HMRC's Chief Executive responds to Times article with letter

So is the language technicality that they're trying to get out on this:

We worked out the basic tax owed properly however we've added all sorts of additional fees that were ridiculous but the basic sum was correct.

That's what it sounds like to me.
 
It’s always interesting when you see their ‘play with words’ when what they say isn’t actually wrong but it doesn’t address the actual point.

It’s like the Barrister who was on STV News last night playing with words.

The fact is that if HMRC didn’t chase Rangers for what was originally thought to be circa £50m then we would have had a buyer and Whyte would never had been around Ibrox.

HMRC’s penalty of £24m and their calculation running into many millions was wrong and there should be a Public Inquiry into this.

Shocking and these people must be brought to justice for costing the tax payer so much money in legal fees in their pursuit of Rangers. Not to mention the huge number of jobs and subsequent loss of income for the Club.

Frankly, that is negligence and huge sums of compensation should be claimed.

I would start at the top of HMRC.
 
You can tell that Harra is an arrogant bully with a God complex and (probably) a micropenis

Hi Jim, we know you are looking in
 
The devil is in the detail of what they have said in the response. Semantics and “no mistakes were made” that led to RFC insolvency. Sure ok, but the over estimated the ebt debt and in doing so influenced the process.

That process put the holding company on the road to liquidation.

A process let me be clear has not finalised. The oldco holding company has not been liquidated at this time.
 
Norskger said:
I'm not sure how to post a screenshot but the editor of the Times Scotland put this reply on a few minutes ago:

"Many thanks Jim. I would have been able to respond to this sooner but your team spelled my deputy's name wrong so he did not get the email, as promised."

HMRC couldn't even get the name right in an email to the editorial team!
Click to expand...

Lovely passive aggressiveness right there. I love killing office warriors with kindness. Makes even the merest of barbed comment loud and clear but leaves little room for them to come back with much at you.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
If anything is ‘inaccurate and partial’ it is this letter.

Yes, they won in the Supreme Court. That was about whether tax was due - not the level to which tax was due nor any penalties.

Whether they levied the correct level of tax is still under dispute between BDO and HMRC. What is NOT under dispute is that HMRC have already agreed - more than a year ago - that the penalties imposed were inaccurate to the tune of £26m.:eek:
Click to expand...

Did they win the Supreme Court case based on HMRC's argument though?
More than likely. If they did a forensic investigation it would have taken years, and not months.
Did one of their judges not just base his verdict solely on opinion, and supposedly common sense?
 
The Golden God said:
No offence mate but the amount of people who hit out with this kind of statement when it's literally posted on their verified Twitter account does my head in.

Verified accouts have been on the go for years now and you'd need to living off the grid in a wooden hut in the middle of the jungle to not know about them.
Click to expand...
No offence but it is not clear from the OP that this was from a twitter account. I now accept that it is genuine but the language and phraseology used does not look like what you would expect in an official HMRC response
 
Whether or not we owed anything was never the issue, it's always been the amount owed which they grossly exaggerated by a sum of £50m - to hide behind the final verdict is fucking ridiculous
 
They must have had all sorts at them since it was reported. All these loan charges too, tax is tax but HRMC are currently running an extortion ring! Crooks!
 
Doesn't deny they fucked up. Only says “its not our fault they’ve gone into liquidation”.
 
Its funny how its rarely mentioned that HMRC lost the first two tax tribunals against Rangers, never mind lying regarding the correct alleged amount owed. Hopefully, The Times will not be backing down where HMRC are concerned.
 
I would encourage all fellow Bears to write to HMRC Chief Executive under FoI asking how many subsequent cases were undertaken against other clubs after the precedent set in court on the Rangers case.

Rangers were the test case - yet not a single case followed
 
e791773c4ac3f6191d88b2b5acc70fec_normal.jpeg

We stand by the article. We reported HMRC was reducing the size of its EBT claim and was being blamed for its part in the club's downfall. We highlighted claims the EBT liability made it extremely difficult to sell Rangers.
Click to expand...

We are all Magnus Llewellin
 
Fife flyer said:
No offence but it is not clear from the OP that this was from a twitter account. I now accept that it is genuine but the language and phraseology used does not look like what you would expect in an official HMRC response
Click to expand...
The language used is in keeping with their original tweet last night so it’s not really surprising imo.
 
I really hope HMRC are searching staff for magnets. I fear for the safety of several hard drives once they are hit by an investigation.
 
Disco Deejay said:
"HMRC won against Rangers".

If that is the language of the HMRC Chief Executive, heaven help us.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a few English clubs at the time nervous of the case and yet nothing has been heard of any other case,surely they should've been going after other clubs/ companies. What gets me also is the wee tax case when Whyte willfully withheld the tax paid by the employees off the club. Surely it's Whyte that should've been held to account and not the club.
 
StirlingGer said:
There is absolutely no way a ‘deliberate’ penalty would stick against rangers for a tax scheme that was backed by QC advice and went all the way to the Supreme Court. In no other case would a penalty be charged. There is no way they could argue rangers did not take reasonable care when they had QC advice.

Jim Harra the chief exec is Scottish. Probably a mentally challenged no doubt.
Click to expand...

Jim Harra comes from Northern Ireland. Family comes from there and he went to school there.
 
Someone either stole or illegally leaked documents from this case to an online blogger and because of that Rangers were tried in the court of public opinion for years before the actual result of the case was known.

The narrative which HMRC did nothing to correct was that £75m worth of tax was not paid when in reality it was closer to £20m. That false assumption made the club unsellable and set in motion a chain of events that caused insolvency.

At no time did HMRC ever leak or put out a story that the final bill in this would be £20m they stuck to the £75m excessive demand as an excuse to justify pursuing Rangers for an amount they would NEVER recover.
 
Almost unknown, Bears, for HMRC, never mind their CEO, to comment on individual cases. Something up here, keep the pressure up, flood twitter and social media. See how they react. The debate is going public. See what they say next.
 
Carlton The Bear said:
Oh happy days. The Times aren’t for backing down over HMRC semantics. And a subtle dig that they’re that incompetent we can add spelling to their “talents”.

Jim, if you’re reading this and I’m remembering 40 years ago right - you should have stuck to delivering milk like yer da.
Click to expand...

Llewellin's playing a blinder and being very cute as he ridicules Harra and HMRC

I'm liking this. I'm liking this a lot.

The Times are not for backing down. They're standing by their article.

There's also a hint of No Surrender in their reply. I like that too.
 
Mr_Miscellaneous said:
By saying they do not make any mistakes, then being told by the Editor of the Scottish Times that they spelled his deputy's name wrong so he never got the E-mail they sent him?
Click to expand...
Mistakes in terms of Tax.

We all make mistakes, particularly when it comes to grammar.

I thought the response from the Times Editor was quite poor. Point scoring over Garmmar, as oppose to addressing the actual letter. Doesn't look good.
 
a_weir said:
Yes that’s 100% fake. The wording is terrible.
Click to expand...

It's real alright. Shows HMRC up as being unprofessional however. 2 tweets now about the same case after saying they don't do that and both look like a 5 year old worded it.
 
Rt. Hon. Bearman said:
Ah, but you see, that was back when they didn't comment on individual cases.

But when a story critical of them appears in a newspaper? All of a sudden this policy is forgotten, the keyboard is dusted off and onto Twitter they go.
Click to expand...
Very true, I'm just surprised the author never used 'sevco', must've been so hard calling us Rangers.
 
People keep pointing out the "HMRC won against Rangers" line as bad grammar.

Surely HMRC would have used the formal "Rangers Business Name" in that sentence.
 
Walters80 said:
Someone either stole or illegally leaked documents from this case to an online blogger and because of that Rangers were tried in the court of public opinion for years before the actual result of the case was known.

The narrative which HMRC did nothing to correct was that £75m worth of tax was not paid when in reality it was closer to £20m. That false assumption made the club unsellable and set in motion a chain of events that caused insolvency.

At no time did HMRC ever leak or put out a story that the final bill in this would be £20m they stuck to the £75m excessive demand as an excuse to justify pursuing Rangers for an amount they would NEVER recover.
Click to expand...
Also at the time i am sure Murray offered HMRC 10 million ,I think its Murrays call if the bill was only £20m , then it must be on HMRC records the amounts offered at the time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top