RANGERRAB 3,701 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 This link here Rab suggests that was not the case http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...kets-by-gbp73m The STV one contradicts it. Thats why I spoke of the confusion - some of which is clearly genuine' date=' while other parts are clear misdirection[/quote'] The biggest question of all D'Art is why HMRC chose to pursue this EBT bill. This Jim Harra character even says EBT's were legal so what made HMRC go after Rangers? Was there political interference by the likes of Reid? And I've always been suspicious of the timing of when Rangers got this EBT taxbill i.e just before the 2010 General Election which Labour were expected to lose and did. Presumably it had to be done before an incoming Tory government got in which might not have been so willing to let HMRC act in such a manner towards EBT tax avoidance which Harra even acknowledges was legal 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 What we do know is that at some point Duff & Phelps added the outstanding potential estimated liability regarding EBT’s to the overall bill due to HMRC. A potential bill which never came to fruition due to the rulings of various Tax Tribunals in favour of Rangers. It always seemed possible to me at the time that the administrators, Clark and Whitehouse never even intended to produce a CVA proposal which could be accepted by the creditors, so is it possible that they added it to GreenCo's CVA proposal specifically so that it would fail? After all, the failed CVA meant that the Club cost their preferred bidder a lot less money and the 'newco' route which Clark and Whitehouse were clearly very keen on also meant leaving the massive potential liability with the 'oldco' in liquidation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,256 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 This link here Rab suggests that was not the case http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/new...kets-by-gbp73m The STV one contradicts it. Thats why I spoke of the confusion - some of which is clearly genuine' date=' while other parts are clear misdirection[/quote'] D'art , I vividly remember listening to Talksport just after the announcement that HMRC had vetoed the CVA , they had their own expert in insolvency/tax affairs on and he was bewildered as to why HMRC had been allowed to carry the full amount of their demands whilst the case was under appeal , his opinion was that HMRC should have been given a notifiable amount of £1 as in theory that was all their demand was worth given his own experience of these cases . It has always mystified me as to why this was never taken forward . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,701 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) It always seemed possible to me at the time that the administrators, Clark and Whitehouse never even intended to produce a CVA proposal which could be accepted by the creditors, so is it possible that they added it to GreenCo's CVA proposal specifically so that it would fail? After all, the failed CVA meant that the Club cost their preferred bidder a lot less money and the 'newco' route which Clark and Whitehouse were clearly very keen on also meant leaving the massive potential liability with the 'oldco' in liquidation. I dont think that's entirely correct is it? I seem to recall Clark & Whitehouse telling us during administration we'd get a CVA. What I find strange was that when it got refused HMRC seemed to suggest there never wasany chance of us getting one because of what Whyte had done. Clark & Whitehouse also said they were in constant contact with HMRC as I recall also. Was the possibility or not of a CVA not discussed with HMRC given they were rightly or wrongly the main creditor? All seems very strange to me Edited January 31, 2015 by RANGERRAB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I dont think that's entirely correct is it? I seem to recall Clark & Whitehouse telling us during administration we'd get a CVA. What I find strange was that when it got refused HMRC seemed to suggest there never wasany chance of us getting one because of what Whyte had done. Clark & Whitehouse also said they were in constant contact with HMRC as I recall also. Was the possibility or not of a CVA not discussed with HMRC given they were rightly or wrongly the main creditor? All seems very strange to me I didn't believe half of what Clark & Whitehouse told us during the administration. The fact that they've been called up on criminal charges would suggest it was maybe a prudent way to have read the situation. All seems very strange? Yes, it certainly does and did at the time too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,701 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 D'art , I vividly remember listening to Talksport just after the announcement that HMRC had vetoed the CVA , they had their own expert in insolvency/tax affairs on and he was bewildered as to why HMRC had been allowed to carry the full amount of their demands whilst the case was under appeal , his opinion was that HMRC should have been given a notifiable amount of £1 as in theory that was all their demand was worth given his own experience of these cases . It has always mystified me as to why this was never taken forward . And I think it has to be remembered there was an assumption of guilt by almost everyone including SPL chairmen and CEO's who voted us out the SPL. HMRC seemed to think they had an open & shut case with Rangers EBT's. They didnt. We need to find out why they thought this and who it was who instigated all of this 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,701 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) I didn't believe half of what Clark & Whitehouse told us during the administration. The fact that they've been called up on criminal charges would suggest it was maybe a prudent way to have read the situation. All seems very strange? Yes, it certainly does and did at the time too. Ive always believe it was their intention to return a debt-free Rangers back to their client Whyte after administration but after it emerged what he'd been up to (non payment of PAYE and N.i.) that was never going to be possible But did Clark and Whitehouse never discuss a CVA with HMRC? Find that difficult to believe Edited January 31, 2015 by RANGERRAB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Ive always believe it was their intention to return a debt-free Rangers back to their client Whyte after administration but after it emerged what he'd been up to (non payment of PAYE and N.i.) that was never going to be possibleBut did Clark and Whitehouse never discuss a CVA with HMRC? Find that difficult to believe What Clark & Whitehouse discussed with HMRC vs what they told US vs what they put in the GreenCo CVA proposal don't necessarily all need to align or tally. Slight tangent, but I see that Worthington Group published another Q&A with their CEO, Doug Ware yesterday and that amongst his comments he said: As regards our litigation interests, contrary to recent suggestions, we have not abandoned the Rangers litigation; it has just not been a priority for us due to our emphasis on our much more substantial acquisitions. However, recent developments have caused us to review the position including the possibility of disposing of our investment. We would emphasise however that we are not expecting to see a write down in the value of our investment and no final decision has been made. http://worthingtongroupplc.com/ceo-questions-and-answers/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) The biggest question of all D'Art is why HMRC chose to pursue this EBT bill. This Jim Harra character even says EBT's were legal so what made HMRC go after Rangers? Was there political interference by the likes of Reid?And I've always been suspicious of the timing of when Rangers got this EBT taxbill i.e just before the 2010 General Election which Labour were expected to lose and did. Presumably it had to be done before an incoming Tory government got in which might not have been so willing to let HMRC act in such a manner towards EBT tax avoidance which Harra even acknowledges was legal In the name of God...Reid's party have been out of office since 2010, and he left office in 2007. A Conservative government has been in place since 2010 and has done nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - to get Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs off our backs. But aye, it was all John Reid's fault and if only we'd had a Tory govt. we'd have been OK. This is sheer folly, man. Edited February 19, 2017 by andy steel 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 173 Posted January 31, 2015 Author Share Posted January 31, 2015 D'art , I vividly remember listening to Talksport just after the announcement that HMRC had vetoed the CVA , they had their own expert in insolvency/tax affairs on and he was bewildered as to why HMRC had been allowed to carry the full amount of their demands whilst the case was under appeal , his opinion was that HMRC should have been given a notifiable amount of £1 as in theory that was all their demand was worth given his own experience of these cases . It has always mystified me as to why this was never taken forward . To be honest bud I think within the bigger picture its pretty immaterial. There was sufficient debt within the non payment of PAYE & VAT to allow them to exercise their power of veto 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.