Guest thetruthwill0ut Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 An outline of what could happen in the event of an RFC insolvency. http://thetruthwill0ut.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/what-would-insolvency-mean-for-rfc/ There are many grey areas here, so others may have different views. Just meant to spark some discussion - definitely not a recommendation!! Insolvency=bad!!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thetruthwill0ut Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Don't listen to this guy http://rangerstaxcase.com/2011/04/04/administration-what-would-happen-if/ No-one would spend millions saving the club and then pi55 off all season ticketholders. Would be absolute suicide. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Interesting typo in this blog article TTWO. At one point you've typed 'RFC1983' after already having typed 'RFC1873' about eight times up till that point of the article. Probably irrelevant, but it stood out like a snow white NF skinhead wearing only union jack Y-fronts in a line-up of Zulu warriors. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thetruthwill0ut Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 Interesting typo in this blog article TTWO. At one point you've typed 'RFC1983' after already having typed 'RFC1873' about eight times up till that point of the article. Probably irrelevant, but it stood out like a snow white NF skinhead wearing only union jack Y-fronts in a line-up of Zulu warriors. What a fud I am. 1983 is my d.o.b. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 What a fud I am. 1983 is my d.o.b. It's also the year we came 4th in the league... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 There was a guy on Traynors Your Call after the game claiming to be a businessman and had experience of these types of things. He had Rangers facing a potential �£65-75 million debt from the tax man. I was interested to note that Traynor didn't ask what team the pratt supported. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thetruthwill0ut Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 If.bluedel has had a chance to read over my post, would be.interested in his thoughts. Usually has good constructive criticism and feedback 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 There was a guy on Traynors Your Call after the game claiming to be a businessman and had experience of these types of things. He had Rangers facing a potential �£65-75 million debt from the tax man. I heard that guy on Your Call. A) While he sounded well-educated, he also sounded like he'd been on the sauce. B) As he tried feverishly to spell it out in a slow and drunken sounding state, his figures became less and less credible every time he uttered a word. I was interested to note that Traynor didn't ask what team the pratt supported. It seemed pretty obvious that he wasn't a Rangers fan. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 There was a guy on Traynors Your Call after the game claiming to be a businessman and had experience of these types of things. He had Rangers facing a potential �£65-75 million debt from the tax man. I was interested to note that Traynor didn't ask what team the pratt supported. There are far too many variables for anyone to make an intelligent estimate of the potential liability, unless they have inside knowledge or know what HMRC are thinking. There is a great deal of leeway that HMRC have in terms of dishing out penalties and interest. I represented a client in such proceedings a number of years ago and it was absolutely obvious that there was a liability due to HMRC (and even THIS is not necessarily the case in RFC's case). However, because we assisted HMRC in whatever way we could to resolve the issue HMRC waived all penalties, which at that time could have been levied at 100% of the liability. Also, being in dispute with HMRC does not mean you have not assisted them in their investigation - so RFC could still see the penalties levied at ZERO (IF the law courts ultimately judge against us) - although I also appreciate that HMRC will be looking for as much as they can to hit the bank as revenue. I thought we were looking at amounts of about GBP 40 million having been paid into the EBT, is that not correct ? On a very basic calculation of say 50% (50% tax and 10% Employer's NIC) this would amount to GBP 20 million - even with penalties levied at 100% that is GBP 40 million - so whomever made thsi suggestion is looking at interest in excess of 100%. Doesnt make a great deal of sense to me. I would be interested in knowing which years this relates to and just how much was paid into the EBT's - there could be an awful lof of mis-information out there - also, did we pay any Corporation Tax in any of the affected years ? If so, then we would also be due a Corporation Tax refund as any of the POTENTIAL liability (should it crystallise) would be deductible for tax purposes. I would look more into it if I had time, or if I were feeling better. But 65-75 million doesnt sound like a "businessman with experience of these things". Sounds far more like a scare-mongerer to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thetruthwill0ut Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 There are far too many variables for anyone to make an intelligent estimate of the potential liability, unless they have inside knowledge or know what HMRC are thinking. There is a great deal of leeway that HMRC have in terms of dishing out penalties and interest. I represented a client in such proceedings a number of years ago and it was absolutely obvious that there was a liability due to HMRC (and even THIS is not necessarily the case in RFC's case). However, because we assisted HMRC in whatever way we could to resolve the issue HMRC waived all penalties, which at that time could have been levied at 100% of the liability. Also, being in dispute with HMRC does not mean you have not assisted them in their investigation - so RFC could still see the penalties levied at ZERO (IF the law courts ultimately judge against us) - although I also appreciate that HMRC will be looking for as much as they can to hit the bank as revenue. I thought we were looking at amounts of about GBP 40 million having been paid into the EBT, is that not correct ? On a very basic calculation of say 50% (50% tax and 10% Employer's NIC) this would amount to GBP 20 million - even with penalties levied at 100% that is GBP 40 million - so whomever made thsi suggestion is looking at interest in excess of 100%. Doesnt make a great deal of sense to me. I would be interested in knowing which years this relates to and just how much was paid into the EBT's - there could be an awful lof of mis-information out there - also, did we pay any Corporation Tax in any of the affected years ? If so, then we would also be due a Corporation Tax refund as any of the POTENTIAL liability (should it crystallise) would be deductible for tax purposes. I would look more into it if I had time, or if I were feeling better. But 65-75 million doesnt sound like a "businessman with experience of these things". Sounds far more like a scare-mongerer to me. Agreed! Total speculation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.