s not the case here (as its technically a new charge). However, you can see how you might have entered into an agreement years ago and now be hit with a tax bill which didn’t exist at the time you were provided with the loan facilities.
It is really draconian and will ruin some people. There are genuine concerns that people will commit suicide because they can’t pay.
geoallison
Well-Known Member
Without a shadow of a doubt.
What passes for journalism in this faux Republic is an absolute joke.
Anything under 100k per annum is fully taxed PAYE, and any wages over that amount are taxed via self assessment.but even for the element over 100k, the employer must deduct employers PAYE/NI.
Cheers mate
Ultimately, this was the outcome, the players owe the tax. The issue we would have had is that the players had side letters saying that they didn't have to pay the tax, so what would have happened if the club was still linked to the old co is that the players would have taken the old co to court in order to pay their tax bills, so rangers would still have to have paid, and would still have maybe me liquidated. (If a judge considered the side letters to be binding). Why do you think Barry Ferguson went bankrupt the day before the case was finalised? Do you really think he's skint?
It was a really bad idea, we've paid the price, still paying but moving forward.
It was a really bad idea, we've paid the price, still paying but moving forward.
One of the things that always got me about EBTs was people's desperation to argue that they were legal as some kind of excuse. Individuals or companies can use whatever tax mechanisms they want, but HMRC have the right to challenge them. What done for us was not that EBTs were eventually ruled to be legal but that the club could not function with even the potential threat of an enormous tax bill hanging over it. Even If EBTs were legal, using them to the extent that we did was a disastrous move.
I hate these tax threads. Not sure if they are full of tims or posters making uneducated guesses. We should perhaps have FF tax advisers to comment on any articles which mention us and tax.
There are 50,000 people who could be impacted by this but it is the 10 or so Rangers players who make the headlines.
Why are people still talking about things like PAYE.
Seriously, this is to do with the loans which the players got from the sub-trusts.
The HMRC briefing on it is here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...iefing-disguised-remuneration-charge-on-loans
Disguised remuneration schemes are tax avoidance arrangements that seek to avoid Income Tax and National Insurance contributions by paying scheme users their income in the form of loans.
The loans were never intended to be repaid, so they are no different to normal income and are taxable. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is encouraging people to come forward and settle their tax affairs before a charge on these outstanding loans comes into effect on 5 April 2019.
Loan schemes users have 3 choices. They can repay the loans that they took out, they can settle the tax due, or they can pay the loan charge on balances that are outstanding in April.
Scheme users who don’t come forward with the intention of settling with HMRC by 5 April 2019 could pay more when the loan charge is applied. Detailed settlement terms were published online on 7 November 2017 to help users understand what settling means for them.
HMRC has written to those affected to encourage them to come forward and settle before the loan charge applies.
Seriously, this is to do with the loans which the players got from the sub-trusts.
The HMRC briefing on it is here.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...iefing-disguised-remuneration-charge-on-loans
Disguised remuneration schemes are tax avoidance arrangements that seek to avoid Income Tax and National Insurance contributions by paying scheme users their income in the form of loans.
The loans were never intended to be repaid, so they are no different to normal income and are taxable. HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is encouraging people to come forward and settle their tax affairs before a charge on these outstanding loans comes into effect on 5 April 2019.
Loan schemes users have 3 choices. They can repay the loans that they took out, they can settle the tax due, or they can pay the loan charge on balances that are outstanding in April.
Scheme users who don’t come forward with the intention of settling with HMRC by 5 April 2019 could pay more when the loan charge is applied. Detailed settlement terms were published online on 7 November 2017 to help users understand what settling means for them.
HMRC has written to those affected to encourage them to come forward and settle before the loan charge applies.
Drumchapel-Bear
Well-Known Member
The players weren't self employed so they wouldn't submit a tax return on their own. How were they to know their employer wasnt paying the right amount of tax to HMRC? Do HMRC really expect players to study their wageslips and understand tax law? They're footballers not Accountants for christ sake.
Absolutely disgraceful.
Absolutely disgraceful.
Drumchapel-Bear
Well-Known Member
Whyte didn't pay any PAYE the whole time he owned us. Why are HMRC not chasing the players from that era for unpaid income tax due?
Probably didn't pay the players either
