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

Northampton_Loyalist said:
It wont make a difference if it is corrected but it absolutely would have done if not challenged.


If there is a pot of £100 to be shared around the creditors and HMRC hold 80% of the total debt, they get £80 and leave £20 to be shared out around the rest. If that is actually only 40% of the total debt, suddenly each creditor is due 300% more of the pot than they would have received. That is an absolutely huge difference in very real terms.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I know. That was the point though. It has been challenged.
 
Certain folk in the media are peddling the narrative that we will never know if we would have secured a buyer to take us out of admin even with the reduced tax liability.

If the tax bill had been estimated properly, there would have been no administration in the first place. None of the events from 2012 onwards would have happened.

2012-present in Scottish football really are the asterisk years.
 
Bluenose1979 said:
Yeah... I know. That was the point though. It has been challenged.
Click to expand...
Exactly the point. In pursuing a crime investigation there are 3 things to look for: Motive, means and opportunity. Someone at HMRC had the means to inflate the figures, they certainly had the opportunity and there are now 2 potential motives, each of which covers a different line of questioning. 1, an individual or small group who wanted to harm Rangers specifically. or 2, an organisation that wanted to ensure as much cash was brought back as possible and that it would leave the door open for claims against 50k other people.

The only other option is that someone made a mistake with the numbers, their boss missed it, their boss missed it and countless lawyers all missed it. Tax experts from all of Britain missed it and it took 6 years for the administrators and HMRC to finally accept it. So unlikely it is bordering on the impossible.


I am swaying now towards that OBE cunto that others are going for away from Rangers. Scum boogie-men may be a red herring in this case, although I am certain that if it was the other guy, he was not exactly dissuaded by JR etc.
 
Harrogate Bluenose said:
there were quotes as high as £140m depending on who you believed. Turns out those included fines that were unjust. It was scaremongering that everyone jumped into bed with. HMRC have a lot to answer for even if the more conservative figure of 50% less were to be believed.

Herald running with the word grossing up in todays paper

quote

"Stephen Outhwaite, a former senior tax inspector specialising in investigation and regulatory issues said that 'grossing up' should not have been applied to staff and players and should only apply to directors if they are unable to make good the income tax paid by the company. "

t
Click to expand...
The media in this country were just a culpable printing the figures they did without fully investigating the facts. The media were very happy to help the frenzy against Rangers.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Exactly the point. In pursuing a crime investigation there are 3 things to look for: Motive, means and opportunity. Someone at HMRC had the means to inflate the figures, they certainly had the opportunity and there are now 2 potential motives, each of which covers a different line of questioning. 1, an individual or small group who wanted to harm Rangers specifically. or 2, an organisation that wanted to ensure as much cash was brought back as possible and that it would leave the door open for claims against 50k other people.

The only other option is that someone made a mistake with the numbers, their boss missed it, their boss missed it and countless lawyers all missed it. Tax experts from all of Britain missed it and it took 6 years for the administrators and HMRC to finally accept it. So unlikely it is bordering on the impossible.


I am swaying now towards that OBE cunto that others are going for away from Rangers. Scum boogie-men may be a red herring in this case, although I am certain that if it was the other guy, he was not exactly dissuaded by JR etc.
Click to expand...

I would agree that there is something massively amiss in a figure being so significantly incorrect as this one was. More importantly, a primary aspect in the difficulty finding a buyer for the club was widely reported as being the uncertainty over the bill at the time - which the club obviously disputed entirely, but with HMRC's numbers in place it was a devastating value that no sane suitor would come near.

Again, it's one thing to get a number wrong. It's another entirely when they have gone through the levels of rigorous court battles to prove their case and have not recognised the claim was for amounts well above what was really owed.

However, here's probably where the wordplay around "miscalculation" kicks in. If HMRC treat "miscalculation" as about the counting up aspect in terms of tax owed, they maintain they got that correct. That's the basis of the current appeal I believe.

What they will say is that the bit they got wrong was not so much about miscalculating, it was about applying penalties on top of the tax owed that they now accept shouldn't have been applied.

Again, it's semantics, but it's something they'll argue regarding "calculations". ie The amount owed in tax was correct, IF the penalties applied, the amount owed for them was "calculated" correctly and, in turn, the interest was also "calculated" correctly. It's only once they retrospectively go back and remove the penalty aspect, that the bill comes down/numbers change.

I'm not agreeing with them, by the way, I'm simply saying I see the spin they're putting on the "miscalculation" word.

If the current appeal goes in the Oldco's favour, then I think they'll struggle to argue their position further - but they'll no doubt try it.

The question over motives and how deliberate the act was will be thrown around and debated heatedly, no doubt, however I don't think we'll see the club gain any great benefit in the long term.

My overall feeling at this stage is that the fundamental aspect behind the vilification of Rangers doesn't go away with any of this.

The faux moral outrage over tax avoidance won't be quelled, because we'll still have been found to have engaged in the same tax avoidance scheme and to have not paid tax due.

We'll never be seen as victims of anything other than our own club's actions and the media/public are never going to be interested in showing sympathy to us. Hence, I don't envisage any great political push to back us up North or South of the border as most high-profile politicians would actively shy away from siding with an organisation still found accountable for not paying tax due.
 
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 tax on that sum of 50% - we would only have owed £23m or so?

In any event, the tax case now revolves around the old company.

My understanding is that BDO have still been contesting HMRC about how much tax the old company owed.

This is so they can pay out all of the creditors fairly. If the taxman got all of what he claimed, there would be nothing left for anyone else.

If there is any compo to be claimed or leftover money to be claimed, I believe it goes to all of those involved in the oldco - ie, Murray, Whyte, King, other shareholders etc.

The current Rangers FC has no claim on this whatsoever.
 
Kylegib said:
The media in this country were just a culpable printing the figures they did without fully investigating the facts. The media were very happy to help the frenzy against Rangers.
Click to expand...
Incredibly even as possible new information becomes available that may challenge the historical narrative of the 'who what when where why' regarding Rangers recent problems, we have the ridiculously revealing outpourings of so many Scottish journalists like Spiers, English etc, who are not in a neutral position to discuss fresh developments objectively, because their first remit has to be one of defending their own position, as rather than report the matter at the time properly, instead they pursued a subjective agenda fuelled by personal bitter hatred, where they deliberately drove and distorted the story and poisoned the well of public opinion against Rangers, as a matter of their own policy.

Think about that for a moment.
Because that is at its very core a betrayal of everything journalism in a free press should stand for.
 
Last edited:
bilkobear said:
Incredibly even as possible new information becomes available that may challenge the historical narrative of the 'who what when where why' regarding Rangers recent problems, we have the ridiculously revealing outpourings of so many Scottish journalists like Spiers, English etc, who are not in a neutral position to discuss fresh developments objectively, because their first remit has to be one of defending their own position, as rather than report the matter at the time properly, instead they pursued a subjective agenda fuelled by personal bitter hatred where they drove and distorted the story and poisoned the well of public opinion against Rangers as a matter of their own policy.

Think about that for a moment.
Because that is at its very core a betrayal of everything journalism in a free press should stand for.
Click to expand...

These media scum were making up tax bill debt numbers as they went along back then to frighten off any potential buyers. They were loving every minute.
 
This is an even bigger boot in the balls than 2012. What happened then was a sore one, but to find out 7 years later it shouldn't have happened?
Absolutely fucking furious
 
The Shadow said:
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 tax on that sum of 50% - we would only have owed £23m or so?

In any event, the tax case now revolves around the old company.

My understanding is that BDO have still been contesting HMRC about how much tax the old company owed.

This is so they can pay out all of the creditors fairly. If the taxman got all of what he claimed, there would be nothing left for anyone else.

If there is any compo to be claimed or leftover money to be claimed, I believe it goes to all of those involved in the oldco - ie, Murray, Whyte, King, other shareholders etc.

The current Rangers FC has no claim on this whatsoever.
Click to expand...

That’s the way you’d have thought the figure was calculated but I believe HMRC is trying to argue that the £47m represents the sum the club would have paid to players after tax had been deducted.

That means the overall figure due in tax would be much greater.

I don’t agree with the logic at all.
 
These £24m penalties that are referred to. I've seen it stated that these have been withdrawn because there was no error in how Rangers presented their tax figures to HMRC. I've also seen it stated that HMRC aren't continuing the chase this £24m because there is nothing in the pot to pay it. Anyone know which is nearest the truth.

A guy in the Herald Sport section said that HMRC hadn't made any errors in this case. If the £24m penalty was withdrawn for the first reason, clearly they have
 
Marstonbear said:
These £24m penalties that are referred to. I've seen it stated that these have been withdrawn because there was no error in how Rangers presented their tax figures to HMRC. I've also seen it stated that HMRC aren't continuing the chase this £24m because there is nothing in the pot to pay it. Anyone know which is nearest the truth.

A guy in the Herald Sport section said that HMRC hadn't made any errors in this case. If the £24m penalty was withdrawn for the first reason, clearly they have
Click to expand...


HMRC want as much as they can get
if they reduce the bill, they lose out on "pennies in the pound"
therefore, they must know its not applicable
 
Biggest laugh is the reaction from the idiot tim......they don't know how to handle the unfolding events , they really are a vile uncouth uneducated breed and we Scoff at your drivel .....go home ya tims.....we know you're watching.....Glasgow blue and white
 
Rangers respond -


An Ibrox spokesperson said: "The Times story, if it is shown to be accurate, throws up a great many questions and is a cause for concern.
"Rangers will take time to consider any courses of action which may become feasible."

The Sun
 
If the final bill becomes simply the income tax and NI that should have been forked out on £47m, a series of questions arises.

Surely at some point round about 2008/09 it would have become apparent to the board that agreeing to settle with HMRC was the most sensible option. Murray would have known how much HMRC accepted from Arsenal. Did he decide to chance his arm?

Of course, by this stage Lloyds had a huge amount of control over Murray. Yet someone must have sat down and weighed the potential selling price of a viable Rangers against an £18m debt and the potential tax bill. It is at this stage the 'grossing up' of the tax bill becomes crucial because this determined everything that followed.

Was the board kept fully informed? It looks like Dave King (and other minority shareholders and debenture holders) have a strong case against Murray.
 
Timardim said:
I
Sounds like you don't........
Click to expand...
I dont know how many times I built my self up for the satisfaction of revenge, Whyte, Green, D&P ... all these charlatans got away with it. This has been the biggest stitch up of all time and we are now faced with another saga that could take years and it’s complications of compensation. I just look at this a see us getting fecked over again. I honestly couldn’t blame DK focussing on the present and winning 55. Let BDO do the donkey work, help the creditors and if there is a glimmer of an opportunity then perhaps there could be interest - just don’t see this as something we will address quickly.
 
I'm sure this was the guy who before said Rangers had no case to answer regarding EBT's and the Scottish Court of Session ruling in favour of HMRC on our tax issues was wrong. ? Just found it. He did.

waitingfortax.com

On EBTs and Rangers FC – Part 2

Writing here, I explained how Employee Benefits Trust work and why they were used for tax planning. But I also promised to try and explain why the decision of the Court of Session in the Rangers ca…
waitingfortax.com waitingfortax.com
 
It's not stv saying that though, they are quoting a QC who specialises in tax - one who has repeatedly backed our stance. Is it even possible to sue HMRC.
 
Has anyone in Rangers officially said they will sue?

The club statement didnt say that, did it?

No one, except angry fans like me has said "sue" (or did I miss something?)
 
He doesn't know David Murray originally agreed to sell Rangers for 6m. When the magnitude of HMRC's bill became known he had to sell us for £1.
If the tax bill does become massively reduced then David Murray has an opening to sue HMRC for 6m.
What a turn of events it would be if he ends up profiting out of HMRC's mistakes.
 
Obviously I'm not an expert but I don't see what Rangers in our current guise could really sue for. Surely those who might have any chance at litigation would be those who led us down the road to 2012 and those who took the piss in the immediate aftermath.

As far as I'm concerned the best we can hope for is heads rolling and public shaming of the HMRC representatives who cooked the books.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
To be fair, Jolyon Maugham is indeed a tax expert. He backed Rangers against HMRC consistently throughout the FTT, CoS and Supreme Court battle.
Click to expand...
TBF, I don't believe he ever backed Rangers. He may have had an interest in us winning our case against HMRC, but that was probably more down to his professional interests than any goodwill from him towards us. He is a lawyer after all.
 
coldbear said:
TBF, I don't believe he ever backed Rangers. He may have had an interest in us winning our case against HMRC, but that was probably more down to his professional interests than any goodwill from him towards us. He is a lawyer after all.
Click to expand...

Probably a poor choice of word saying he ‘backed’ us. I didn’t intent to give any impression of support for the Club. Better to say then that he felt we had a case and he expected us to win.

The point remains, he has no agenda against us either, as has been implied by some.
 
coldbear said:
TBF, I don't believe he ever backed Rangers. He may have had an interest in us winning our case against HMRC, but that was probably more down to his professional interests than any goodwill from him towards us. He is a lawyer after all.
Click to expand...
Lawyers are only loyal to the clients that pay them
 
bluetonic said:
Lawyers are only loyal to the clients that pay them
Click to expand...

He was being paid by neither party and his views were nothing to do with loyalty though.

He is one of the land’s foremost experts in tax law and litigation. I think it’s fair to say his views are not just dhim-appeasing rubbish or ill-informed.

Nobody has provided any basis for saying Rangers even COULD sue HMRC, let alone that they actually would.
 
Jeremy Vine just tweeted that he is gonna run the story called it " Extraordinary News " as you can imagine the tramps are all over it already. Would put it on here but not got a clue if anybody can help Thanks
 
I have a bit of further info on this whole subject, that may or may not be already known, or may indeed deserve its own thread. I don't know. I have known about this for about a year, but I thought all this shit was done and dusted.

I have a mate who was running a couple of companies using EBT's to limit his tax liabilities in the 2000's. He was waiting on the outcome of the big tax case, as it may have meant that the tax man was coming after him for enough to put him personally under. He is an incredibly savvy, rich and well connected guy in the North London Jewish community.

Given the stakes for him and his personal wealth he hired what he described as the best (and most expensive) tax expert barrister in the country. It turns out that BDO were using the same guy during the course of these tribunals. He described this guy as an absolute genius, who he met and discussed this with on a few occasions. This guy was telling him how HMRC's case was weak but the Rangers case was important as they were making an 'example of them'. The barrister was convinced that he would smash it. He was clearly right; on two occasions when representing BDO he was successful. Before the final Supreme Court appeal HMRC did all they could to get rid of him, including getting the hearing changed at short notice to when they knew he would be in the Caribbean. In the end they managed to get the final Supreme Court hearing moved to Edinburgh. They argued that it was out with this guys English jurisdiction and he was unable to present the case under what was now Scots Law. An absolute stitch up because they knew they would lose. Whoever else picked up this very complex case did it at short notice and didn't do a great job and as we know the result was the HMRC 'won' the final appeal.

I have no way of proving this is accurate, but I do know I believe what my man said and he told me all of this simply because I mentioned I was a Rangers fan. He had no agenda other than concerns about his own wealth and he's not much of a football fan. It may or may not be relevant in the grand scheme of things but if true it's yet another factor which shows the lengths the HMRC went to, and the money they spent, to try and crucify us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top