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

monkey magic said:
Sadly, that seems to be the attitude of the Scottish media this morning. This monumental scandal involving HMRC , which would attract outrage and banner headlines if involving a top English club, has barely caused a ripple of interest outside our fans forums. I knew Scotland was now corrupt to the hilt, today just confirms it.
Click to expand...

I'm really surprised that Sky haven't at least mentioned it, unless somebody higher up has told them to avoid it

looks like the sort of story they could spend a decent amount of time on, considering they won't have much with it being international week at the moment
 
Someone got exactly what they wanted for a number of years one team hovering up all the European income while the rest got next to nothing. The worst part is the rest of Scottish football are that dumb they were willing partners in this.

Is it perhaps possible nonce fc seen a possible Penn State style scandal about to hit them down the line and engendered this to horde money to pay compensation? That mob right now claims to have £40m in the bank and we all know why that’s being held back.
 
Brother Crockett said:
Sorry if this had been covered, but the Small Tax a
Case was only as a result of Whyte. Whyte only appeared when Rangers became unsellable due to the EBT penalties.
Click to expand...

Wee Tax Case didn’t appear ‘because’ of Whyte - it simply became apparent during the due diligence. You may be getting confused with the unpaid PAYE and VAT that was solely the responsibility of Whyte. The Wee Tax Case was in relation to an early version of the EBTs, a disguised remuneration scheme, I think it was called.
 
Last edited:
If this were to be 'proven' to have been deliberately orchestrated, we should then go after the SFA and the SP(F)L for prize monies withheld and transfer bans.
 
Any of our more learned Bears on this sort of subject know what the ultimate outcome could be ? Could it result in an enquiry ? Any Compensation ? The most important question Ill like to know is could this result in criminal charges ?
 
£ 20 million was what we really owed. It is scandalous that HMRC's negligence, and the mayhem it caused, won't be pursued by journalists in Scotland.

www.thescottishsun.co.uk

Taxman's £50m 'blunder' blamed for Rangers going bust

HMRC is set to wipe out as much as £50million from a tax bill owed by Rangers’ old operating company after a ‘multimillion-pound blunder’, it has been claimed. The Times reports t…
www.thescottishsun.co.uk www.thescottishsun.co.uk
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Wee Tax Case didn’t appear ‘because’ of Whyte - it simply became apparent during the due diligence. You may be getting confused with the unpaid PAYE and VAT that was solely the responsibility of Whyte. The Wee Tax Case was in relation to an early version of the EDTs, a disguised remuneration scheme, I think it was called.
Click to expand...


spot on

Wee Tax Case
Big Tax Case (EBTs)
unpaid PAYE/NICs etc
 
Valley Bluenose said:
We’d need to see what final figures are but, if this pans out as reported, the total debt owed to HMRC will have reduced substantially - but so will the overall total debt of the company.

Can’t remember actual figures but let’s say HMRC had £95m of a £120m debt. They easily reach the 25% threshold.

If the overall debt drops by £70m, for example, after the adjustment then HMRC would have, for example, £25m of a £50m debt. It still easily achieves the 25% threshold.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it’s pretty certain they would still have had the percentage needed to block a CVA.

They’re probably looking at about £30- £40m all in even if the grossing up argument works in addition. The debt would be about £70-£80m in this scenario, so they would still be well above the blocking percentage.

The real question is whether the club would have ended up in Whyte’s hands but for these figures, though.
 
if murray is successful, would the newco have redress due to knock on effect.
i.e. if the oldco didnt go into liquidation then there wouldnt be a newco with the likes of ashley contracts etc
 
You have to laugh. The BBC Football Scotland website has a breaking story about Dundee United not wanting to accept bids for Lawrence Shankland. Our 'wee' story is still a paragraph in their gossip column.
Remember when they were falling over each other to see who could quote the biggest tax liability in big banner headlines almost daily and the BBC Scotland business correspondent was frothing at the mouth over the trouble we were in?
They are deliberately trying to keep a lid on this story as they know they were part of our problem.
 
Marty101 said:
Yeah, it’s pretty certain they would still have had the percentage needed to block a CVA.

They’re probably looking at about £30- £40m all in even if the grossing up argument works in addition. The debt would be about £70-£80m in this scenario, so they would still be well above the blocking percentage.

The real question is whether the club would have ended up in Whyte’s hands but for these figures, though.
Click to expand...
They would still have been above the percentage required to block, but that is not the issue. The debt was inflated to the point where the CVA only offered a small percentage, making it better for them financially to kill it. By reducing the over-all debt a huge amount, the amount given to creditors increases significantly in terms of penny in the pound. that would make it far less likely they would block it, if they applied their own guidelines.
 
Papatango said:
Worry not people the ever insightful and highly qualified accountancy experts led by the unimpeachable Hugh Keevins will be on air soon to explain why it’s all Rangers fault.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I actually think the likes of Keevins has seen what destroying Rangers has done to Scottish football.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
They would still have been above the percentage required to block, but that is not the issue. The debt was inflated to the point where the CVA only offered a small percentage, making it better for them financially to kill it. By reducing the over-all debt a huge amount, the amount given to creditors increases significantly in terms of penny in the pound. that would make it far less likely they would block it, if they applied their own guidelines.
Click to expand...

This is like turning the clock back.:confused:

Whatever the overall debt, whatever the level of debt owed to HMRC they would have voted against the CVA. In the same way they voted against every other football-related CVA. Partly down to their aversion to the football creditors rule. It appears to have been their ‘policy’ in all football matters.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
This is like turning the clock back.:confused:

Whatever the overall debt, whatever the level of debt owed to HMRC they would have voted against the CVA. In the same way they voted against every other football-related CVA. Partly down to their aversion to the football creditors rule. It appears to have been their ‘policy’ in all football matters.
Click to expand...
So no club in administration has ever had a cva agreed when HMRC held enough of a vote to block it? I did not know that.
 
In its simplest form, the articles note that between 2001-2010, Rangers paid £47m into trusts for EBTs

Assuming we had not done that and paid the £47m as normal wages and paid tax on that sum of 50% - we would only have paid out/owed £23m or so?
 
Marty101 said:
Yeah, it’s pretty certain they would still have had the percentage needed to block a CVA.

They’re probably looking at about £30- £40m all in even if the grossing up argument works in addition. The debt would be about £70-£80m in this scenario, so they would still be well above the blocking percentage.

The real question is whether the club would have ended up in Whyte’s hands but for these figures, though.
Click to expand...

This is the entirety of the point.

CVAs, percentages, etc are ultimately irrelevant, because it would never have come to this if they'd actually billed us for the correct amount in the first place.
 
nelster said:
My advice to bears would be to cut the air supply to Haggerty and English

It is only Rangers people interacting with them thats making them relevant

Stop interacting with them

Block them
Click to expand...

i know it would never work - but in an ideal scenario we would have a very small number of knowledgeable bears who would take it in turns to just annihilate gimps like those 2 whenever they piped up with their absolute drivel. No abuse, no hyperbole, just cold hard facts that shut them down straight away. No one else engaging with them.
 
jdm1873 said:
It goes back before that - Murray didnt need to sell the club to the charlatan in the first place. Other people would have came forward if that was the total extent of the hmrc debt.
Click to expand...
So yet another question is why did he then? Because he knew Whyte’s plan? Because everyone else got their maths wrong too and his “advisers” hadn't worked this out?

Whole thing stinks even more now.
 
Derek Mitchell said:
That's what they will say but the reality is that this will show us in more positive light as its clear we've been shafted and as for their recent titles - TAINTED. They love nothing more than to paint us as the bad guy and them the victim so cant see them being happy at this.
Click to expand...
Craigie said:
Tax Expert Tom english throws his tuppenceworth in - unsurprisingly he may be incorrect!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1194967725707280384
Click to expand...
Sectarian bigot commenting on the the thing he hates most in his sad life Glasgow Rangers. And guess what his hatred shines through Sectarian Bigot employed by the Sectarian BBC Scotland .
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
So no club in administration has ever had a cva agreed when HMRC held enough of a vote to block it? I did not know that.
Click to expand...

That was certainly the line that was put around in 2012 mate and, if I recall correctly, nobody was able to come up with any example that refuted it. All to do with the football creditors rule which gave football creditors preference over all other creditors. HMRC just wouldn’t countenance that apparently. There is some debate as to whether it legally applied in Scotland but, effectively, it did with all football debts having to be paid.
 
vinnie said:
So yet another question is why did he then? Because he knew Whyte’s plan? Because everyone else got their maths wrong too and his “advisers” hadn't worked this out?

Whole thing stinks even more now.
Click to expand...
Tbf Murray argued the toss and was told what the figures (now false) were and HMRC were like a dug with a bone. They pursued us through tribunals and the court. Would they have for £20m...would they %^*&
I get Murray wasnt all sweerness and light but he was spot on the money re HMRC but was forced to sell by the bank
 
What can we realistically get from this news?

The best thing now is to get shot of Ashley is there anyway this can be done?

For any lurking enablers we win the league this year after what has happened be prepared for the biggest longest party Scotland has ever seen and the only way to miss it is to head for your local bridge.
 
Bobans27 said:
Murray wasn’t making decisions at this point. He was owner of Rangers in name and nothing else.

he was told to sell by LBG, who probably sourced Whyte and helped set the deal up just to get rid of an £18m in debt football club with a potential tax bill of £134m.
LBG has the ability to put him under, part of them not doing so was getting rid of Rangers as quick as possible.

not making excuses for Murray, a charlatan in his own right, but he wasn’t in real control at that point.
Click to expand...
Talk about missing the point, the potential £134 that wasn’t???
 
BlooBlood said:
You need to add penalties and interest on.

Looks like HMRC have done the same calculation as you then grossed up (presumably as the employer would be making good on the tax which would have been due by the employee had PAYE been correctly applied at the time of payment). However, when there’s a PAYE failure (I.e salary wasn’t taxed that should have been) the employer is responsible for putting HMRC back into the position it would have been in had everything been done correctly at the outset.

Thus no grossing up is required.

Seems HMRC have grossed up then added penalties and interest to the grossed up figure so have arrived at the £70m figure.

This is a basic error. How could they have got it so wrong?
Click to expand...
I have never believed that HMRC just got it "so wrong", a sort of "honest" mistake as a particularly odious character might say.

I've always believed there was a concerted attempt to destroy, or at least severely wound us, and all for who's benefit?

Why did HMRC wait until 2010 to land on us an inflated bill, when EBTs appeared in accounts from 2001. Why the penal interest and penalties, the argument of us blatantly abusing the system doesn't add up, given two tax tribunals judged we had largely been correct in our administration of EBTs.

If you take HMRC's purpose as to collect tax, they have had an epic fail and heads should roll over this. They declined offer of over £10m from Murray plus probably lost opportunity for payment plan of remaining £10m. Then lost further £20m from Whyte. Then lower tax take from lower wages 2012-2017.

Above is probably about £60m of collectable revenue if HMRC had played their cards differently Makes you wonder, well me anyway, of their motive!
 
abillyt said:
Sectarian bigot commenting on the the thing he hates most in his sad life Glasgow Rangers. And guess what his hatred shines through Sectarian Bigot employed by the Sectarian BBC Scotland .
Click to expand...
Another who only wants to talk about football, when it suits his agenda and diseased mind....
 
When the dust settles on this clusterfuc* I'll have too many villains to count on both hands but for me five of them stand out.
1. HMRC.
who definitely had an agenda and were not impartial. They lost the first two court cases against us but could carry on their relentless pursuit of us due to a bottomless pit of government funds. The flow of sensitive information from HMRC to the tabloids and internet was definitely criminal.
2 . Craig Whyte.
He 100% bought Rangers illegally by using the business's assets to purchase the club and subsequently threw us to the wolves.
3. Donald Findlay.
Who defended Whyte in court when he should have stayed miles away. He had a personal agenda to demonize the people at Rangers who he felt should have stood by him after his sash bash exploits. Unforgivable imo that he should help Whyte avoid the justice and accountability he truly deserved and in doing so let down our massive following.
4. Celtic support.
Who's overall behaviour in this saga has been SHAMEFUL. How many times have they ignored facts to suit agenda, how many times have they spent cash to persue embarrassing falsehoods against our club. They became fanboys of Whyte and were happy to see him sail into the sunset with taxpayers money despite them taking the moral high ground on our deprivation of tax commitments. But for me their BIGGEST crime was to spend seven years in front of their keyboards opining and judging all things Rangers and Ebt's as if they were the paragons of virtue yet never touch ONE key to comment on their clubs PANDEMIC abuse of the children in their care , SHAMEFUL, DISGUSTING and DISTURBING in equal measures.
5. Scottish football fans.
Who's parochial hate of our club has sacrificed our country's national sport. Sorry did I say "sport" , the irony of Scottish clubs seeking "sporting integrity" is laughable. I'll give you some more irony, the clubs who set out to destroy us have an ever increasing amount of EMPTY seats every week while we are looking to INCREASE our capacity. Celtic Europa league tickets £72 for three , Rangers £111 ALL sold. We lost the battle but by fu*k we'll win the war.
 
Centralbear said:
I have never believed that HMRC just got it "so wrong", a sort of "honest" mistake as a particularly odious character might say.

I've always believed there was a concerted attempt to destroy, or at least severely wound us, and all for who's benefit?

Why did HMRC wait until 2010 to land on us an inflated bill, when EBTs appeared in accounts from 2001. Why the penal interest and penalties, the argument of us blatantly abusing the system doesn't add up, given two tax tribunals judged we had largely been correct in our administration of EBTs.

If you take HMRC's purpose as to collect tax, they have had an epic fail and heads should roll over this. They declined offer of over £10m from Murray plus probably lost opportunity for payment plan of remaining £10m. Then lost further £20m from Whyte. Then lower tax take from lower wages 2012-2017.

Above is probably about £60m of collectable revenue if HMRC had played their cards differently Makes you wonder, well me anyway, of their motive!
Click to expand...

Another key point that is conveniently forgotten or overlooked by many. It was retrospective following a change in the law!! The Club were a test case apparently...aye right !!
 
Valley Bluenose said:
That was certainly the line that was put around in 2012 mate and, if I recall correctly, nobody was able to come up with any example that refuted it. All to do with the football creditors rule which gave football creditors preference over all other creditors. HMRC just wouldn’t countenance that apparently. There is some debate as to whether it legally applied in Scotland but, effectively, it did with all football debts having to be paid.
Click to expand...
I thought I was a company law and tax expert after those years but this is not in my head. Skill fade through not needing to use the expertise we all shared back then.

I would have a few doubts about it being strictly true; they have a requirement to get as much public cash in as possible and cutting off their nose over procedural issues at the expense of the public purse would go against that. However with government agencies you can never tell!
 
Steve Snedden said:
I can't prove it but attempting to destroy perhaps the most significant symbol of unionism no doubt helped Salmond's cause in 2014.

I am willing to bet that had we still been in our rightful place, the referendum result would have been nowhere near as close.
Click to expand...
He did make some sympathetic comments, but quickly got on message once the msm turned on us
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top