ian1964 10,548 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/202233-the-case-against-rangers-based-on-the-tax-tribunal-documents/ After a long wait, a First Tier Tax Tribunal published its findings this week in a case over the use of an Employee Benefit Trust to pay Rangers players between 2001 and 2010. The majority verdict found broadly in Rangersâ?? favour, with the tribunal stating by two to one that most EBT payments were recoverable loans, and not earnings. With the argument over the obligation of the â??oldcoâ? to pay tax on those payments now resolved, pending any HMRC appeal, attention has now turned to the possibility of league titles being stripped from the club by the Scottish Premier League. An independent commission, due to sit in November but now meeting in early 2013, will hear evidence on whether EBT payments were correctly declared to the league, or whether rules were breached and players rendered ineligible. This article is not intended to serve as a definitive outlook of how the SPLâ??s case will be presented when the commission hears evidence. It is intended instead to highlight what has been stated at the tribunal which is relevant to the case, and using the statements given to outline how the case for the SPL may be constructed. This article has two accompanying pieces. The first, Rangers tax case: Your questions answered on the SPL investigation, and the second, The case for the defence of Rangers based on the tax tribunal. THE CASE AGAINST RANGERS Were "side letters" disclosed to the SPL? The SPLâ??s case will hinge on whether making EBT payments to players breached either or both of the two rules in question. The first relates to the necessity for all payments made to players for playing football to detailed in contracts, which are then sent to the league. The second relates to the necessity for all paperwork relating to payments made to be submitted to the league in order to confirm a player's eligibility to play in SPL matches. Their argument will likely lean heavily on the use of â??side-lettersâ?, which it is said were not disclosed to them, and whether the payments described on those letters amounted to â??payment of any description from or on behalf of a Club in respect of that Playerâ??s participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expensesâ? Did Rangers make any admissions that could work against them? An admission by Murray Group Holdingsâ?? QC during the case may prove important. Although Andrew Thornhill QC claimed â??it was irrelevantâ?¦ whether the Remuneration Trust benefit was contractual,â? he is said in the tribunal documents to have â??conceded that where it derived from a (footballerâ??s) side-letter it was contractual, but not in the cases of bonuses paid to employees of other Murray Group companies.â? Should contractual payments have been declared? The SPL will likely seek to argue that any contractual payments made should have been lodged with them, although it has already been stated throughout that these were not, nor did Rangers feel it was appropriate as per the rules to do so. What arguments did HMRC make about 'side letters' Taking the final opinions of the tribunal aside, several arguments are put forward by HM Revenue and Customs give indications of the case against Rangers. HMRC argued: â??Monies paid to footballers by Rangers in terms of side-letters were agreed in advance as â??part and parcelâ? of the employment contract. â??The side-letters, while not disclosed to the SFA, were in reality part of the playerâ??s contract with the Club. The players expected to receive the monies paid into trust â??The over-arching contract was the contract of employment and the side-letter was part of it. No explanation had been advanced for its being a separate document. The inference was obvious: it was secret and not to be disclosed. â?? What do HMRC say 'side letters' were used for? HMRC argued: â??Side-letters were used for periodic payments during the employment, in effect payment of a wage. They were used also for payment of bonuses and appearance money, and even for termination payments â??Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL. The spirit of their rules was that the whole contract terms should be registered. Suspiciously, no evidence was led as to who decided that the benefits in terms of the side-letters should not be registered. â??Non-registration of side-letters was incompatible with both authoritiesâ?? policing and disciplinary powers. For example any fines imposed on players would customarily reflect the disclosed wage. Non-disclosure would thwart the authoritiesâ?? powers. â??On any view, Mr Thomson argued, Rangers could have sought a ruling from the SFA or SPL about disclosure of side-letters but, clearly, they had chosen not to do so. There was a conscious decision to conceal their existence, and that extended even to the Clubâ??s auditors.â? What did the dissenting view in the tribunal say? It is later stated in the dissenting opinion of the Tribunal, held by one of its three members, that: "In cases where the Remuneration Trust arrangement was used, the agreement would have two parts: the employment contract and a letter of undertaking, usually signed on the same day. "The letter of undertaking is referred internally within the group as â??the side-letterâ??, and stated that the employer would undertake to contribute specified sums at specified dates into the employeeâ??s sub-trust. The side-letter was not lodged with the SFA or SPL.â? What's the likely case against Rangers? The case against Rangers is likely to hinge on whether the SPL finds that the side letters were part of the playing contract and should have been disclosed. However, it must also be proven that the payments detailed in the side-letters were payments for playing activities. It must also be established whether it is appropriate to consider loans as payments, given that these loans are recoverable by the trusts established. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,405 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I would argue that a) the payments made by the trust were made to settle the players into Scotland, help their families to settle etc., not to pay the players. And b) that the players in question are always willing to pay the loans back ... in 2051. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 how can you use hmrc's arguments they were proven wrong. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,336 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I agree with Gunslinger here. How can you take a losing argument in a court action and offering it as fact elsewhere? The fact the FTT threw out HMRC's argument means you cannot rely on any of their evidence in balance of evidence as being proven. HMRC made a lot of mainly unsubstantiated allegations that the FTT threw out. How can the SPL ignore this ruling and cherry pick the bits of the losing argument that it wants to believe? Boing boing boing, kangaroo court resumes 29/01/13. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 the question is how much money is this kangaroo court sucking out of Scottish football. 1 week of 3 judges time. plus others. it will cost hundreds of thousands all in. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 In another thread its cost 1million already. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,405 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I was referring to the last paragraph: However, it must also be proven that the payments detailed in the side-letters were payments for playing activities. It must also be established whether it is appropriate to consider loans as payments, given that these loans are recoverable by the trusts established. I hardly use HMRC's arguments here, just saying what the loans taken out by the relevant players might have been used for by the players. Payment for playing activities? How could you ever proof that? And since a loan can be paid back, it hardly constitutes a payment in a contractual way. Which is what HMRC argued for or tried to. Maybe my reply was not as financially sound as it should have been? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,079 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 how can you use hmrc's arguments they were proven wrong. It's interesting to note that the while HMRC Inspectors viewed the EBT's and loan arrangements as a "sham", rather pointedly it was a view not shared by HMRC's counsel. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter 0 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 I agree with Gunslinger here. How can you take a losing argument in a court action and offering it as fact elsewhere? The fact the FTT threw out HMRC's argument means you cannot rely on any of their evidence in balance of evidence as being proven. HMRC made a lot of mainly unsubstantiated allegations that the FTT threw out. How can the SPL ignore this ruling and cherry pick the bits of the losing argument that it wants to believe? Boing boing boing, kangaroo court resumes 29/01/13. Transfer embargo thrown out in a court of law. We are now under embargo. Tax case thrown out in a court of law. They fully intend to find us guilty. I'm ashamed to be Scottish at the moment. Disgusting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 In another thread its cost 1million already. not a surprise and utterly pathetic. still its the SPL clubs money. you have to winder what the clubs outside hibs Dundee utd and celtc think about this cutting into their prize money. 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.