HMRC sources briefing that Rangers bank accounts have been frozen this afternoon

[pete 2,499]

Putting a 65% penalty on the original bill is surely way over the top and totally not in par with other fines or penalties. I think Rangers are quite right to fight this if what is written is true.

[Bluedell 5,482]

Putting a 65% penalty on the original bill is surely way over the top and totally not in par with other fines or penalties. I think Rangers are quite right to fight this if what is written is true.

 

Penalties around 50% are not that uncommon, as far as I'm aware. However I would have thought that it would not be appropriate in this case given that the company volunteered it, and a smaller percentage would be applied.

[craig 5,199]

Penalties around 50% are not that uncommon, as far as I'm aware. However I would have thought that it would not be appropriate in this case given that the company volunteered it, and a smaller percentage would be applied.

 

From my previous experiences in this realm from HMRC it very much depends on the circumstances. Volunteering it when it was a legal obligation may get you a "discount". But what was the reason for it in the first place and why did it take so long to come to light ? If the liability had been known about for a number of years but HMRC simply werent notified then this would almost certainly mean a 100% penalty, even though the information was now being volunteered.

 

The penalty can be anything up to 100% as far as I am aware (at least it was with the case I dealt with a number of years ago). In that instance myself and the client managed to get the penalty down to zero. However, the only reason we got it down to zero was because it was very unlikely that the client would be able to pay any kind of penalty. As it was the client couldnt even afford the original liability so HMRC got nothing.

 

But RFC seem to have the funds to pay, or so we are led to believe - so the amount of penalty is a subjective matter for HMRC. RFC can argue it they like and they may win due to the nature of the penalty being subjective - but there are plenty of instances in the past of penalties being far higher than even the 65% being discussed.

 

Pete, HMRC have an entitlement to charge up to 100% penalty - and it is their prerogative how much the do charge, as per the Finance Act. There will be discounts applied for volunteering information (which is probably why it is "only" 65% now), helpfulness in the investigation as well as other matters which can help bring the liability down.

[craig 5,199]

6-figure sum can be anything from 100k to 999k, which is a third of what is demanded. Do you know what sort of pay-back period has been given? Nope. Neither do I. The point is that we are willing to pay it, so why's the apparent undue hurry here? They waited about a decade for it (and we (!) found it and told them in the first place, apparently).

 

If the liability is not being contested and if the club have the funds for payment then there is absolutely no reason why there should even be a "payback schedule". HMRC will want their funds ASAP. Again, from previous experience, the only way in which HMRC would "normally" consider a payback period rather than immediate payment is if the company can prove that immediate payment would put them under pressure to continue as a going concern. If we are requesting a payback period then this worries me even further to be quite frank.

 

Also to be remembered is that this liability will still be accruing interest on it.

 

Why the apparent undue hurry ? Because it simply isnt our money. It is yet another creditor on the books. Creditors on the books are OK. However, when those creditors have been owed money for a considerable length of time and when those creditors continue to accrue interest at what is likely to be an unfavourable rate to RFC then it makes little to no sense in not paying the liability.... unless of course you dont actually have the funds to pay it. Food for thought, perhaps.

 

Make that: "are already being paid back". That is what I assume, for what else would that sum be? Forgive my language lapse.

 

No worries, my language isnt the best either

 

 

 

Doing this now is IMHO quite simply over the top. For we won't just go away next week or leave the country. IMHO a neat publicity stunt by whomever drives these events on.

 

I disagree. If I were the HMRC I would see this as the ideal, opportune time to do this. Why ? ST money is in, transfer window is now closed so all business there has been concluded. This is the time of year when RFC (or most clubs, thanks to ST money) would be at their most cash rich. RFC has a legal obligation to HMRC and HMRC would like it to be repaid. RFC are currently in their best position for HMRC to obtain their funds, unless we were to sell players in January.

 

So trying to look at this objectively I dont see it as any kind of publicity stunt at all. Looks more likely to me that HMRC see this time of year as the best, most advantageous time to put pressure on RFC to pay the monies it is due.

 

I hate that this is happening. I hate it is happening in public. But looking at it objectively, if somebody owed me money I would be trying to get my cash back from them.... yep, PAY DAY (and this time of year is, effectively, pay day for Rangers).

 

So you rather want these details about our dealings with HRMC being played out in the public? I find that quite strange. For - as with all tax documents (yours or mine included) - I do assume that this is confidental stuff. As a Rangers source said, we should be dismayed that every cough of it hits the news outlets faster than the club knows about it, apparently. Thus, there sure is a breach of guidelines involved here and this should be investigated.

 

You are attempting to put words in my mouth that simply arent there. Nowhere did I suggest that I want it played out in public.

 

I will re-iterate though that it will be difficult in suing HMRC over this. Could it be done ? Sure. Difficult ? Yep.

 

 

I'd have to dig out the relevant news or twitter sites, but I'm firmly believing that the info about the Leicester bid was not published first on rangers.co.uk.. We just send out a signal.

 

OK, so did news of HMRC's liability or accounts being frozen first appear on http://www.hmrc.gov.uk ? Nope, it appeared through the grapevine.... they were just sending out a signal.

 

Not so different to that Leicester bid after all, in my opinion.

 

Rangers FC is no celebrity, it is a company. Just imagine this thwarts the deal with Fox Sports? Over no matter of consequence to that media outlet at all. Just because of the bad publicity involving a disputed tax sum. IMHO, the Rangers business department looks in terror on these "revelations" and spilled beans.

 

My point is that the tax affairs of celebrities (and other taxpayers) have been publicly released before. That is my point. I think you had previously questioned if this had been done before - I was making the point that it is more than likely to have happened before.

 

I am sure you are right that the RFC business department looks on in terror at these revelations. All the better then to ensure they dont happen in the first place. And how could they do that ? Hmmmm, how about just paying the liability. Then they can debate, discuss, appeal the penalty to their heart is content. Then the business department have no revelations, on this particular issue, to worry about.

 

All just MHO, of course.

 

As is the case for me my friend, as is the case for me.

[stewarty 1,923]

Surely if we had paid the liability except for the disputed penalty, we would not be In this position?

A full and frank statement from the board is required on this matter.

[Zappa 0]

I disagree. If I were the HMRC I would see this as the ideal, opportune time to do this. Why ? ST money is in, transfer window is now closed so all business there has been concluded. This is the time of year when RFC (or most clubs, thanks to ST money) would be at their most cash rich. RFC has a legal obligation to HMRC and HMRC would like it to be repaid. RFC are currently in their best position for HMRC to obtain their funds, unless we were to sell players in January.

 

So trying to look at this objectively I dont see it as any kind of publicity stunt at all. Looks more likely to me that HMRC see this time of year as the best, most advantageous time to put pressure on RFC to pay the monies it is due.

 

OK, so did news of HMRC's liability or accounts being frozen first appear on http://www.hmrc.gov.uk ? Nope, it appeared through the grapevine.... they were just sending out a signal.

 

You're spot on Craig. Some people seem to think that this is another case of Rangers being singled out and that it could be the work of Rangers-haters within HMRC or something like that, but the fact of the matter is that at this time of year HMRC are taking serious actions against ALL football clubs with outstanding tax bills because due to the sale of season tickets the money should (in theory) be there to pay up. Just a few weeks ago on 8th August HMRC were legally granted the right to serve Hearts with an Administration Order if they didn't pay their outstanding tax bill. That appears to have been done as a warning shot, a threat. In our case HMRC have thankfully taken a different approach.

[Guest Dutchy]

I don't think the tax man is out to get us! In fact, I'm surprised, given the state of government finances, they've not acted quicker on this matter, but that's maybe more to do with civil servants and their notoriously slow workings.

 

Whay I am pissed off about is the public manner of this confidential matter and why the first we hear of it all isin the media, with their particualr slant on all things Rangers.