ibroxbound
Well-Known Member
Does their Twitter page comment on any other dispute or case?
Saying “HMRC won against Rangers’ tax avoidance” just doesn’t sound right . Weird way to put it.
Your right The Times will have moved on, but tomorrow the HMRC response will be in rags everywhere and the General public will take that on board.No it wont
HMRCs statement here does not counter any of the allegations in the Times article
Its pure obfuscation and word play. Quite frankly its the height of unprofessionalism ans seems extremely against the civil service code to comment on an individual case
In my experience HMRC feel they are above such "codes". They hold the purse-strings and as such they are the government, as far as they are concerned.No it wont
HMRCs statement here does not counter any of the allegations in the Times article
Its pure obfuscation and word play. Quite frankly its the height of unprofessionalism ans seems extremely against the civil service code to comment on an individual case
A FORMER senior HM Revenue and Customs inspector believes his former employer made an error in using a ‘grossing up’ method to calculate a huge £74million Rangers’ tax bill – that is being blamed for the club’s financial implosion.
Thought the story was in the London TimesIt’s an incredibly vague public response when challenging a national newspaper for inaccurate reporting. Evening times will take an accusation of inaccurate reporting very seriously so I’d expect a comprehensive breakdown of the irregularities to now be published in full (within legal allowances).
It just seems like a bizarre way for HMRC to challenge what’s came out so far. Surely ET’s scrutinised the content of their articles so is not to leave themselves open to accusations like these.
It will be interesting to see how this develops.
Oh right, i could be wrong mate. Still, I’d imagine the same logic would apply.Thought the story was in the London Times
"HMRC did not make any mistakes that led to the club's insolvency"
Sounds like the exact type of claim that may very well come back and bite them on the arse seeing as how there is a staggering level of contention over that claim.
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.
In fairness this whole episode over the last few days has made us a right laughing stock.
All we need is some serious clarity.
Who’s head?There is only one thing that needs to be agreed and that's what the final payment to HMRC. The semantics of who won what or if the tax was calculated right has never been the Times point in this story but how much we needed to pay and if this ends up around £20M heads need to roll!
That is all it is Bluenose1979 wordplay because that is the only way they can defend themselves.More wordplay from HMRC.
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.The same Jim Harra that has been on record saying EBT's are legal?
![]()
SFA/SPFL appear to be hiding discussions with HMRC on Marketed Film Tax Avoidance schemes.
In researching how HMRC is starting to handle footballer Image Rights I came across this oral testimony from an HMRC employee at the UK Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee hearing into Hig…footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com
Nonsense.In fairness this whole episode over the last few days has made us a right laughing stock.
All we need is some serious clarity.
No, but I think he paid a Polish Plumber to write that statement. FFS, was it written in crayon?I wonder if that guy has ever paid a tradesman in cash for doing a homer in his house.
Unless we have more to come out, then No the Jim fella will feel that is an end to it, we need to go on the offensive with more details.No one is disputing that HMRC won the final battle. The tax due is a straight forward calculation X% of Y so no one is saying they made a mistake there so this arse is technically correct on those two points.
Strangely enough he has completely omitted the fact that £50m has been wiped off the bill due to him and his rebel band making a James Hunt of the totting up process. The real crux of the story.
Anyone else think Jim's arse is making buttons.
Nope.Ulsterman from County Down!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.
Unless we have more to come out, then No the Jim fella will feel that is an end to it, we need to go on the offensive with more details.
In fairness this whole episode over the last few days has made us a right laughing stock.
All we need is some serious clarity.
I’m not sure we ever will mate, sadly. HMRC will likely drop the penalties and reduce the interest, knowing they are not getting it back and would be throwing good money after bad. Therefore the final bill may be an awful lot lower than the original bill, but that wouldn’t be the case were the old company still active. HMRC would have carried on the witch hunt and gone after us for every single penny - whether the penalties were fair or not. Someone in HMRC (and I actually dont believe it is ‘one of them’) has had it in for us from the start because they wanted a big scalp on their CV and we were unfortunately the easy target.There is only one thing that needs to be agreed and that's what the final payment to HMRC. The semantics of who won what or if the tax was calculated right has never been the Times point in this story but how much we needed to pay and if this ends up around £20M heads need to roll!
Jim Harra the chief exec is Scottish. Probably a mentally challenged no doubt.
HMRC are clearly rattled about something.
To comment about a specific case - when they have previously stated that they have a policy of not doing so - and using the kind of language that we have seen on Twitter is completely inappropriate, unprofessional and reeks of them being flustered.
The question is - what have they got to hide?
Bang on, they are shitting themselvesHMRC are clearly rattled about something.
To comment about a specific case - when they have previously stated that they have a policy of not doing so - and using the kind of language that we have seen on Twitter is completely inappropriate, unprofessional and reeks of them being flustered.
The question is - what have they got to hide?
HMRC are clearly rattled about something.
To comment about a specific case - when they have previously stated that they have a policy of not doing so - and using the kind of language that we have seen on Twitter is completely inappropriate,unprofessional and reeks of them being flustered.
The question is - what have they got to hide?
The Times will have publish more details or issue an apology to the HMRC.
Why is that twitter account putting out such strange tweets and statements? They don't even seem remotely professional, and they are HMRC ffs!
Whoever was in charge of the case at the timeWho’s head?
In fairness this whole episode over the last few days has made us a right laughing stock.
All we need is some serious clarity.