Court of Session rules in favour of HMRC + Rangers Issue Statement

[der Berliner 3,743]

@alextomo: because Rangers themselves said EBTs were for hiring players they otherwise could not afford

 

Is this true? Did anyone at Rangers say this publicly ?

 

Why would a journo be required to give a source or name the respective person? Isn't it good enough to throw somesuch about and wait for the fallout? I can't remember who said this, or would be daft enough to say it. Sure not anyone who had anything to do with the EBTs as such. But time will tell ...

[D'Artagnan 173]

@alextomo: because Rangers themselves said EBTs were for hiring players they otherwise could not afford

 

Is this true? Did anyone at Rangers say this publicly ?

 

I remember that line being peddled by our detractors BG I dont recall anyone at the club saying it. In fact Im sure SDM is on record as saying had we not gone down the route of EBT's we would still have acquired those players by other funding means.

Edited November 5, 2015 by D'Artagnan

[Scott7 6,002]

He would say that, wouldn't he?

[Crimson Dynamo 128]

Did the former Director that Alex Thomson interviewed not say something to effect?

[calscot 0]

EBTs saved us about £2m a year in taxes at a time when our turnover was around £50m. I'm calculating this from the £47m that HMRC claimed went into them over 10 years, and presuming tax at 40%.

 

Seems to me that at worst it would have caused us another £20m of debt - which without the threat of the tax case would have had us eminently solvent and still challenging for titles over the last 5 years. There are no rules against using debt to fund players you would otherwise not be able to afford. In this case it's not even that, we used a tax avoidance scheme that was valid at the time and which two tax tribunals thought were fine. At worst it's misinterpreting a tax law that is too difficult even for expert to interpret definitively.

 

Considering the consequences, overall, the use of EBTs have actually been to our disadvantage.

 

Now perhaps we should compare that £2m a year with soft TSB loans and cheap land deals from GGC... So when do we punish Celtic?

 

Or if stripping titles is in fashion, should we dare mention the Penn State precedent?

[ian1964 10,720]

Taken from FF, re programme on Radio Scotland this morning.

 

'Missed his name but clearly very surprised at the decision and highlighted the fact that two rounds of tax judges had been overruled by the non-tax judges.

Finished by calling it unsound.'

 

'The guy was a Solicitor Advocate from Pinsent Masons. Made some excellent points. Surely an appeal to the Supreme Court.'

 

Then a post from Vidmar.

 

'I'm glad this is being highlighted. Reading the decision, it's painfully obvious the Judges had made up their minds before any submissions. They reference Dr Poon - the FTT dissenter, and non-legally qualified - multiple times but don't mention the other two QCs whatsoever. The submissions by Roddy Dunlop on behalf of RFC are given about a paragraph!

 

They go on to accept the payments were loans and discretionary but take the view they should still have been taxed.

 

I hope BDO appeal. There seems to be a lot of confusion in tax circles over this decision which has come completely from left field.'

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06kq42k - About 01.36 minutes in

[der Berliner 3,743]

Has anyone actually checked how HMRC came up with the 46m of tax money due? I'd have to dig up the EBT figures, but they are looking for tax money and wouldn't those 46m require a far greater actual sum?

 

EDIT ... posted at the same time as calscot's explanation above.

Edited November 5, 2015 by der Berliner

[calscot 0]

Just thinking, we've effectively just had the last 5 titles stripped from us and handed to Celtic and been handicapped for further years.

[der Berliner 3,743]

Now perhaps we should compare that £2m a year with soft TSB loans and cheap land deals from GGC... So when do we punish Celtic?

 

Or if stripping titles is in fashion, should we dare mention the Penn State precedent?

 

As soon as someone shows gall and takes them to the cleaners, or HMRC looks into those schemes. How likely is that though?

[calscot 0]

BTW This tax case affects over 5000 companies, surely some of them would like to financially help it go to the supreme court?