Jump to content

 

 

Cosgrove on Your Call with Traynor


Recommended Posts

To be fair, Jimbo did point out that we had offered HMRC a £10m settlement. Did we? Or did MIH? A lot of things tend to get muddied.

What is clear to me is that HMRC should never have been in a situation to oppose the CVA.

I could have come forward with an airy-fairy concept that Rangers owed me £150m.

No more far fetched than HMRC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, Jimbo did point out that we had offered HMRC a £10m settlement. Did we? Or did MIH? A lot of things tend to get muddied.

What is clear to me is that HMRC should never have been in a situation to oppose the CVA.

I could have come forward with an airy-fairy concept that Rangers owed me £150m.

No more far fetched than HMRC.

I read a quote from an insolvency expert who said the BTC should have been valued at £1 by D&P in administration because its outcome wasn't known. Certainly not £75m or whatever. This would have meant, of course, that HMRC couldn't have blocked CVA as they weren't main creditor. That would have been ticketus who accepted CVA

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I said I knew next to nothing about tax law i would be over-rating myself. But is an assessment not a debt due but suspended pending the outcome of an appeal?

 

If D&P had put the Revenue down for £1 provisional they would have given a false figure as a potential surplus for creditors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I said I knew next to nothing about tax law i would be over-rating myself. But is an assessment not a debt due but suspended pending the outcome of an appeal?

 

If D&P had put the Revenue down for £1 provisional they would have given a false figure as a potential surplus for creditors.

 

They used "TBC" (to be confirmed) often enough in their report perhaps they should have used that in relation to the EBT claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax case, they claim if we had made more of an effort to meet HMRC in the middle we wouldn't be in this. The silence when Traynor pointed out we had offered 10mill to the taxman 3 years ago was deafening.

 

whether people like it or not EBT's were perfectly legal if done properly. Last tuesday's verdict seems to suggest ours was in general OK.

Over 5,000 UK companies had EBT's before they were abolished late 2010(or should I say the tax loophole was closed). They were legal tax avoidance schemes to put it bluntly.

Some companies agreed to pay HMRC sums to compensate for the tax they had avoided. Others chose not to.

I believe we offered HMRC a sum ( you say £10m) which HMRC rejected. Now they've got nothing except a large legal bill ( ha! ha !)

I actually enjoyed winning the taxcase last tuesday almost as much as beating the dhims..........there you go !!

Edited by RANGERRAB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.