Jeff Randall Live - Interview with SDM

[Guest Dutchy]

I can't remember who said it either, but I was sure someone else was saying it.

 

Sometimes it's hard to remember who said what and who's talking pish, there's so much of it?

[Bluedell 6,043]

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

 

Fair point.

 

 

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.

I presume that the evidence to suggest that it was not operated correctly only came to light relatively recently. I obviously can't say for sure but that's the way these things tend to work, in my experience. they find a problem with something and it allows them to go back and investigate a lot more.

 

 

 

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.

 

If they were done properly then there is not a problem. Whether something is discretionary or not is not merely a technicality. Even if we are sucessful there was still an element of risk about the whole scheme.

 

I've quite a bit of experience of tax avoidance schemes and the issues here are fundemental. It's possibly something that's worth taking a punt on if it's small scale but the potential expsore is something that should have been taken into account and it's something that I would have been recommending against if I'd been involved.

 

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.

 

I'd refer you back to my second comment above.

 

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.

It's not really the same. The tax man takes a different approach. Perhaps I'm not looking at the fairness of it, but it's something that I've come across on many occasions within my working life and just accept it. they aren't dioing anything different from what they do hundreds of times each day.

 

 

 

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?

 

See above.

 

 

 

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?

 

EBTs are OK if they are operated correctly. They are discretionary. If we did not make all the payments on a discretionary basis then it can't be HMRC's fault.

 

 

 

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.

 

The rules were known by SDM at least. Ignorance is not an excuse when you're going into an area of complicated tax planning. Still don't see it as a morality issue, but I guess we're just different.

 

 

 

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.

 

That's not the way it works. It's the company's responsibility to collect the tax and they become the ones liable. That's the approach that HMRC take in all cases like this. You may disagree with it, but them's the rules.

 

I need to shoot off but I think that the points I've made cover the rest of the issues.

 

I think that you are looking at it "fresh" and I am looking at it from a viewpoint of dealing with tax avoidance and HMRC over many, many years. Perhaps I'm not in a great position to assess the "fairness" of it but perhaps I'm in a better position to assess the "reality" (for lack of a better word) of it.

[calscot 0]

I think that you are looking at it "fresh" and I am looking at it from a viewpoint of dealing with tax avoidance and HMRC over many, many years. Perhaps I'm not in a great position to assess the "fairness" of it but perhaps I'm in a better position to assess the "reality" (for lack of a better word) of it.

 

I agree with this.

 

But dealing with something every day and so being immune to it, does not make it right. That argument reminds me a bit of the film Brazil where many just accepted the system and played along with it without question of its morality. In the film, Buttle may have been tortured to death but the wife did get a refund for the cost of his torture as it was an administrative mistake and so everything was "done properly" by the government. The wife may disagree with it "but them's the rules." As the outside viewer seeing it "fresh", we are appalled by the insane, bureaucratic society we witness.

 

However, I would still question whether you see what is happening to Rangers as a normal occurrence. It seems to me that that is not the case. Rangers seem to be singled out for extra special treatment which is different from their approach to other cases, and I can't see how that is fair in any system.

 

To me it's like the Aluko affair, the SPL bring in bad rules which are badly implemented and not applied evenly. They may be following procedure correctly but they are not doing it fairly and justly.

 

Laws are supposed to be transparent, fair and just and it doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

It makes me wonder what you think about CW. If he has not broken any laws or trading rules then what he is doing is normal in business and is his approach for all his companies. If he has worked within the rules, just what has he done wrong?