Have HMRC put a bomb under Scottish football and got away scot free?

[calscot 0]

HMRC seem to have escaped any criticism and punishment for their actions which have cost the tax payer tens of millions and put the whole of Scottish football into crisis and possible meltdown.

 

Some will say they were entitled to do what they did but to me that akin to saying a bully is entitled to beat you up and take your lunch.

 

Surely, as a government body they should have extra responsibilities for their actions and for the good of all the home nations? After all they have thought about this aspect to let banks off with tax and then prop them up with tax payers money while the banks continue to flaunt the rules and ethics to make as much money as they can.

 

Seems to me that IF Rangers have not been perfect in their accounting then HMRC have at best been negligent in letting it go without complaint for 12 years which gave Rangers the impression that they were within the rules. Surely that is being negligently complicit and should be taken into account?

 

I can't see how a company which is pretty much also a pillar of the nation should be callously put into such a vulnerable position with threats of hugely inflated tax invoices it cannot possibly afford and publicly refusing to consider alleviating the possible tax burden by negotiation.

 

This allowed the company to be taken over by a man of low ethics who stripped it bare and deliberately did not pay tax that was due, thereby leading to HMRC putting the company into administration and with the refusal of a CVA, into liquidation.

 

The strange thing is that all along, Rangers thought they were playing by HMRC rules, so how can the government office justify such a tough stance.

 

The repercussions are still propagating and could force a whole important section of society into a massive depression - imagine the outcry if this was the arts instead of sport?

 

The irony is that HMRC through a catalog of negative actions have already cost the taxpayer at least £35m and with the withdrawal of much of the funding to Scottish football could also lead to a further reduction of income to the treasury especially when you consider other clubs could go bust and therefore also companies that supply them or rely on them.

 

Perhaps there is a good reason and upside to this extreme damage to Scottish society and the public purse that will benefit us in the long run, but it is very difficult to see and in I can see none at all.

 

It's a bit like them coming along and complaining about an error in the paper work of the keystone of an important bridge and making sure it is removed without thinking of the consequences.

 

You may think that Rangers itself deserves this for wrong doing but that also looks like a fallacy as the club's actions were not obviously nefarious - they published their accounts every year in full view for anyone to see. They took top financial advice in order to something that reduced tax - something which every company and self employed person in the country does.

 

It just seems that Rangers played by the rules but not quite in the full spirit of them and so HMRC decide in petty revenge to create a situation where they are removed from existence and thereby lighting the touch paper for the devastation of Scottish football.

 

It is a hell of a lot to be responsible for in the pettiness of their actions - and for what gain?

 

Heads should roll - but amazingly, nobody is even pointing the finger.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

yeah I've been thinking this recently. they got off lightly because an alternative existed and people bought into the rose tinted view of liquidation that d&p peddled.

[simplythebest 0]

Blaming the Revenue is probably getting a bit desperate, end of the day they feel pretty screwed over by football clubs overall.

[bluebear54 0]

It wasn't the fault of HMRC. It was CW.

The administration was precipitated by his decision to withold PAYE amongst other things.

[andy steel 0]

I hadn't thought of the comparison with the arts before, that's a very good point. Probably there would have been an appeal to the nation to save Rangers for Britain or something, like they did with that Canova statue some years back. But then, football has always been the slummy relation, looked down on by rugby/admin types.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Brian Kennedy said he was going to throw themselves on the mercy of hmrc. frankly hmrc should have accepted.

[26th of foot 6,215]

The HMRC decision was due during November'11. It was moved to February'12. It's almost August'12 and still no decision.

 

Have HMRC acted in the best interests of the public purse? They allowed Whyte to run up a £15million bill in unpaid PAYE and NI contributions between May'11 and February'12. They did not intervene, was this in the best interests of the public purse?

 

I believe the perception within HMRC is that this particular case is TOXIC.

 

It should have been dealt with in a timeous fashion but wasn't, why not? It was put to me that senior management inside HMRC see the case as a PR exercise ie when and how to present failing to recover the owed monies.

[Blue Moon 1,575]

it was clear from the outset that HMRC were going to take a stand with us as a warning to all football clubs to get their house in order. I think we are entitled to ask "why us?".

 

It also comes at a time when tax evasion is a political hot potato and those who are doing it are viewed as parasites.

 

I would like answers to why it has taken so long to come to a decision on the BTC and why if there was a change in HMRC policy on CVA's they did not tell us that months before.

 

They have legitimate questions to answer. I believe that this will become a focus in the days and weeks ahead. I have been following Alex Thomson on Twitter recently (no thine enemy) and he has been asking questions of HMRC recently, with no reply, and he won't let go.

[calscot 0]

It wasn't the fault of HMRC. It was CW.

The administration was precipitated by his decision to withold PAYE amongst other things.

 

I knew someone would come up with this and I actually tried to pre-empt it in the post - obviously I was too subtle.

 

If you're council removed your door while you were away and you were burgled - you'd only blame the burglar?

 

 

I suppose it wasn't quite removal of the door but HMRC created a situation where we were so desperate to keep our house we were threatened to lose that we actually invited the burglar in thinking he was going to help.

 

HMRC basically handed us to Whyte on a plate and we got shafted by him and then they put the nails in the coffin. They also got shafted but don't care as they have their example.

 

The point is the government is not supposed to behead some citizens for a technical offence as a deterrent for others - not in a democracy. They have not acted ethically in the slightest. None of what they did sounds even a wee bit fair.

 

But you want to ignore that and blame a con man who took advantage of the situation. We know what Whyte did, but he is a bit part in a far larger game.

[calscot 0]

Blaming the Revenue is probably getting a bit desperate, end of the day they feel pretty screwed over by football clubs overall.

 

If you put a leading person in the stocks for doing little wrong, the public will always take delight in throwing rotten tomatoes at them.