Craig Whyte and HMRC

[Rangersitis 0]

Whyte's personal tax woes, the BTC and the non-payment of tax and NI by Rangers are all separate. Only one man has anything to gain from an article which attempts to lump them all together.

[Darthter 542]

Why would HMRC be under ANY obligation to notify the SFA over their pursuit of CW????

 

However, if the SFA did their "fit & proper" test correctly (no laughing at the back...), an enquiry to HMRC should have at least returned an "Under investigation" response.

 

I still find it hard to believe that Hearts get multiple winding-up order for £500k, yet an individual who was under investigation, owing just shy of £4m, was allowed to run up a further £15m worth of tax debt through a company he was running.

[Rangersitis 0]

A warts and all autobiography by Jack Irvine would reveal more than a thousand Public Inquiries. He knows where ALL the skeletons are buried - from SDM through to the present day.

[der Berliner 3,743]

I doubt that HMRC was under any obligation (not that I suggested this) to notify people, but if tax cops et al chase people for that kind of money, they usually jail him as soon as he shows his face - if only for interrogation. Hence the remark about walking the streets of Glasgow and being a very public figure - for months. Someone with virtually no financial background should be checked thoroughly from a variety of people - and as Darther said - a request at HMRC would/should have returned with an "under investigation" reply. As I said, the way this has been handled by HMRC - actively or passively - leaves a lot to be desired and does raise a number of questions open for inquisition.

[Darthter 542]

Whyte's personal tax woes, the BTC and the non-payment of tax and NI by Rangers are all separate. Only one man has anything to gain from an article which attempts to lump them all together.

 

Agreed that the BTC is completely separate. However, CW was being pursued (personally) for nearly £4m in taxes.....he then takes ownership of a high profile organisation providing prove of funding to the tune of £33m - HMRC should have been all over him like a rash!!!

 

Every single action CW took should have been scrutinised by HMRC - that obviously didn't happen.

[buster. 5,184]

Whyte's personal tax woes, the BTC and the non-payment of tax and NI by Rangers are all separate. Only one man has anything to gain from an article which attempts to lump them all together.

 

There is a saying that you can't kid a kidder.

When SDM claimed to be duped, he was actually in the process of duping anyone that would listen.

 

Regards the information that was being pushed back in 2010/11, you had SDM and CW with Jack Irvine in the middle. A cocktail so toxic that chemical weapons engineers were rumoured to be monitoring the situation.

[Rangersitis 0]

Agreed that the BTC is completely separate. However, CW was being pursued (personally) for nearly £4m in taxes.....he then takes ownership of a high profile organisation providing prove of funding to the tune of £33m - HMRC should have been all over him like a rash!!!

 

Every single action CW took should have been scrutinised by HMRC - that obviously didn't happen.

 

I just thought that HMRC would be subject to certain rules with regard to a new company's tax affairs, regardless of who was behind it. If I am mistaken, then I apologise.

[buster. 5,184]

A warts and all autobiography by Jack Irvine would reveal more than a thousand Public Inquiries. He knows where ALL the skeletons are buried - from SDM through to the present day.

 

He has made a dubious career out of associating himself with what many regard as'dodgy geezers', helping them take advantage of the system and leave various levels of chaos and out of pocket punters in their wake.

 

It's an indictment of how UKPLC operates that he is considered successful when he and his MO should be consigned to the underworld trash.

 

An example of another of Jack's clients.

http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/keydata-victims-ask-who-is-stewart-ford/a413832

[ian1964 10,720]

Lifted from FF:

 

Originally Posted by chateaubleu View Post

I used to work for HMRC, in the department that makes the initial phone call to companies late with HMRC payments.

 

Rangers are known as a Band 1 company, which (if memory serves me right) is a company that deducts and pays HMRC PAYE contributions of £100,000 or more a month.

 

A company like Rangers would've been on time with PAYE payments for years, on or around the 19th of every month - 14 days after the end of the tax month, as the past payment records of Band 1 companies tended to be, on the whole, flawless. This is why Band 1 companies were chased as soon as 7 days after the 19th if a payment was late - it was unusual the payment was late, and the payment was always for at least a 6-figure sum, so it was a priority to collect.

 

If a Band 1 company hadn't paid on time, it was always a genuine oversight, or someone new had started and was getting to grips with the department or whatever. It was paid the same day and you generally never saw the company in a collection list again.

 

If there was a problem making payment, the case was referred to a local collection office, in Rangers case this is Cotton House in Glasgow.

 

My point is, for the ordinary punter on the outside looking in, Whyte was allowed to not pay PAYE for 9 MONTHS before HMRC picked up on it.

 

However, because I'm aware of the early processes in collecting unpaid or late PAYE payments for companies of Rangers size, my belief is that HMRC would've known about payments not being made a WEEK after the first payment was due, 8-9 months before HMRC did anything about it.

 

I reckon that when the person making the initial call has been told payment will be made within a week (alarm bells if a company this size is saying that) or not at all, the case would've been referred to Cotton House, and it's there I think HMRC have turned a blind eye to proceedings.

 

In any case, whether it be the relentless EBT case pursuit or unpaid PAYE, Lin Homer, CE of HMRC worked closely with that prick Dr Death for a few years at the Home Office and I absolutely believe he was behind the HMRC and Lloyds pressure at the very least.

 

The last part you could probably never prove, but I remain convinced that HMRC intentionally let Rangers not pay PAYE until it got to the point where it was national news-worthy and therefore even more damaging to Rangers. I mean, compare and contrast with Hearts and their winding-up orders - they're another Band 1 company.

[True_Ger_1872 2]

I had mentioned earlier in this thread about divulging the details of Whyte's current dodgy dealings during the takeover period and why HMRC never spoke out. What i find strange is if i was going to buy a £10 per month mobile phone contract - i need to get a credit check for that. Not saying that is even close to being the same thing - but surely to god a) there would have been some sort of checks made throughout this process which HMRC would have been party to and b) he must have had to declare details of his actual accounts / funding which would surely have also been required to be checked and cross checked etc?

 

I just find that unbelievable!!