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

HandsomeHead said:
Given the apparent connection between Ellis and Whyte, do you think the latter was also part of that charade? i.e. when nobody emerged out of the woodwork due to Ellis’s transparent unsuitability, Whyte and his spurious millions popped up as bigger bait.
Click to expand...

Well, I can’t prove it but why do the David Murrays of the world hire the likes of Jack Irvine?

Irvine was involved in hyping up Whyte when he was supposedly interested in buying STV.
 
I think Whyte came into play via David Grier.

I am sure he is Scottish and knew muir.

When at the banks he was a specialist in asset based lending (I. E tickets type deals)
 
HandsomeHead said:
Record article about Ellis from 2012 where he talks about being ‘duped’ by Whyte, but mentions introducing him to Murray in the south of France

www.google.co.uk

Rangers director Andrew Ellis: I'm sorry to fans for bringing Craig Whyte to club - he's duped us all

BUSINESSMAN Andrew Ellis introduced Craig Whyte to former Rangers owner Sir David Murray in November 2010. But after watching the Ibrox club plunge into administration, he has said: "I'm sorry."
www.google.co.uk
Click to expand...

Ellis, Whyte, Green, Ashley, Ahmad, Zeus and all the other silent investors. They were all in it together from the beginning looking to asset strip and make a quick buck. Whyte was simply the face of their consortium and then in the 2nd phase, that was Green's job as Whyte had became too toxic by then but they were all working together. The evidence is out there in the leaked Chartlotte Fakes recordings.
 
SouthLDNBear said:
IMO absolutely nothing will happen as a result of the Times article. As far as joe public is concerned, HMRC has hit back saying the Times article is incorrect, and the matter is now finished. There has been no follow up from the journalist who penned the story, it has just turned into a damp squib.

True position will come out eventually but it is highly unlikely that we will see any movement on this or clarification for quite some time yet.
Click to expand...

Opinion or do you have inside info that makes what you said fact?
By the way …unfortunately you may very well be correct…
 
deedle said:
It is certainly infuriating how a situation that was difficult but not catastrophic spiralled out of control.
Click to expand...
Yes, quite, and our subsequent loss of 10's of £millions in player loss and lowering of income has been matched with an opposite credit of titles and 10's of £millions of uncontested access to income for another team from Glasgow, a fact often overlooked by many.

It's therefore is no surprise I, and many, question the motives of the individuals working for the institutions who made our situation pretty much insurmountable.

Beyond our loyal support, only now with the additional investment from King & Co are we looking to bridge the above financial gap, all so long as we can win the league and prevent Celtic pocketing more CL revenue.
 
Centralbear said:
Think this is only finished until next BDO report or the one following in 2020.

It is they who are contesting HMRC's "grossing up" calculation and if it has been correctly applied. This is what the Times seem to be alluding to well as highlighting the not well reported previous reduction of £26m to total tax due.

Whether the Times has the inside track on the "grossing up" I do not know, but when HMRC started tweeting in defence against the report, the Times responded saying their source was "impeccable".

Take from that what you will, but time will have to show who is right, one way or another.
Click to expand...

If there is the slightest hint of truth in any of this claim by The Times, HMRC will want to bury this story quickly!
We can’t let this happen!!
 
trueblue77 said:
Depends how you want to look at it. it was Murray's own choice to get involved with tax avoidance schemes in the first place. The HMRC inflated bill came next, then their refusal to to deal with Murray.

Murray was the root cause.
Click to expand...

I get what you’re saying but let’s be real here for a minute, if someone comes along saying they can save you X amount of money through totally legit means, endorsed by HMRC at that time, you’re not going to say, “no thanks”.

Murray is far from a saint and should never have sold to Whyte, I’m sure other board members would’ve taken the club on (King for example), however to say that it’s his fault for using EBT’s is stretching the truth a bit.
 
The_Hammer1990 said:
I get what you’re saying but let’s be real here for a minute, if someone comes along saying they can save you X amount of money through totally legit means, endorsed by HMRC at that time, you’re not going to say, “no thanks”.

Murray is far from a saint and should never have sold to Whyte, I’m sure other board members would’ve taken the club on (King for example), however to say that it’s his fault for using EBT’s is stretching the truth a bit.
Click to expand...

Lots of organisations use tax avoidance strategies. The issue is the extent to which they risk falling foul of the authorities leading to back-tax, penalties and interest becoming due.

EBTs were not illegal but they were aggressive which increased that risk. David Murray was always willing to take a risk, that is in his makeup and, ultimately, his risk taking led to his partial downfall (partial because he ring-fenced his personal dosh and is still very well off).

Unfortunately, for us, we were also brought down by Murray's risk taking. I question whether, had we had a different owner, we would have gone into EBTs in the first place.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Lots of organisations use tax avoidance strategies. The issue is the extent to which they risk falling foul of the authorities leading to back-tax, penalties and interest becoming due.

EBTs were not illegal but they were aggressive which increased that risk. David Murray was always willing to take a risk, that is in his makeup and, ultimately, his risk taking led to his partial downfall (partial because he ring-fenced his personal dosh and is still very well off).

Unfortunately, for us, we were also brought down by Murray's risk taking. I question whether, had we had a different owner, we would have gone into EBTs in the first place.
Click to expand...

Some good points. The global recession also decimated Murray's " empire". The last thing he or we needed at that time was his usage of EBT's to be aggressively pursued by HMRC.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Lots of organisations use tax avoidance strategies. The issue is the extent to which they risk falling foul of the authorities leading to back-tax, penalties and interest becoming due.

EBTs were not illegal but they were aggressive which increased that risk. David Murray was always willing to take a risk, that is in his makeup and, ultimately, his risk taking led to his partial downfall (partial because he ring-fenced his personal dosh and is still very well off).

Unfortunately, for us, we were also brought down by Murray's risk taking. I question whether, had we had a different owner, we would have gone into EBTs in the first place.
Click to expand...


I agree but would go further. I suspect that the aggressive nature of the scheme together with Murray's refusal to withdraw/amend it once HMRC challenged it, p*ssed off HMRC. They are never slow to take up a fight like this especially when they can use it to make an example of someone Subsequent HMRC actions went way over the top but it started small and low key. Murray had the chance to deal with it early doors but chose not to.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Lots of organisations use tax avoidance strategies. The issue is the extent to which they risk falling foul of the authorities leading to back-tax, penalties and interest becoming due.

EBTs were not illegal but they were aggressive which increased that risk. David Murray was always willing to take a risk, that is in his makeup and, ultimately, his risk taking led to his partial downfall (partial because he ring-fenced his personal dosh and is still very well off).

Unfortunately, for us, we were also brought down by Murray's risk taking. I question whether, had we had a different owner, we would have gone into EBTs in the first place.
Click to expand...
This scenario is like the speed limit being lowered to 60 today & anyone who done 70 yesterday gets fined, plus interest.
 
deedle said:
Anything involving Murray and Toxic Jack cannot be taken at face value. Whyte has links with Irvine in 2009.

John Brown said that David Murray sought out Whyte.

I suspect the Ellis business was something of a charade to put pressure on people who were genuinely interested.
Click to expand...
I was at a speakers night at Galabank in Annan early winter 2016 with John Brown and Craig Houston.During the Q&A session at the end of the the evening I asked Bomber,”Who found Craig Whyte for David Murray?Lloyds,Donald Muir or Jack Irving?”

Bombers answer was “David Murray found Craig Whyte for David Murray”.
 
monkey magic said:
Some good points. The global recession also decimated Murray's " empire". The last thing he or we needed at that time was his usage of EBT's to be aggressively pursued by HMRC.
Click to expand...

Murray took a huge risk with his very highly leveraged foray into commercial property and at the height of the market. He was vulnerable to any recession let alone the big one in 2008.

All tax jurisdictions pursue highly aggressive avoidance schemes and even less aggressive ones they try to shut off in one form or another. In my experience, you are never onto a winner when you go head to head with the tax authorities but people still try. Unfortunately, there are always some people who think they are smarter than everyone else.
 
HillsBill said:
I agree but would go further. I suspect that the aggressive nature of the scheme together with Murray's refusal to withdraw/amend it once HMRC challenged it, p*ssed off HMRC. They are never slow to take up a fight like this especially when they can use it to make an example of someone Subsequent HMRC actions went way over the top but it started small and low key. Murray had the chance to deal with it early doors but chose not to.
Click to expand...

And that is down to arrogance and Murray thinking he is smarter than everyone else.
 
It was a double dunt for Murray too, had he been given bad tax advice he could have sued the accountants against their professional liability insurance, but as it was perfectly legal at the time, the advice was good & therefore no recourse to the accountant.
 
CarlukeBear said:
It was a double dunt for Murray too, had he been given bad tax advice he could have sued the accountants against their professional liability insurance, but as it was perfectly legal at the time, the advice was good & therefore no recourse to the accountant.
Click to expand...

EBTs were always legal. The issue was whether tax was due or not. Some tax 'advisors' peddle avoidance schemes. A good tax advisor will make the client aware of the risks involved and the possibility that the scheme will not fly. Ultimately, it is up to the client as to how much risk they are willing to assume.
 
Hillheadbear said:
And that is down to arrogance and Murray thinking he is smarter than everyone else.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was down to Murray's arrogance per se. HMRC introducing retrospective taxation regulations didn't help. No doubt Murray's accountants and financial advisers also played their role in what eventually played out.
 
monkey magic said:
I don't think it was down to Murray's arrogance per se. HMRC introducing retrospective taxation regulations didn't help. No doubt Murray's accountants and financial advisers also played their role in what eventually played out.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, it was Murray's decision. The buck has to stop somewhere.
 
deedle said:
Where did you get these figures from? I have never seen any data published concerning the sums football clubs paid HMRC to settle EBT bills.

Arsenal used EBTs for a much shorter period than Rangers. They came to an agreement with HMRC in 2005 (Arsenal were also using another tax avoidance scheme). It is likely David Murray knows the terms of this agreement due to his friendship with David Dein.

The sum Rangers - or should that be the Murray group ostensibly acting on Rangers’ behalf? - offered HMRC before the FTTT began in January 2011 has been put at £10-11m. However, it has never been quoted officially (as far as I am aware).


It looks like HMRC were looking for a ‘scalp’ rather than recouping as much tax revenue as possible.

However, Murray should have agreed to settle with HMRC in 2008 when it began clamping down on EBTs in earnest. The money involved would surely have been very much less than the sums HMRC were demanding three years later.
Click to expand...

David Edgar also stated that ‘we’ offered 14m on his podcast last week Deedle. He said he knew this as a fact.

Edit : Sorry, I see this has been posted already.
 
BlueBuzz said:
How did Whyte ever pass being a fit and proper person to take us over? Surely the checks that the football authorities do in this country would have ruled him out at the early stages. . Comes back to the SFA / SPFL being told by Lawell , Thomson, Milne, Petrie etc what to do.
Click to expand...

The laughable decision to declare Whyte to be a 'fit and proper' person, capable of assuming control of Scotland's biggest and most successful team, was but one of many glaringly obvious 'errors' made by those 'entrusted' with the wellbeing of Scottish football.

From the outset of this farce it was clear that the penalties Rangers had been subjected to were entirely disproportionate to the nature of the 'crimes' they were charge with having supposedly committed. I suspected at the time that the way over-the-top punishment that was handed down, was not simply a few incompetent people who got carried away with themselves, but was in fact a carefully conceived plot intended to inflict serious damage to Rangers.

The more we are starting to learn about the events surrounding the matter, especially the recent allegations of HMRC over billing, the more my earlier suspicions are proving to be correct. There is a huge story here waiting in plain sight for some investigative journalist to come along and uncover.
 
Haining84 said:
The fact Grier advised both Whyte’s ‘takeover’ AND Duff and Phelp’s Administration sticks out like a sore thumb.Was he also not an old School/Uni friend of Murray?
Click to expand...

They might have been Uni pals but not school.

Grier went to Barrhead High.
 
It is worth reading Paul Baxendale-Walker's Wiki page. If that page is true, many might wonder why Murray didn't sense there might be a problem coming along and cut and run. That page also credits P B-W as co-writing a couple of books on trusts with Andrew Thornhill - who was one of the Murray/Rangers QCs during the various legal actions. It might also help to explain why HMRC got p*ssed off.
 
Gregybear said:
I think Whyte came into play via David Grier.

I am sure he is Scottish and knew muir.

When at the banks he was a specialist in asset based lending (I. E tickets type deals)
Click to expand...
Muir and Greer are from Barrhead. Whyte would have been refused by the Bank if they had carried out due diligence on him but they didn’t.
He borrowed from Ticketus against future season ticket sales which was improper and possibly illegal
He didn’t need any indemnity from HMRC because he could always put the Company down.
The whole system failed us.
 
HillsBill said:
I agree but would go further. I suspect that the aggressive nature of the scheme together with Murray's refusal to withdraw/amend it once HMRC challenged it, p*ssed off HMRC. They are never slow to take up a fight like this especially when they can use it to make an example of someone Subsequent HMRC actions went way over the top but it started small and low key. Murray had the chance to deal with it early doors but chose not to.
Click to expand...

monkey magic said:
How long did we use EBT's, around 10 years, which were generally accepted by both HMRC and the football authorities ? The retrospective regulations on EBT's were the key.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't Murray back off when HMRC challenged it?
 
monkey magic said:
HMRC are a law unto themselves, as we've found out, especially when suddenly introducing retrospective taxation regulations, which go against any form of natural justice, imo.
Click to expand...

Most tax jurisdictions are. But they are supported by their governments who want to maximise revenue and, crucially, they have popular support from people who believe that corporate tax avoidance is immoral.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Most tax jurisdictions are. But they are supported by their governments who want to maximise revenue and, crucially, they have popular support from people who believe that corporate tax avoidance is immoral.
Click to expand...

I can't think of one Govt who have recently introduced retrospective taxation regulations. As for ordinary punters or the self-employed, they'll also do anything to pay less tax, and why wouldn't they ?
 
monkey magic said:
I can't think of one Govt who have recently introduced retrospective taxation regulations. As for ordinary punters or the self-employed, they'll also do anything to pay less tax, and why wouldn't they ?
Click to expand...

Happens all the time. I got hit by it in the USA but managed to get the penalties removed as I couldn't have known about it. Still had to pay the extra tax and interest.
 
Hillheadbear said:
Happens all the time. I got hit by it in the USA but managed to get the penalties removed as I couldn't have known about it. Still had to pay the extra tax and interest.
Click to expand...

That really is the crux of the matter.

How can a retrospective tax adjustment have retrospective penalties applied?

Even a tax advisor would struggle to insist that penalties have to be applied in this situation
 
Alex Venters said:
As did Alex McLeish.
Click to expand...

Eck and Donald Muir grew up in the same housing scheme.
Grier grew up in the Craigheads scheme in Barrhead.
His father was ex provost of Barrhead.
All 3 attended Barrhead high though Grier is 2 years younger.
All 3 are Rangers fans although Grier married into one of the biggest mentally challenged families in Barrhead.
 
Southside_shug said:
That really is the crux of the matter.

How can a retrospective tax adjustment have retrospective penalties applied?

Even a tax advisor would struggle to insist that penalties have to be applied in this situation
Click to expand...

I agree. I suspect that is the avenue being pursued by BDO. In my case the number was quite small (a couple of hundred dollars) so it was easy for the tax authority to write it off. When it's a big number they are more likely to go after it.

Also (at least in the USA), the authorities like to go after high profile cases because it makes people think they are doing their job and tax avoidance is unpopular. We (PwC) got audited some years ago and the IRS leaked news of the audit to the WSJ saying that they expected to take us for millions. In the end it turned out that we had overpaid tax to the tune of around $20 million. I got $12k back! The IRS didn't leak that to the papers.
 
Family bam said:
Eck and Donald Muir grew up in the same housing scheme.
Grier grew up in the Craigheads scheme in Barrhead.
His father was ex provost of Barrhead.
All 3 attended Barrhead high though Grier is 2 years younger.
All 3 are Rangers fans although Grier married into one of the biggest mentally challenged families in Barrhead.
Click to expand...

Which mentally challenged family, The Finnegans of Arthurlie break ins fame? I know that big Eck went on to the JNI but I don't know if the other two did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top