HMRC's Chief Executive responds to Times article with letter

Not going to lie, it has always confused me as to were the sum of 74 million came from?

Is this the total amount believed to have been paid to players and directors through the ebt scheme or is it the calculated vat amount due for any ebt payments made?
 
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...

He was educated in Protestant schools, I doubt he's a mentally challenged.
 
Neilstonger said:
Having spent too many years in the Civil Service drafting statement for Ministers and public consumption I would guess that statement is correct. They will dissemble and play with words because that is what they do. I suspect their tax calculations to be correct and whatever penalties they calculated were based in the legal advice available at that time. The papers, on the other hand, will sensationalise because that is what they do.

I hold out no hope that we will get compensation or even justice from this. When it comes to being complete and utter kunts the Civil Service leaves even Sepco standing at the gate.
Click to expand...

The penalty calculations will no doubt have been calculated under certain guidelines, guidelines which come with a degree of interpretation. I suspect the 'interpretaion' is where any legal battle will take place.

Also, the letters first main point is not denying a mistake by HMRC. Its specifically denying any 'mistake that led to our administration'.
 
I was brought up to respect teachers, doctors, police etc, but the older I get the more cynical I’ve become. This whole episode reeks of shite from the very top and it’s going to take a public enquiry to root out all the bad bastards involved.
 
HMRC are using very, very loose facts to put up an argument. They might not have miscalculated the taxes. However, the figures they disclosed and the penalties they added are clearly not correct. They never did make any sense.

HMRC have made a rip roaring fucking arse of this. However, as they are a government company they are in the absolute best place to begin their cover up.
 
devilman said:
HMRC are using very, very loose facts to put up an argument. They might not have miscalculated the taxes. However, the figures they disclosed and the penalties they added are clearly not correct. They never did make any sense.

HMRC have made a rip roaring fucking arse of this. However, as they are a government company they are in the absolute best place to begin their cover up.
Click to expand...

The club could shake HMRC to the core by demanding a full and independent public inquiry into HMRC's procedures against Rangers from day one. HMRC are only a Government department, and answerable to the electorate. I'd pay money to watch these scum squirm when under oath and under pressure, especially attempting to explain away how private and confidential information concerning our club was being deliberately and repeatedly leaked into the public domain.
 
monkey magic said:
The club could shake HMRC to the core by demanding a full and independent public inquiry into HMRC's procedures against Rangers from day one. HMRC are only a Government department, and answerable to the electorate. I'd pay money to watch these scum squirm when under oath and under pressure, especially attempting to explain away how private and confidential information concerning our club was being deliberately and repeatedly leaked into the public domain.
Click to expand...
I really hope the club do this. I really hope the noise that is going to come out of it is causing the hierarchy at HMRC to be currently shitting themselves into no sleep at night.

Sadly I just have this feeling that there will be little noise made.
 
I think that statement is going on a hopeful twisted definition of miscalculation.

I say that simply because the only way for them to have known what tax was due would have been if Rangers had operated PAYE. They didn't though, so Hmrc were not aware of the earnings to calculate what tax was due. So yes they didn't miscalculate, as they made no calculation to be wrong about. It would be a guesstimate at best based on a blind assumption of earnings they assumed the players were getting at that time.

The tax bill to Rangers also assumes that the players etc. made no tax contributions themselves (admittedly maybe they didn't) but its very likely Rangers were also being chased for some income tax that Hmrc were already in receipt of from the players.
 
GF7 said:
I think that statement is going on a hopeful twisted definition of miscalculation.

I say that simply because the only way for them to have known what tax was due would have been if Rangers had operated PAYE. They didn't though, so Hmrc were not aware of the earnings to calculate what tax was due. So yes they didn't miscalculate, as they made no calculation to be wrong about. It would be a guesstimate at best based on a blind assumption of earnings they assumed the players were getting at that time.

The tax bill to Rangers also assumes that the players etc. made no tax contributions themselves (admittedly maybe they didn't) but its very likely Rangers were also being chased for some income tax that Hmrc were already in receipt of from the players.
Click to expand...

Of course they calculated it. There was no guesstimations involved. They would know how much each employee earned based on their P60 in addition to how much was paid in to their individual trust, therefore will have been able to work out their total earnings and thus how much tax was due in lieu of income tax paid on their trust payments.

The error appears to be in the "grossing up" argument that they still maintain, whereas according to a former tax investigator, that should only be used for company directors, meaning the calculations were wildly inaccurate.
 
Teuchterblue said:
The penalty calculations will no doubt have been calculated under certain guidelines, guidelines which come with a degree of interpretation. I suspect the 'interpretaion' is where any legal battle will take place.

Also, the letters first main point is not denying a mistake by HMRC. Its specifically denying any 'mistake that led to our administration'.
Click to expand...
Honestly mate, I don’t think there will be a legal battle. I’d love heads to roll and justice to be served over this but I just don’t see it.

And your second point is absolutely correct. They’re saying it’s not our fault you went in to administration: we were simply part of the legal process and did nothing wrong.

There are people and businesses up and down the UK who have been fukced over by government incompetence, corruption and sheer bloody mindedness. If Rangers want to sue them or seek redress we will be joining a long queue.
 
steve1873 said:
Of course they calculated it. There was no guesstimations involved. They would know how much each employee earned based on their P60 in addition to how much was paid in to their individual trust, therefore will have been able to work out their total earnings and thus how much tax was due in lieu of income tax paid on their trust payments.

The error appears to be in the "grossing up" argument that they still maintain, whereas according to a former tax investigator, that should only be used for company directors, meaning the calculations were wildly inaccurate.
Click to expand...
You don't get a p60 if you are not paid PAYE basis and Rangers weren't declaring what they were paying into the trusts. That is why it was deemed as tax avoidance. Intermediary reporting has been a requirement for a few years now but not then and even now it is not enforced - essentially is quarterly reporting to say why you are not operating PAYE.

I pay hundreds of people daily - some PAYE, some Gross, some limited companies - all for different reasons and circumstances. Things are more streamlined now with RTI and intermediary reporting, but I have seen umpteen cases of assumed liability underpayments based on pure guesswork of what they think someone may have earned. (albeit on a tiny fraction of the scale)
 
Midfield General said:
Mate there is a lot of misunderstanding around the use of Ebts.It was never the case that they were either legal or illegal,they were perfectly legal,the dispute was over if they were taxable or not.
Click to expand...
Totally mate and we'll aware. Just interesting how this is all panning out and the hole they are digging can only go against them in the long run.
 
The Fraud Squad should really be all over this; investigations of individuals at Centre One and elsewhere who had a "vested interest" in seeing us go to the wall.
How could such "mistakes" happen which caused some individuals to lose their jobs, others to have potentially ruinous bills to pay, inflicted emotional trauma on many tens of thousands of ordinary working folk, and cause contractual hardship on the club which rose from the ashes of all this? No wonder some of those clowns were throwing parties.
 
Why would they respond to a newspaper article at all on one specific (but high profile) case? Not only that but the chief exec or equivalent sending poorly worded letters and tweets? Seems to have been done by the same person to me.

Something is definitely not right here. What are they playing at?
 
Alpagers said:
Why would they respond to a newspaper article at all on one specific (but high profile) case? Not only that but the chief exec or equivalent sending poorly worded letters and tweets? Seems to have been done by the same person to me.

Something is definitely not right here. What are they playing at?
Click to expand...
They will be getting bombarded from countless news outlets and making a statement means they can refer any enquiries to that statement. It probably was written by the same person - all bigger organisations use a pr team \ firm to write public NOTICES. Hmrc need to sack whoever they are using
 
I thought HMRC didn’t comment on individual businesses as per their quote to the press

Now we have had two further comments via Twitter specifically mentioning Rangers

So HMRC what is your policy re individual businesses?

Do you comment or not ?

A phucking joke organisation who are paid out of the public purse
 
YoungGer97 said:
EJbYkJTX0AA-jot
Click to expand...
Where is this letter?
 
GF7 said:
You don't get a p60 if you are not paid PAYE basis and Rangers weren't declaring what they were paying into the trusts. That is why it was deemed as tax avoidance. Intermediary reporting has been a requirement for a few years now but not then and even now it is not enforced - essentially is quarterly reporting to say why you are not operating PAYE.

I pay hundreds of people daily - some PAYE, some Gross, some limited companies - all for different reasons and circumstances. Things are more streamlined now with RTI and intermediary reporting, but I have seen umpteen cases of assumed liability underpayments based on pure guesswork of what they think someone may have earned. (albeit on a tiny fraction of the scale)
Click to expand...
Were they not declared annually?
 
yarrumdavid01 said:
Dave King is letting the noise settle. I believe he will come back using the media with a nuclear bomb that will be recorded in outer space.

There is no way he is going to do the dignified silence.

In fact I even expect Murray to throw his tuppence worth in there as well.
Click to expand...
You expect far too much. HMRC are pretty much bombproof to criticism. I can’t see anything coming of this. It would need years of court battles, if , ands its a huge if, a judge actually allowed a case to heard. This will rumble on till the media get bored with it.
 
12v maniac said:
Not going to lie, it has always confused me as to were the sum of 74 million came from?

Is this the total amount believed to have been paid to players and directors through the ebt scheme or is it the calculated vat amount due for any ebt paym
ents made?
Click to expand...
That figure of £74m:

Rangers paid £47.5m into EBTs 2001-2010.

HMRC decided that as staff received £47.5m net, they required a gross figure of around double this to receive the net amount. They then applied prevailing high earners rate ( which was 40% between 2001-10 ) and assessed Rangers as due approx £38m in unpaid tax.

They then applied 65% penalty on this figure of £24m and then added a further £12m interest = £74m.

In the BDO report June 2019, HMRC conceded that the £24m penalty was incorrectly applied and a further £2m was deducted as they overstated, I imagine, Whyte's non payments, so in total £26m taken off total tax bill.

As others have stated here, but is somewhat lost by many, the Times are stating that the grossing up argument used by HMRC has been incorrectly applied. If so the tax and NI due from EBTs would reduced to around £20m and the interest due would likely fall by 50%.

I would imagine, but don't know, that the rate and duration of interest charged may also be questioned by BDO.

As a final point I see HMRC are tweeting tonight their tax calculations are correct, that may be so but they haven't said they correctly applied the grossing up argument that the Times claim HMRC have got wrong.
 
Don't expect any response soon from the club ( or anyone else for that matter ).

The club and it's advisors will be considering the situation for some time to come !
 
We should also be told how much HMRC spent in their pursuit of Rangers , that will be interesting if it's more than what is now being reported is due
 
We should also be told why HMRC went after the club rather than the individual for "unpaid tax".
I'm damn sure if i didn't pay enough tax, they wouldn't come after my employer.
 
RWL12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Surely they wouldn’t comment on identifiable companies. Per their own oft quoted “policy”
 
So just to clarify, the issue here isn’t actually miscalculated tax, it’s the additional penalties and interest on top of that that shouldn’t have been imposed on us?
 
HMRC are so obviously riddled from head to toe with mentally challengeds, here's the evidence...

Why do a deal with Arsenal over EBTs but not us when we offered them a perfectly good £10M which they knew they wouldn't get if they kept inventing pie in the sky bullshit fines we could never pay?

How come Arsenal never got massively overcharged?

Why have no other clubs been hounded like a hundred rabid pit bulls chasing a scrap of meat after they won their so called "test case"?

Why do HMRC never comment on individual cases except Rangers?

Why are a film company that never makes any fùcking movies allowed to operate a tax scam with impunity?

I would suggest that we're up to our necks in 19th Century Terrorist cùnts!
 
longtimedead said:
Q1 Who instructed the investigation and why ?
Click to expand...
I’m sure it was the coalition government that started it all. A review of tax avoidance schemes after the financial crisis to get money into the treasury. EBTs and similar were rife in business, I know guys who had them and are being chased. It was basically accounts saying to their clients your tax bill is £250k, but if we do this legal trust you’ll only need to pay £80k. It’s registered with HMRC and they acknowledge the tax avoidance scheme. Ps the £80k was the accounts fee for setting it up, if they made that kind of money you can imagine the level that they were pushed!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top