barca72 440 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) A few things to the above discussion re HMRC. They were already chasing Whyte when he acquired Rangers from SDM. Whether that alone would/could have stopped him acquiring us is anyone's guess. YET, what failure of the SFA et al in doing their due diligence on a prospective new owner of Rangers FC? (Or did they only start that after the Whyte fiasco?) Obvioulsy, common sense would suggest that HMRC would tell the SFA a word about Whyte once they get any idea about his plans ... even if it was not exactly their business. (One point in the books of those who say that the relevant HMRC branch (et al) was run by people with certain leniencies. For they did not act, yet Regan and Lawwell knew that something was wrong by November (according to Traynor (back then) ... and who would have told them? Perhaps the same leak that filled certain bloggers' pages later on? A leak that is been vigorously covered by HMRC.) Not paying tax and HMRC letting it happen. Methinks it was said a few times that companies as big as Rangers' get a certain allowance in being late. If they are, they get a notice with a certain period. If that does not help another notice is fired the company's way. Then they start dealing with you with the gloves off. Those saying that also suggested that the time which elapsed between the due tax, the notice letters and the administration date are roughly correct. Unfortunately db HMRC cannot deliberately break the law, and the information was required in 2011 HMRC Policy to “Name and Shame” Deliberate Tax Defaulters (Including Individuals) November 19 2013 As part of the government’s crackdown on tax evasion, the names and details of deliberate tax defaulters are now being published by HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”). The purpose of this is to act as a deterrent to those who have received penalties for either making deliberate errors in their tax returns or deliberately failing to comply with their tax obligations. HMRC may publish this information under Section 94 Finance Act 2009, which came into force on 1 April 2010. Although these powers were granted in 2010, HMRC are only now beginning to use them in earnest. ... Section 94 Finance Act 2009 Under section 94(1) of the Finance Act 2009, HMRC may publish information about any person if a) in consequence of an investigation conducted by the Commissioners, one or more relevant tax penalties is found to have been incurred by the individual, and b) the potential lost revenue in relation to the penalty (or the aggregate of the potential lost revenue in relation to each of the penalties) exceeds £25,000. ... A relevant tax penalty includes a deliberate inaccuracy in a tax return or document for a tax period beginning on or after 1 April 2010, a failure to comply with certain obligations (such as the obligation to notify HMRC of a VAT liability) or excise wrongdoing that occurred on or after 1 April 2010. ... Section 94 (6) Finance Act 2009: Safeguards for Individuals Under section 94 (6) of the Finance Act 2009, individuals can prevent HMRC from publishing this personal information. Before publishing any information, HMRC must inform the person that they are considering doing so, and provide that person with a reasonable opportunity to make representations about whether such information should be published. Details are published only once all appeal routes are exhausted and details must be published within 12 months of the tax penalty becoming final. HMRC are under a legal obligation to ensure that the information is not published for longer than 12 months. Edited September 13, 2015 by barca72 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Sorry I didn't see this. I put it up as a new thread. No problem, it works well in its own thread, cheers 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,813 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 (edited) Unfortunately db HMRC cannot deliberately break the law, and the information was required in 2011 HMRC Policy to “Name and Shame” Deliberate Tax Defaulters (Including Individuals) November 19 2013 As part of the government’s crackdown on tax evasion, the names and details of deliberate tax defaulters are now being published by HM Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”). The purpose of this is to act as a deterrent to those who have received penalties for either making deliberate errors in their tax returns or deliberately failing to comply with their tax obligations. HMRC may publish this information under Section 94 Finance Act 2009, which came into force on 1 April 2010. Although these powers were granted in 2010, HMRC are only now beginning to use them in earnest. ... Section 94 Finance Act 2009 Under section 94(1) of the Finance Act 2009, HMRC may publish information about any person if a) in consequence of an investigation conducted by the Commissioners, one or more relevant tax penalties is found to have been incurred by the individual, and b) the potential lost revenue in relation to the penalty (or the aggregate of the potential lost revenue in relation to each of the penalties) exceeds £25,000. ... A relevant tax penalty includes a deliberate inaccuracy in a tax return or document for a tax period beginning on or after 1 April 2010, a failure to comply with certain obligations (such as the obligation to notify HMRC of a VAT liability) or excise wrongdoing that occurred on or after 1 April 2010. ... Section 94 (6) Finance Act 2009: Safeguards for Individuals Under section 94 (6) of the Finance Act 2009, individuals can prevent HMRC from publishing this personal information. Before publishing any information, HMRC must inform the person that they are considering doing so, and provide that person with a reasonable opportunity to make representations about whether such information should be published. Details are published only once all appeal routes are exhausted and details must be published within 12 months of the tax penalty becoming final. HMRC are under a legal obligation to ensure that the information is not published for longer than 12 months. See, forlanssister ... barca72 gives you a nice lesson in "not steamrolling fellow posters (and Bears) for their opinion with a Challenger tank". Instead, he gives an actual reason why HMRC did not inform anyone, or could not. Now, what you might consider - despite your reply - is that Whyte was already chased by HMRC for £3.74m at the time. Not you average tax offender. And if they chase such people, as they did (see below), how come that apparently no-one uttered a word in open public or indeed informed the media - somehow? Which angered certain people at the club as well. And while I am at it, you do wonder what sort of work the SFA et al actually did with regard to Whyte and any check about being e.g. fit and proper. Ex-Rangers owner Craig Whyte was being chased by the taxman for £3.74m BEFORE he started his catastrophic reign at Ibrox 07:30, 5 August 2014 Updated 07:39, 5 August 2014 By Keith Jackson HMRC had instructed debt enforcers to chase Whyte with a bill for almost £4million and threaten him with bankruptcy in May 2011 - the same month that he bought Rangers.* THE taxman was chasing Craig Whyte for £3.7million before he took over Rangers. HMRC focused on Whyte’s personal finances and made several failed attempts to get him to pay his dues before, during and after his catastrophic reign at Ibrox. The taxman regarded Whyte as a “flight risk”, fearing he might flee the country without settling his huge tax bill. Documents seen by the Record show: * The authorities instructed debt enforcers to chase Whyte with a bill for almost £4million and threaten him with bankruptcy in May 2011, the same month that he bought Rangers. * It was the culmination of a probe begun the previous year when the taxman learned Whyte had returned to the UK in 2005. * Whyte was continually warned he was failing to submit satisfactory tax returns and risked being fined. * He actually claimed at one stage to have a UK taxable worth of just £24 in accrued bank interest. * Yet when he struck the notorious deal with Ticketus for funds to finance his Rangers takeover, he gave the firm a personal guarantee he was worth nearly £33million. This “guarantee”, which was obtained by HMRC, helped them calculate Whyte’s £3,741,835.29 tax bill but he continued stalling tactics to avoid coughing up. At the same time he was able to run up a further £15million in unpaid taxes and penalties during his nine months in charge of Rangers. Whyte had bought Rangers for £1 from Sir David Murray in May 2011, while agreeing to wipe out the club’s £18million debts. But on February 14, 2012, he made a legal move to have the Ibrox outfit placed into administration. By then the club’s debt had rocketed to around £50million. HMRC then rejected a Company Voluntary Arrangement, forcing the club’s owners to be liquidated in a move which also saw Rangers having to start again in the lowest tier of Scottish football. David Murray has long blamed the taxman for the demise of Rangers, saying the spectre of the Big Tax Case – a potential bill of between £46m and £100million, hanging over the club forced his hand in selling up. But a sizeable proportion of Rangers fans still hold Murray at least partly responsible for the club’s demise, arguing he should not have sold to Whyte, whose reputation had already been questioned. Ultimately, Rangers won the Big Tax Case when a tribunal ruled Employee Benefit Trusts paid to players were in fact loans not subject to tax – and HMRC’s appeal against that judgment was rejected this year. Fans remain furious at the taxman for bringing the case in the first place, and the latest documents from July 2012 obtained by the Record are unlikely to quell their anger. They show HMRC began building their case against Whyte from the moment his proposed take over first hit the headlines in November 2010, six months before he was eventually handed the keys to Ibrox. The paperwork from the taxman’s high net worth unit states: “HMRC became aware that Whyte had returned to live in the UK when the press carried stories in 2010 that he was potentially going to purchase Rangers Football Club plc. “HMRC discovered that Whyte had been back in the UK since 2005. He did not notify HMRC of his return to the UK, nor did he complete tax returns.” The documents go on to chronicle various atttempts by the taxman to force Whyte to detail his finances and warnings of fines he faces if he fails to comply. In the absence of his co-operation, the tax office made their own calculations and issued Whyte with demands for £1million for the financial year 2006-07 and £1.2million for the following year. Whyte did finally submitted some returns. But the documents note: “The returns contained entries in respect of net UK bank interest of £24 for 2006-07 and £491 for 2007-08.” This pattern continues throughout the reports, until a damning revelation centring on Whyte’s takeover of Rangers when he secured funding from Ticketus to head off the club’s future debt in exchange for money from season ticket sales. Presumably to convince Ticketus he was a genuine businessman, Whyte gave his own word that he was good for the investment, according to the HMRC documents. They state: “The personal guarantee included a statement of Whyte’s net worth, signed by him, which showed he had net assets with a value of £32,956,843.” This was the evdience HMRC needed to slap Whyte with the tax bill of £3,741,835.29 at the time of his takeover. Just four days after he posed for pictures with the SPL trophy at Rugby Park following a thrilling last day climax to the league campaign, a letter was written to Whyte by HMRC’s higher debt manager detailing the claim and giving him seven days to pay in full. Whyte was warned that a warrant would be served on him by a sheriff officer who would also provide him with a leaflet entitled Dealing with Debt to help him assess his options. The letter continues: “If the debt remains unpaid, I will arrange to present a sequestration petition in your local sheriff court. The effect of this is that you are likely to be made bankrupt and a Trustee appointed to sell your assets and pay your creditors.” Even then Whyte continued to stall, appealing to a tribunal against the judgment. As HMRC do not discuss private tax dealings, the outcome as yet remains unknown. But the emergence of HMRC’s serious concerns about Whyte before his takeover prompted further anger among senior Rangers figures. Alastair Johnston, Rangers chairman at the time, pleaded with Murray not to sell the club to Whyte. He was subsequently axed. Presented with the revelations last night, he said: “On the back of this, I would welcome a full-scale, independent investigation into the actions of HMRC around the Rangers issue.” Former director Paul Murray added: “I have always said that what has happened to Rangers has been nothing short of disgraceful. “The club has been the victim of a fraud. A lot of people have made a lot of money at the club’s expense and it has to end. “It is in the public interest to find out exactly what has happened and then to take action. Justice must be done and be seen to be done.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415 *Remember that we kew within hours (if ot minutes) that tax or sheriff people were knocking at doors at Ibrox post admin? Edited September 13, 2015 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 Now, what you might consider - despite your reply - is that Whyte was already chased by HMRC for £3.74m at the time. Not you average tax offender. And if they chase such people, as they did (see below), how come that apparently no-one uttered a word in open public or indeed informed the media - somehow? Which angered certain people at the club as well. The answer to that is in your quote of Barca72's post if you read it. And while I am at it, you do wonder what sort of work the SFA et al actually did with regard to Whyte and any check about being e.g. fit and proper. One day you'll realise it wasn't HMRC or the SFA that got us in the position we were in but in fact it was those that wore Rangers ties. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ex-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-being-3992415 *Remember that we kew within hours (if ot minutes) that tax or sheriff people were knocking at doors at Ibrox post admin? Nonsense we knew well, well in advance of administration but most like yourself chose simply to ignore it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 One day you'll realise it wasn't HMRC or the SFA that got us in the position we were in but in fact it was those that wore Rangers ties. Funny you should say that. I was looking at the WV photo's you posted the link to and the photo with all the board, the tie just jumped out and gave me a knot in my stomach. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,813 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 One day you'll realise it wasn't HMRC or the SFA that got us in the position we were in but in fact it was those that wore Rangers ties. I take it you refer to SDM? Nonsense we knew well, well in advance of administration but most like yourself chose simply to ignore it. You (sic!) and sure not "we" (and if so who?) probably knew and usually posted some non-too-clear-cryptic stuff which a "common" Bear could hardly verify at the time. Many, me included, were up to believe what they were presented with. And many were knifed in the back. Of course, if there were people "in the know" - not least about this tax stuff - why did they not spoke up at and to the relevant authorities, or indeed the papers? IF they had any real evidence at the time, rather than the stuff that was spread in a hearsay-manner. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,114 Posted September 13, 2015 Share Posted September 13, 2015 I take it you refer to SDM? Murray, Muir,McGill, Whyte, Withey, Betts, Green, Ahmad, Stockbridge, Summers ,Llambias, Leech, Easdales etc...etc... You (sic!) and sure not "we" (and if so who?) probably knew and usually posted some non-too-clear-cryptic stuff which a "common" Bear could hardly verify at the time. Many, me included, were up to believe what they were presented with. And many were knifed in the back. Of course, if there were people "in the know" - not least about this tax stuff - why did they not spoke up at and to the relevant authorities, or indeed the papers? IF they had any real evidence at the time, rather than the stuff that was spread in a hearsay-manner. A mere six months before administration. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sheriff-officers-visit-ibrox-stadium-1080375 http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13034465.Sheriff_officers_pay_visit_to_Rangers_over___2_8m_debt/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,759 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 The answer to that is in your quote of Barca72's post if you read it. One day you'll realise it wasn't HMRC or the SFA that got us in the position we were in but in fact it was those that wore Rangers ties. Nonsense we knew well, well in advance of administration but most like yourself chose simply to ignore it. It was Craig Whyte, HMRC & LBG who collectively caused Rangers troubles. And TIcketus too probably. Whyte should never have got anywhere near buying Rangers & had Ticketus not been falling over themselves to give him money he wouldn't have. HMRC for causing imaginary debt levels by sending out EBT taxbills to which they weren't entitled & inexpicably allowing Whyte to run up PAYE/NI arrears. And if LBG forced SDM to sell to Whyte ( then withdrew all bank credit facilities) then they are the most culpable of all 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Barristan Selmy 222 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 One day you'll realise it wasn't HMRC or the SFA that got us in the position we were in but in fact it was those that wore Rangers ties. Nail on head. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,813 Posted September 14, 2015 Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) Murray, Muir,McGill, Whyte, Withey, Betts, Green, Ahmad, Stockbridge, Summers ,Llambias, Leech, Easdales etc...etc... 75% of the people you named are post-admin folk. As GS pointed out above, those who saw Rangers slip into admin where Whyte, HMRC and LBG, and, to a degree SDM. The rest did a neat job in ruining Rangers further, but were not the reason why we ended up in admin. A mere six months before administration. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/sheriff-officers-visit-ibrox-stadium-1080375 http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13034465.Sheriff_officers_pay_visit_to_Rangers_over___2_8m_debt/ We do speak about two different things, as the above was happening when Whyte was already in control. He should not been able to be in that position if he had tax enforcers chasing him already and he was not paying his considerable dues even before he took over. Edited September 14, 2015 by der Berliner 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.