Darthter 542 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 What if this whole situation has been carefully orchestrated in order to free the club of debt and avoid paying the big tax bill???? If that was the case, and it could be proved, what would be the outcome then. Surely it would become a criminal case, with those responsible in the dock accused of tax evasion amongst other things.... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ergatrude 0 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 It happens all the time in business, I believe the are called pre-pack administrations. Companies transfer assets to another company & fold the original, then they trade from the new company debt free (ish). I could be wrong. If it is the case & Rangers exist then go for it.. but it is a bit of a scummy move tbh. He did mention that we would avoid it if HRMC agree to a reasonable settlement so he could be trying to force them unto a deal because if we go down the quick fold route they would get hee-haw. But Im sure I read that HRMC don't negotiate with these threats. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 I was thinking more along the lines that this whole episode with Mr Whyte etc has been intentionally orchestrated by either SDM or another 3rd party with the sole purpose of avoiding paying the HMRC bill & other debtors.... At the moment, the tax issue is connected with tax avoidance (which was perfectly legal @ the time, if done correctly)....if this whole thing has been played out in order to prevent paying the tax, could that then be viewed more along the lines of tax evasion???? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
metlika 0 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Its a big gamble to force HMRC to do this and I doubt they will budge unfortunately, risking tax payers money on legal fees to acquire zilch from this a bit like Redknapp's tax evasion case. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 What governments say publicly are normally totally opposite to what is actually going on, but I agree that it all depends on HMRC accepting the deal. Whether they consider it a threat is where I'm lost as they could call CW's bluff, but they'd then get SFA, no? 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.