Bluedell 5,408 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 from a logical business point of view, it makes little sense to put a company out of business. Say Rangers lose the case to the tune of £49m....how much of that £49m will HMRC ACTUALLY get??? However, if HMRC were to cut a deal @ say £10m over say 5 years, that money is guaranteed, as is the ongoing tax income generated from the club since it is still trading etc. It would be a win-win situation all round. I get the impression with the EBT amnesty that HMRC fear that if they lose the case against the Gers, they would be stuffed with all the other cases, therefore they are giving companies the opportunity to voluntarily pay up before the ruling. If a company doesn't pay now, and HMRC win the case, they will be targeting EVERY company that has used the EBT. Could HMRC cut a deal for say 20% of the total amopunt from Rangers but still argue that they want full payment from other clubs? I'm not so sure, and it may be worth more to HMRC in the long run not to cut a deal with us, other than perhaps an extended time to pay. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Could HMRC cut a deal for say 20% of the total amopunt from Rangers but still argue that they want full payment from other clubs? I'm not so sure, and it may be worth more to HMRC in the long run not to cut a deal with us, other than perhaps an extended time to pay. I dont think there is any obligation on the part of HMRC to publicly announce what deal is made, is there ? That said, the financials of RFC will eventually show how much they have made a deal for. I think it might depend on whether HMRC believe they will win. If they think they might lose then they may be keen to cut a deal - 20% is better than losing all EBT cases if it is looking like the case will go that way. I think it is more likely that they will demand full payment but allow a payment plan. But that payment plan will still severely cripple us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted November 8, 2011 Author Share Posted November 8, 2011 Are any of you confident that we will come out of this relatively unscathed? I am going for a £10 million max fine. Which is a lot money but not crippling. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,218 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Are any of you confident that we will come out of this relatively unscathed? I am going for a £10 million max fine. Which is a lot money but not crippling. Yes, I'm confident of a positive result but not so assured on how the club manages the outcome. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,408 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I don't see how it can be £10m. We are either guilty in which case we will be hit with the full amount plus interest and penalties, or we aren't. I am sceptical about whether HMRC would be willing to set a precedence by waiving up to 80% in a negotiated deal. The only scope for negotiation may be penalties, depending on the reason why we were found guilty. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,218 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Couldn't it be £10million if the case is settled out of court/tribunal? IIRC, Whyte has said that anything more than £15million and we'd enter administration. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 We will win..... Clinging to a hope loyal 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 I don't see how it can be £10m. We are either guilty in which case we will be hit with the full amount plus interest and penalties, or we aren't. I am sceptical about whether HMRC would be willing to set a precedence by waiving up to 80% in a negotiated deal. The only scope for negotiation may be penalties, depending on the reason why we were found guilty. They could negotiate a deal if they dont think their case will win. If that is the case then they might actually be prepared to set precedence. I am not saying it will happen but it is surely plausible. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 IIRC, Whyte has said that anything more than £15million and we'd enter administration. He originally said we would be able to pay the bill if it fell in the ten to fifteen million range, but more recently in an interview his tune had completely changed and he's no longer willing to say what size of tax bill we would be able to manage. I don't think he can keep his word on being able to pay a ten to fifteen million bill. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 He originally said we would be able to pay the bill if it fell in the ten to fifteen million range, but more recently in an interview his tune had completely changed and he's no longer willing to say what size of tax bill we would be able to manage. I don't think he can keep his word on being able to pay a ten to fifteen million bill. I suspect it is more likely due to keeping his cards close to his chest now that he is involved closer in the negotiations with HMRC. No point in saying you can pay 15mill.... because that could evry well be the negotiated deal that HMRC look for (IF they look to deal). 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.