the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I disagree. Rangers ended up in administration due to the threat of unaffordable fines and interest that resulted after they spent what they thought they could afford using what they thought was legal at the time. Completely different to knowingly overspending then going into administration. is their a case for saying we could have sold a dozen players and paid of our debts over time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,289 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I still don't think that would be fair. I think like any judgemental body, HMRC should have a limited window of opportunity to take people or entities to task over technicalities. If HMRC had come in and complained after the first year, we would have stopped and owed a couple of million total. You can't let people think they are doing nothing wrong for years and then backdate it. It's just not right in any scenario. The only exceptions I can see, is if it's blatant criminality. There is no other scenario where this backdating is considered ethical. In fact in some laws the opposite applies. If you move your fence into your neighbour's land and they don't complain for ten years - the land becomes yours. Using that type of thinking we should be able to use EBT's in perpetuity. Most other debts are statute barred after six years and using this rule, we'd have owed about four years worth or about £10m. But the biggest problem is that HMRC created a loophole that was based on "intention" which can't be proved. They then let you apply the loop hole for 10 years without complaint and then after 12 years decide that they "know what you were thinking" and ask for the accumulated money back plus double in interest and penalties. If we did that, it would be considered extortion and probably criminal. I am still not convince that they have a case that will win in court. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I disagree. Rangers ended up in administration due to the threat of unaffordable fines and interest that resulted after they spent what they thought they could afford using what they thought was legal at the time. Completely different to knowingly overspending then going into administration. Whyte knowingly overspent to bring about administration, he handed out extended contracts with wage increases he knew could not possibly be honoured, what is PAYE and NIC's if it is not part of wages? Dress it up anyway you like but we had a wage bill we could not possibly meet due to the funding model used by Whyte. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
onevision 1,571 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Would be a rather sinister tactic by the HMRC though, wouldn't it? and do you think that's beyond them? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,744 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 and do you think that's beyond them? Can't tell, but would assume a decent enough lawyer might have "fun" with it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Whyte knowingly overspent to bring about administration, he handed out extended contracts with wage increases he knew could not possibly be honoured, what is PAYE and NIC's if it is not part of wages? Dress it up anyway you like but we had a wage bill we could not possibly meet due to the funding model used by Whyte. Depends how you see that. If you see it as a criminal taking over a "vulnerable" (due to HMRC investigating a legal loophole) company and running it to the ground in 9 months to fill his pockets then does that really count? Hardly seems fair to me. 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.