Administration

[Super_Ally 0]

I dioubt that they'd do that. Sets a prededent that would be unacceptable to them. It's not their cash, it's the public's so they would not settle for a lower amount.

 

Do large companies not routinely get out of millions in tax payments by offering a large sum of money that is still miles away from the total debt owed? Something my dad moans about a lot but I dont really know tbh.

[Zappa 0]

I dioubt that they'd do that. Sets a prededent that would be unacceptable to them. It's not their cash, it's the public's so they would not settle for a lower amount.

 

They might have done in the past but given the 2008 financial meltdown plus all the bailout money it would be unacceptable in the current climate IMO.

 

If they force us into administration they could end up getting nothing though, so what would be the point of them cutting off their nose to spite their face?

[GovanAllan 0]

If they force us into administration they could end up getting nothing though, so what would be the point of them cutting off their nose to spite their face?

 

Is this not why they are trying to get the law changed. Court case due in London this month or the next, arguing that they should be at front of the Q when companies go into administration.

[Stimpy 0]

Is this not why they are trying to get the law changed. Court case due in London this month or the next, arguing that they should be at front of the Q when companies go into administration.

 

Not sure of the date but they are looking to become the preferred creditors in these type of instances.

[craig 5,199]

If they force us into administration they could end up getting nothing though, so what would be the point of them cutting off their nose to spite their face?

 

It is unlikely they would get nothing. If they get nothing it is probable that RFC would be out of business and that is an unlikely eventuality given the assets on hand.

 

You are correct though that in an extreme instance they could get nothing. But dont let logic get in the way of HMRC decision-making. I represented a client with them who owed over 100k (plus interest and penalties) and told them that there was no way that the client could pay the liability let alone the add-ons. HMRC were very kind and agreed to forego the penalties. The original liability ? Must be paid in full...... result ? Company bankrupt and HMRC did in fact receive nothing.

[pete 2,499]

Is this not why they are trying to get the law changed. Court case due in London this month or the next, arguing that they should be at front of the Q when companies go into administration.

 

This is the only reason that Whyte may not appeal and in fact choose for administration directly. If they get a chance to change the law then he may loose the right that he can keep the assets. He may just go for a quick administration and start again while I have control scenario.

[54andcounting 0]

Do large companies not routinely get out of millions in tax payments by offering a large sum of money that is still miles away from the total debt owed? Something my dad moans about a lot but I dont really know tbh.

 

For what it's worth....about 10 years ago when I was self-imployed, I was chased up by HMRC for £2500, I can't remember the complete details but after months of demands and threats (the person dealing with it used to call me on my mobile many times) I simply pleaded poverty (I really was skint and could not afford it) in the end they settled for £900. Result!

[pete 2,499]

also heard some claptrap about King buying the club from whyte "if" we go into administration.

 

as said before the tax case has the potential to go on for years. But if it does happen everything right down to the last teacup will be sold to pay the debt.

 

dont listen to gossip mate. just wait on the outcome of of the hearing. There is in fact the possibilty that we will win our case.

 

and the tims will be Raging if we do!

 

I always wondered from the very beginning if Whyte was not a puppet for King until King has control over his money again. I am pretty sure King will still have money stashed away somewhere where he could have organised the whole Ellis, Whyte situation.

[Guest Dutchy]

This thread is based purely on the premise that someone knows the outcome of this case.

 

Is this not a tribunial, with thier legal team against our legal team, thus presupposin gsome kind of judgement has to be made on the merit of the arguements given. Is that not right?

 

How can you fortell the outcome on arguements not even heard by the decision maker, who, or whatever he/she/it is?

 

More nonsense if you ask me. The chances are that nobody knows what's going to happen and all the comments on this thread have as much chance of being the actual true result of the hearing as there is of me accepting a free season ticket to the piggery.

[Guest carter001]

I hope they dont do this in the UK because they will face a pretty hefty tax liability, plus interest, plus penalties. Setting up as a corporation in the UK whereby you only have ONE client is, effectively, Employment and would be taxed as such.

 

Setting up a corporation would NOT work in this instance.

 

In order for a corportation to work you must have more than one client - it is the same as being a self-employed contractor - if you only have one client then HMRC have a very solid case of determining that as being employment rather than Schedule D self employment.

 

From what i've read they do not only have one client. They also sell their image rights, whether it be sponsorship, magazines, computer games or adverts etc.

I remember reading about wayne rooneys company and the profits it made and how the money was spent, mainly on his wedding, with payments from the likes of hello magazine