Now official: HMRC appeal dismissed

[BrahimHemdani 1]

So HMRC could keep it going even now?

 

How likely is that?

 

A reasonable person might say that given that they've lost twice and most recently on all three counts, it's hardly a good use of taxpayers' money to chase the game a third time.

 

But then no one ever accused HMRC of being reasonable.

 

They will most likely view it the other way - we've gone this far on an important point of principle, we may as well see it through to the end.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

To Post 69

"I have a great deal of sympathy with this view, the only question being is it worth pursuing?"

 

Hardly the "No Surrender " attitude.

 

We cannot forget the injustice done to our club, injustice initialized by HMRC , they lit the fuse and let it burn, they allowed everyone to believe they were right and Rangers PLC was wrong, they allowed the leaks to the press.

 

We also cannot forget that not all employees at HMRC are non sectarian, non biased, non political or fit and proper people, in other words, IMO someone in a high position within HMRC Scotland had a plan, an aggenda or given a nod and a wink then saw an opportunity.

 

There are too many unanswered questions for any Rangers supporters to say "lets forget about it, there's nothing we can do"

 

Leaving aside your comments about HMRC employees, the question would be against whom are we taking action and would the cost be worth any potential gain.

 

HMRC had a reasonable case to pursue, some might say more than reasonable, but that's a dead end as far as Rangers are concerned, though hopefully we can apply for costs, if that's allowable and not automatic.

 

Negotiations with the SFA might possibly be more fruitfull but I gave reasons why I doubt they will gain anything more than sympathy.

 

Being right all along isn't going to get us back three years in the wilderness.

 

You could say, as SDM implies, that if the BTC was not hanging over the Club it would have been worth a lot more; and then you could say he would have sold to someone else for more money; and then you could say that that person would have paid all the PAYE/NIC on time; and then we wouldn't have gone into administration; but that's all speculation.

 

One thing is for sure it should strengthen our resolve to get back to where we belong asap and from that point of view I agree NO SURRENDER.

[neutralscot 0]

It's incredible news as a non rangers fan. Why didn't murray weather the storm? He could have downsized, changed the club's ethos regarding youth development etc. He was listening to celtic blogs more than he was his own legal counsel. Incredible mistake to capitulate over the big tax case. Whyte? What was he thinking? He could have had a healthy club worth 60m for £1 but contrived to lose it all. It's mind blowing.

[barca72 440]

I have a great deal of sympathy with this view, the only question being is it worth pursuing?

 

Whilsts Whyte's lawyers now stand effectively convicted of "Breach of undertaking, breach of trust, deceit/conspiracy" this was in connection with the takeover; whereas if I understand it correctly, it was the failure to pay over PAYE/NIC that led directly to the administration.

 

HMRC will have well documented opinion to show that they were right to pursue the BTC and equally that they were right not to accept the settlement offer per se, as well as the case had wide ranging implications; and there can be no argument that they were right to pursue the PAYE/NIC.

 

The SFA for their part will say that they dealt with the situation as it was presented to them at the time.

 

We may possibly have a case for recovering the money newco paid on behalf of oldco but if oldco aren't able to recover the money themselves then the creditors are hardly going to hand the money back.

 

Sadly the loss of prestige and income at home and in Europe also is irrecoverable.

 

We most certainly do now have the moral high ground (except for non payment of PAYE/NIC); but whether it is anything more than a pyhrric victory remains to be seen.

 

BH, maybe I wasn't making myself clear.

I was conceding that Whyte gave HMRC the opportunity to drive us into liquidation because he did not pay the PAYE/NIC. My point was that this could be contested on the grounds that by the past actions of HMRC this was not enough to force a club the size of Rangers into liquidation. They could have recouped this amount on ST moneys alone over a few years.

I do believe that there is an agenda within HMRC as far as Rangers are concerned. Of the £14M, how much could they have claimed via a CVA? Who knows. However, they were offered £10M by MIH previously, before Whyte was involved, and refused it - WHY?

Here is a post from Albertz78 on RM. I think is is relevant.

"Posted Today, 04:41 PM

On the 4th of Dec 2012 HMRC cut a deal with Hearts over 1.75 million pounds of unpaid national insurance knowing full well that club was heading for administration and that debt would never be paid. This after 7 yes SEVEN winding up orders for non-payment of tax in the space of 5 years. While a few years before that they also cut deals with Newcastle (image rights) and Arsenal (EBT's). Meantime they spend 4 years chasing Rangers wasting millions of pounds of public money over a mythical debt?"

 

Why would HMRC accept payments from other clubs in similar situations ( whether EBTs or tax debts ) and not Rangers?

I remember at the time HMRC forced liquidation on Rangers rather than accept the CVA they said that they could nail Whyte, later in court, easier that way because of his previous conduct ( they knew he had history with previous companies ) with them and it would be better for Rangers to start again with no debt. (I can't find the article now.)

This suggests to me that they knew of the background of Whyte, they knew of the non-payment of PAYE by Whyte and could have stopped it sooner, they knew that they could use this to nail Whyte; the question is why would they allow Whyte to be used as an instrument to bring down Rangers?

There are all kinds of theories out there to which I shall not subscribe at this time.

The other point about the SFA and their cronies is this. If they took action against us because of the actions of the HMRC, and if the oldco or BDO prove that HMRC were unjustified in their actions, then the SPL cannot claim that the causal link presented to them should stand, because if a party is wronged in Tort law then they deserve to be restored to their previous position before the wrong was committed.

This then would allow us to sue for any monies kept from us, and any sanctions improperly imposed upon us; and also for loss of reputation, standing and European earnings.

So, as I see it, two separate actions are required.

As part of BDO's case to recover monies kept by the authorities, they prove HMRC acted wrongly - they more or less have to prove this to win their case. This destroys the causal link for the SPL.

We use that proof as a means to gain a judgement against SPL/SFA.

They have spent our money so we gain our pound of flesh by removing any and all who were involved in the 5-way-agreement.

Would it be worth it? Ask the Rangers' support what they think of pyhrric victories.

 

p.s. If you're worried about a member club suing the SFA, remember back to Lennon's multiple suspensions and when Paul McBride representing Celtic threatened to take the SFA to court.

Payback's a bitch.

[Frankie 8,562]

It's incredible news as a non rangers fan. Why didn't murray weather the storm? He could have downsized, changed the club's ethos regarding youth development etc. He was listening to celtic blogs more than he was his own legal counsel. Incredible mistake to capitulate over the big tax case. Whyte? What was he thinking? He could have had a healthy club worth 60m for £1 but contrived to lose it all. It's mind blowing.

 

The pressure from his bank was too much.

 

Murray should have bunkered down but instead gave into Lloyds to save the rest of his business.

 

Murray's legacy will forever be the cowardly captain of industry who was duped by a chancer.

[ian1964 10,720]

[BrahimHemdani 1]

BH, maybe I wasn't making myself clear.

I was conceding that Whyte gave HMRC the opportunity to drive us into liquidation because he did not pay the PAYE/NIC. My point was that this could be contested on the grounds that by the past actions of HMRC this was not enough to force a club the size of Rangers into liquidation. They could have recouped this amount on ST moneys alone over a few years.

I do believe that there is an agenda within HMRC as far as Rangers are concerned. Of the £14M, how much could they have claimed via a CVA? Who knows. However, they were offered £10M by MIH previously, before Whyte was involved, and refused it - WHY?

Here is a post from Albertz78 on RM. I think is is relevant.

"Posted Today, 04:41 PM

On the 4th of Dec 2012 HMRC cut a deal with Hearts over 1.75 million pounds of unpaid national insurance knowing full well that club was heading for administration and that debt would never be paid. This after 7 yes SEVEN winding up orders for non-payment of tax in the space of 5 years. While a few years before that they also cut deals with Newcastle (image rights) and Arsenal (EBT's). Meantime they spend 4 years chasing Rangers wasting millions of pounds of public money over a mythical debt?"

 

Why would HMRC accept payments from other clubs in similar situations ( whether EBTs or tax debts ) and not Rangers?

I remember at the time HMRC forced liquidation on Rangers rather than accept the CVA they said that they could nail Whyte, later in court, easier that way because of his previous conduct ( they knew he had history with previous companies ) with them and it would be better for Rangers to start again with no debt. (I can't find the article now.)

This suggests to me that they knew of the background of Whyte, they knew of the non-payment of PAYE by Whyte and could have stopped it sooner, they knew that they could use this to nail Whyte; the question is why would they allow Whyte to be used as an instrument to bring down Rangers?

There are all kinds of theories out there to which I shall not subscribe at this time.

The other point about the SFA and their cronies is this. If they took action against us because of the actions of the HMRC, and if the oldco or BDO prove that HMRC were unjustified in their actions, then the SPL cannot claim that the causal link presented to them should stand, because if a party is wronged in Tort law then they deserve to be restored to their previous position before the wrong was committed.

This then would allow us to sue for any monies kept from us, and any sanctions improperly imposed upon us; and also for loss of reputation, standing and European earnings.

So, as I see it, two separate actions are required.

As part of BDO's case to recover monies kept by the authorities, they prove HMRC acted wrongly - they more or less have to prove this to win their case. This destroys the causal link for the SPL.

We use that proof as a means to gain a judgement against SPL/SFA.

They have spent our money so we gain our pound of flesh by removing any and all who were involved in the 5-way-agreement.

Would it be worth it? Ask the Rangers' support what they think of pyhrric victories.

 

p.s. If you're worried about a member club suing the SFA, remember back to Lennon's multiple suspensions and when Paul McBride representing Celtic threatened to take the SFA to court.

Payback's a bitch.

 

I can see the force of everything you are saying and also the suggestion elsewhere to use the RFFF money to pursue a case (somewhat better than the last suggestion IMHO).

 

However, was the Murray £10m offer not in respect of the BTC? And HMRC rejected it presumably because they thought they could win big and I just don't see that a there would be any mileage in challenging that. I do think they would be well advsised to concede defeat at this point but as I also said they may not take that view.

 

I do think that you make very valid points about the PAYE/NIC. Whyte was extremely plausible/the ultimate con man but HMRC pursue little people a lot faster. However, if you are paying quarterly it may well be 2/3 quarters before they start thinking about putting you into administration for non payment. That said he (and his lawyers) did the same to the SFA over proof of being fit and proper. If the SFA had been more aggressive on that.........

 

I also said that I think it might be more fruitful to go against the SFA but I would open negotiations first if the lawyers determine we have an arguable case. I can see that a higher court may well remit the case back to the SFA for the reasons you state but I'm not sure that we could recover any monies unless the authorities could in turn recover those monies from oldco (so that the clubs who were owed still get their money). I am not a lawyer so I don't know. But IF the SFA acted reasonably at the time on the basis of the information before them then I would think they would have a decent defence. Also I don't see how you put a value on loss of status though you certainly could value the financial loss of playing in the lower divisions.

 

As I said it certainly feels good to be on the moral high ground.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

It's time for us the fans and shareholders to sue whyte, green and d&p for their plan to liquidate us and get rich at our expense.

[der Berliner 3,743]

I long for the day that Whyte gets jailed for all of this. Likewise I fear that this would more or less be the end of it. Those who helped him along, not least certain authorities will wiggle themselves around some "supportive" and semi-apologetic statements and be done with it. The damage to the club and the support have been done and we now must make sure that anyone everywhere knows exactly what has happened to us and why.

 

I'm not sure what could happen with the remains of the oldco and whether it must be liquidated regardless.

[calscot 0]

For me, dismissing the BTC and the actions of HMRC for causing the liquidation of the Oldco is akin to to saying that technically and pedantically, "nobody dies of AIDS". They don't, their immune system is compromised and so they die of normal infections and diseases. However, dismissing the leading role that AIDS plays in the death seems a bit over the top.

 

The BTC was our AIDS. It left us open and vulnerable to life-threatening attack. The evil part for me is the analogy that HMRC deliberately infected us and then stopped us from receiving treatment (CVA).