Jeff Randall Live - Interview with SDM

[Frankie 8,869]

 

Interesting that the actual amount of tax avoided was reported as £9M which makes the demand for £49M look ridiculous.

 

I got the impression Randall was mixing up the EBT case with the more recent refusal of the club to pay its PAYE/NI bills.

 

I agree with you that the HMRC reaction to this issue is worrying but they were always going to be robust in the way they attempt to recover what they feel are unpaid taxes. However, as you mention, even if we're found to have being doing these erroneously, the club can offer mitigation on time-scales.

 

Again, this all points towards some sort of affordable settlement.

[Bluedell 6,043]

I want to live somewhere where fairness is paramount rather in some evil empire.

 

Yes, we want companies and individual to pay their fair share of tax, but if there is a loophole, then use the law to close it as quickly as possible. It can't be that hard and once it's done then there is no defence. Instead we let companies use it for ten years, close the hole and then put them out of business with unaffordable retrospective demands with huge interest and fines.

HMRC are not going after us because a loophole is closed. It's because the loophole was not applied properly.

 

I just can't see how that's even slightly moral - even for the most insidious of tax avoiding companies.

So what should HMRC do if they find out tax is not being properly paid? Just ignore it?

 

The crappy thing is that they are going after a company with a loyal following of innocent people and because of the passage of time the original owner who used the scheme is no longer connected. Just what kind of justice are they trying to achieve?

I'm not sure why HMRC should take into account a change in owner or the "loyal following" Surely HMRC has to ensure that the proper tax is collected?

 

 

 

It is a mess, but the mess is of HMRC's making and it stinks to high heaven.

It's HMRC's fault that we didn't apply the EBTs correctly?

 

People can argue all they like about how that's how it works, but my point is, it shouldn't work that way, it's just not a morally just way of doing it.

What's immoral about it?

 

 

It's ironic that it seems in Spain that the government, instead of trying to put clubs out of business by demanding tax they don't really owe, they are trying to find a way to reduce the demands of tax that clubs do owe.

This issue is all about the amount of tax that highly paid footballers pay. Firstly how do you know that we don't owe the tax? Secondly are you suggesting that the Government should be looking to decrease the tax that footballers pay?

[Guest Dutchy]

It seems to me that the issue is indeed whether these EBT's have been used properly. SDM says they have been and there's a tribunial to decide the issue, is that not correct?

 

What the problem to me is that even if it goes against HMRC, they're making it clear that they will appeal and appeal.

 

That's not a very appealling way of governance to me and it stinks of obsessive rule. Why do they not investigate their own before attacking everyone not supporting there party?

[Bluedell 6,043]

What the problem to me is that even if it goes against HMRC, they're making it clear that they will appeal and appeal.

 

Whyte said that therefore I'd suggest that it's not particularly reliable.

[Guest Dutchy]

Whyte said that therefore I'd suggest that it's not particularly reliable.

 

I thought others had said it aas well, but then again, that doesn't say much about their knowledge either. Or their sympathies.

 

I wish I could be sure what HMRC have in mind and although they appear to be negotiating with us, there's no indication that they're not playing hard ball, because the issues, at least, are still the same.

[calscot 0]

 

Come -on surely I'm allowed a bit of drama now and again?

 

HMRC are not going after us because a loophole is closed. It's because the loophole was not applied properly.

 

If that was clearly the case it would have been done and dusted a long time ago - like five or six years ago. Raking up stuff from ten years ago that have been properly and visibly posted in the accounts and tax returns every year, over technicalities that you can't readily prove is totally different to what you're suggesting.

 

So what should HMRC do if they find out tax is not being properly paid? Just ignore it?

 

Well you've changed to a new argument which makes it unfair to attack my words. I think you can see I'm arguing in the scenario where the EBTs were done properly. You obviously seem to know that they weren't even though the court case is not resolved. Like I said, the worst that Rangers can be done on is a technicality.

 

I never said they should ignore any tax that is not being properly paid - my argument is quite the opposite!!! The problem is that they DID ignore it for ten years, allowing Rangers to think they were being completely legal, and now are raking it up, adding impossible interest and fines, and trying to put the club out of business in an immensely over aggressive manner where they are threatening the club with years of litigation during which Rangers cannot trade properly.

 

I think they should DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY and TIMELY. And if they fuck up as in this case then they should be more empathetic and less aggressive. And also, they should forget about it if they have been that incompetent and the tax debts are over six years old. I can't even see how penalties are appropriate for their mistake.

 

It's a bit like parking with two wheels on the grass verge outside your house for ten years with the council saying nothing and then hitting you with 3650 fines of £50 after they've changed the rules as they've thought about it and then found some technicality to get you on. I'm talking about fairness here and it's obvious they are not being fair - except to you.

 

I'm not sure why HMRC should take into account a change in owner or the "loyal following" Surely HMRC has to ensure that the proper tax is collected?

 

Again your basing your argument on the obvious falsehood that the tax is being properly collected. The problem is that they didn't ensure this and it's also obviously debatable whether the tax is "proper". This shows how timeliness is important. Imagine you buy a house and then get stuck for £100k fine for the previous owner not paying his council tax for ten years? Is that fair?

 

It's HMRC's fault that we didn't apply the EBTs correctly?

 

If it is true, the absolutely it is their fault. The rules on this are obviously far too grey and Rangers and thousands of other companies were being given expert advice that what they were doing was correct. Even if Rangers were doing it wrong, then if the tax man was timely, Rangers could have adjusted the way they did it or chosen to drop it altogether. Imagine going in to work 5 minutes late every day for ten years. Nobody says anything so you think it's ok and then wham, you're sacked for persistent lateness. Is that fair?

 

What's immoral about it?

 

That is for you to see - although I know it's not your strong point. I've given plenty of explanation. It's basically not telling people the proper rules, not telling them they are breaking the rules and then retrospectively and aggressively and severely punishing them for consistently breaking the rules - except add in, that those punishing you don't really know the rules themselves and they are going to punish you whether you actually broke them or not. I'd say that's immoral.

 

This issue is all about the amount of tax that highly paid footballers pay. Firstly how do you know that we don't owe the tax?

 

To be honest, if it's about the tax footballers pay then it seems to me that HMRC have no beef with Rangers, they should be chasing the players for non payment of tax, not the club. It is income tax so I can't see how the club is liable.

 

I never said we don't owe the tax - nobody knows that yet. My complaint is the unfair way they are going about it as explained above and many times before.

 

Secondly are you suggesting that the Government should be looking to decrease the tax that footballers pay?

 

 

I have no idea where you get that from. Bit of a non sequitur. The tax should be the tax, whether they are footballers or whatever. There are many ways of tax avoidance - ISA's for example

 

I am suggesting the Government should work at clarifying tax situations and apply them in a fair and timely fashion. When that is not possible they should be pursued in an appropriate and fair manner. I really can't see how that has been done here. Rangers have not really been "bad" here, at worst they have been unwise and slightly careless. I don't see why they should be aggressively put out of business for that.

 

It's pretty obvious that Rangers have been tax avoiders not tax evaders but they have been treated by all and sundry like the latter. It all seems a bit like innocently tripping over your own lace and then being given a retrospective two game ban for simulation.

 

I know you don't agree with me on this, but you could at least try to understand my viewpoint. There's more to situations than just cold, calculated numbers.

Edited March 20, 2012 by calscot

[calscot 0]

Whyte said that therefore I'd suggest that it's not particularly reliable.

 

The administrators have also said it and HMRC, while doing all sorts of Rangers laundry in public, have declined to deny it or qualify it. It's not a card they need to keep close to their chest unless it's true or they like the idea of the bluff.

[Guest Dutchy]

Or it's a government cover up in the sense that they're claiming to be seeking tax dodgers, but ignoring the one that give them funds???

[Bluedell 6,043]

The administrators have also said it .

 

When did they say it? Not doubting you, but I'd just like to see what else they said at that point as I may have missed that.

 

Saying that, I would expect HMRC to appeal, depending on the reasons for their argument losing.

[calscot 0]

When did they say it? Not doubting you, but I'd just like to see what else they said at that point as I may have missed that.

 

Saying that, I would expect HMRC to appeal, depending on the reasons for their argument losing.

 

It was recently but I'm afraid I can't say exactly when. They didn't say it in the same words bit they alluded to the same thing. Feel free to doubt me though. My memory is far from perfect.