Telegraph article on HMRC debacle - couple of new bits of info

EH47 said:
"Tax barrister Jolyon Maugham QC said on Twitter: “Lots of noise about HMRC and Rangers. But this seems to be the nub of the story. Rangers seems to have persuaded HMRC its tax conduct wasn’t sufficiently culpable to attract a penalty. But HMRC doesn’t seem to accept it assessed Rangers to the wrong amount.”
Asked if he believed HMRC would be liable to pay compensation as a result of their original miscalculation, Maugham replied: “I’m not sure it is even theoretically possible to sue HMRC. But it would take an awful lot more than getting the number wrong.”

Anyone surprised Jolyon went to a catholic university, has been a noted Labour party affiliate in the past, and is busy organising legal blocks on Brexit?
Hmmm, I wonder who was tasked to head-hunt him to run to the mhedia this week and pour cold water on things?
Click to expand...
HMRC have been used and the guy won his case .but it looks like HMRC are considering appealing to the high court.
 
Haven't time to read the whole thread but, though the Company may be different, the fans remain the same. Could a support group take action against HMRC on behalf of the club ? Emotional trauma suffered by each and every one of us. A million hurt Rangers fans each providing a signed affidavit demonstrating how adversely affected they were by the demotion and media slapping we all suffered. Nominal damages say £100 each. £100m award, held in trust for the club.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
I posted this on the main thread and got a handful of likes but no actual answer...

'
I just had a wee thought and I wonder if anyone can tell me it is wrong...


Courts have proven that the club has an unbroken history and has simply changed hands.

Does that not mean, that as the same entity, legal recourse could actually come from the club as it stands today instead of the parent company?

If the courts (and literally everyone else in the world except one sub-species of semi-humans) accept that Rangers now is the same as Rangers then, can Rangers, rather than RIFC not pursue damages for loss of income, reputational damage, asset stripping etc as a direct consequence of HMRC making an 'honest mistake'?'
Click to expand...

To secure damages in delict, you must show that you suffered loss. BDO can do so and so can Oldco shareholders and everyone directly connceted to it.. Thereafter, it depends on the remoteness of the claimant and whether HMRC had a duty of care to them. In terms of duty of care, there is a leading case which states that HMRC must show this towards a taxpayer. The case is
Neil Martin Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners. [2007] BTC 662

and can be seen here:

Neil Martin Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners. [2007] BTC 662 | Croner-i Tax and Accounting

[2007] EWCA Civ 1041. Court of Appeal (Civil Division). Chadwick, Smith and Wilson L JJ. Judgment delivered 25 October 2007.
library.croneri.co.uk library.croneri.co.uk
 
Heisenberg said:
Jolyon was very good throughout the issues, calmly educated people that Rangers didn’t commit a criminal offence but in fact had a dispute with HMRC over a tax bill. The moonhowlers couldn’t stand him.
Click to expand...

He was the same one who's advice Tom Ireland completely ignored if I recall
 
jomacbe said:
Seen this on twitter. Studied Law at Belfast University.

The senior official who oversaw the #Rangers case was #JimHarra, Director General for Business Tax at the time. He’s now been made First Permanent Secretary & Chief Exec of @HMRCgovuk! He also misled MPs on the Select Committee. He must resign. #JimHarraMustResign #HMRCShambles
Click to expand...
Jim Harra is a Lisburn boy and a good bluenose. Look elsewhere in HMRC at the time.
 
StirlingBear said:
Really? So the guy heading the tax 'miscalculation' and who used our case to push through the loan charge is a good bluenose? Certainly does not look like it.

Also came across this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1195047433862033410
Click to expand...
The Big Tax Case issue started in 2010, two years before Jim Harry's appointment. Once started the ensuing publicity meant the case took on legs and would have been in the hands of HMRC's legal department. Danny Alexander, a Scottish Lib Dem MP was the UK Government Minister at The Treasury at that time. What was his role? He has kept his head down since losing his seat in 2015.
 
The amount paid into EBT's over the period was less than £50m. Therefore, tax/NI would be significantly less than this.

It wasn't until the EBT's had been in operation for years that HMRC started looking at them as being taxable.

1. There should have been a payment plan offered as it covered such a long period.
2. As soon as the club challenged the bill, imo the charges/interest should have stopped. They seemed to get out of control.
3. That the court cases went to thee highest court in the land suggests that Rangers were more than within their rights to challenge HMRC on it.
4. Why did HMRC never wish to come to an amicable resolution - as ultimately they ended up with basically nothing.
5. I don't know if the stories were true about going after the individuals - but, if the players have received even ONE letter, then the have to explain how they could go after the business AND the employee. Surely it's one or the other.
6. Why have no other clubs been pursued?
7. Whoever was releasing our tax info to the public domain should be in jail!
 
Don't know if there is a thread on this already, but I would be happy to chip in #100 or so to finance a concerted effort to right the wrongs of the recent past.I'm thinking along the lines of getting a QC to look at the whole sorry mess from a Rangers perspective and to advise if there are grounds to proceed.The only proviso for me at least, is that it the fund is set up specifically for that purpose and not ultimately used for silly sheds like the last one was.I get that the motives were for the right reasons, but the RFF should be for what it says, to defend the interests of Rangers.I am suggesting this course of action since somebody quite rightly said that the club cannot argue on behalf of the old club.Perhaps 1872 or some named peson could be put forward.
 
mdingwall said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Rangers consider taking legal action after HMRC says £50m penalty was ‘too high’

Rangers are considering taking legal action against HM Revenue and Customs after it appeared to admit that it was wrong to have claimed £50 million in penalties from the club’s former operating company, which went into liquidation in 2012 and triggered one of the biggest club crises in Scottish...
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...

Is it true the sfa and league have apologised to our club?
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Ha ha, what do you think?
Click to expand...

Tbh I dont know I just got it from this!

www.ibroxnoise.co.uk

SPFL and SFA apologise to Rangers…

As everyone now knows (but not everyone (hint anyone) will admit), Rangers have been completely vindicated over any wrong-doing 7+ years ago. The stunning Times revelations reveals that due to, as yet…
www.ibroxnoise.co.uk www.ibroxnoise.co.uk

Looking at it again I dont think they have well not yet? ;)
 
Subway Bear said:
As a layman and having no clue, surely the creditors and current administrators of the old company (BDO) are the only ones with a case to chase HMRC? This would mean the thousands of fans and Mr King amongst the creditors though, so a glimmer of light that they can be taken to task.

Rangers as it is now, could they go after HMRC in a civil case of reputational damgage, as the brand took a significant hit in terms of sponsorship, future banking arrangements etc? Cant imagine any other way the current board can pursue them?!?
Click to expand...

We certainly wouldn't be hamstrung financially on our retail side by Mike Ashley if it weren't for this massively inflated tax case.
 
Gibraltar Loyal said:
This whole episode has been orchestrated from the east end. Any mention of Rangers and these (unts are allover it giving their opinions but yet still silence over the biggest scandal in world football.
Click to expand...

His field is tax law. Why the fck would he comment on historical child abuse allegations?
 
Misty Blue said:
Anyone wondering why Duff and Phelps did not challenge the HMRC calculations when they made the exaggerated claim for the purpose of the CVA ? They should have vetted and verified the claim.
Click to expand...

This is what it comes down to for me. When claims were adjudicated, that should have been challenged.
 
HMRC are on the hook here.The fact that they are commenting on Twitter and writi g letters is to me a sure sign they know they are in the wrong.
THEY ARE saying g no mistakes were made but they are negotiating with BDO to reduce their claim so there is more in the pot for creditors.
Two things here,firstly that could be a cover for the mistakes they made and se condly when did they start doing deals?
Murray offered them 10 MILLION as a settlement but they stated they don't do deals(except they did with Arsenal)
So they either made a mistake with their interest and penalty figures or it was deliberately set so high that it would only lead to liquidation.
Either way they were in the wrong and whoever was involved in this should be exposed and made to answer for this.
as other posters have saidDuff and Phelps should have been all over this,you have to wonder why they weren't.
It stinks to high heaven hopefully it is now unravelling and the guilty parties made to pay.
 
Midfield General said:
HMRC are on the hook here.The fact that they are commenting on Twitter and writi g letters is to me a sure sign they know they are in the wrong.
THEY ARE saying g no mistakes were made but they are negotiating with BDO to reduce their claim so there is more in the pot for creditors.
Two things here,firstly that could be a cover for the mistakes they made and se condly when did they start doing deals?
Murray offered them 10 MILLION as a settlement but they stated they don't do deals(except they did with Arsenal)
So they either made a mistake with their interest and penalty figures or it was deliberately set so high that it would only lead to liquidation.
Either way they were in the wrong and whoever was involved in this should be exposed and made to answer for this.
as other posters have saidDuff and Phelps should have been all over this,you have to wonder why they weren't.
It stinks to high heaven hopefully it is now unravelling and the guilty parties made to pay.
Click to expand...
So how much did the tax man actually recover for the government by not accepting the 10 Million ?
 
YoungGer97 said:
Jolyon Maugham has backed our side of this debate from a very early stage and nothing hes said here really goes against that
Click to expand...
Blog was called “waiting for Godot” or something like that.
I watched for his stuff every day at that time.
Hung my hat on it!
 
Rangersmandownunder said:
Currently the creditors have received around 6p in every pound, add in the legal fees and its very unlikely HMRC will recover more than the offer given by SDM.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely disgusting, if any of us worked for a private company and did stuff like this which is not even including the man hours involved, we would be out on our rses and looking for a new job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top