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

[ian1964 10,721]

SPFL board to meet and consider action on Rangers Big Tax Case verdict

STV

6 November 2015 09:29 GM

The SPFL board will discuss the implications of HMRC's tax case win on Friday.SNS Group

The Scottish Professional Football League board has scheduled an emergency meeting to discuss the Rangers Tax Case after HMRC won a ruling that payments to players at Ibrox should have been taxed for almost a decade.

 

The tax authorities won an appeal at the Court of Session on Wednesday which ruled that Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) used to pay Rangers employees between 2001 and 2009 were contractual earning which were subject to tax.

 

Today, the eight-man board will now consider the verdict and decide if further action is to be taken by the league body.

 

STV understands that the meeting will take place by conference call and that though other league matters will be discussed, the EBT issue is the primary subject matter.

 

The SPFL’s predecessor, the Scottish Premier League, set up a commission headed by Lord Nimmo Smith to investigate the use of EBTs by Rangers and whether league rules has been broken. In 2013 the commission reported back and concluded that the payments should have been declared to the league.

 

Rangers oldco was fined £250,000 and ordered to pay £150,000 in costs and the payment of the fine is still in dispute with an arbitration panel yet to rule on whether Rangers newco is liable for payment.

 

At the time of Lord Nimmo Smith’s ruling, EBT payments were not considered to have been taxable earnings. Now, with that decision having been reversed on appeal, the SPFL will consider if further action can be taken.

 

The SPFL Board is made up of chief executive Neil Doncaster, chairman Ralph Topping, Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers) and Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic) and Ken Ferguson (Brechin City).

 

Is this the same Eric Drysdale?

Edited November 7, 2015 by ian1964

[der Berliner 3,744]

On a sidenote, here is the club's reply regarding Lord Nimmo's decision. While it will hurt some eyes to read Green saying something, we should take note that the SPL wanted us stripped of titles for no reason and under no legal/law/rule precedent or indeed any proof of any greater wrongdoing on our behalf ... in what constitutes blackmail at its finest.

 

If an appeal is lodged, nothing about the EBT status concerning us will have changed, nor, as according to Lord Nimmo's statement should it matter. Our main problem is that the SPFL and/or SFA are indeed on their own in what they do and much depends on who is doing the decisions. And we have to keep in mind that these are essentially the very same people that have been - not - doing their jobs in 2011/12, willfully, some may say.

 

SPL EBT Commission Statement

 

Thursday, 28 February 2013, 12:50 by Rangers Football Club

 

THE Commission established by the Scottish Premier League to investigate allegations of historic non-disclosure of payments made to players announced its findings.

 

The Commission found that The Rangers Football Club plc issued letters to players relating to the EBT scheme and these should have been disclosed under the rules of the SPL and the SFA, even though the existence of the scheme was a matter of public record having been disclosed annually in the company’s accounts and professional advice had been obtained by the Murray Group.

 

The payments to players were themselves found not to be irregular or in breach of SPL and SFA rules, but breach of disclosure rules required a penalty to be imposed on The Rangers Football Club plc, now in liquidation (Oldco).

 

In their findings, the Commission, headed by Lord Nimmo Smith, stated: “Rangers FC did not gain any unfair competitive advantage from the contraventions of the SPL rules in failing to make proper disclosure of the side-letter arrangements, nor did the non-disclosure have the effect that any of the registered players were ineligible to play, and for this and other reasons no sporting sanction or penalty should be imposed on Rangers FC.”

 

The Commission imposed a £250,000 fine on Oldco and this will not have any effect on the operations and activities of the Club and the company as they now stand.

 

Charles Green, chief executive, issued the following statement.

 

“On behalf of the board of directors at Rangers, I note the findings of the Commission. It is abundantly clear from the ruling there was no attempt by Rangers Football Club to secure any unfair advantage or to cheat, as so many people asserted without giving any regard to the actual evidence.

 

“I would re-iterate that at no stage have I, nor anyone now involved in the running of this club, questioned the integrity of the Commission members. What I did question was the creation of a process which some people had predetermined. Every Rangers fan will be delighted that the Commission refused to get carried away on this agenda.

 

“It is a matter of fact that people within the SPL wanted me, at first, to surrender titles as part of a deal to enable Rangers to play again as a member of the SFA. I rejected and resisted that suggestion and today’s decision vindicates the position of the Board and the supporters. In particular, I would like to thank the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund for their dedication and commitment on this matter.

 

“It is fair to say that there was, at one stage, a very unhealthy desire to press on with an investigation into this matter when cool heads and clear thinking was required. Instead, there was a frenzied atmosphere around Rangers caused by the Club’s insolvency situation.

 

“This issue could have and should have been dealt with by the board of the SPL rather than embarking on an unnecessarily grand and expensive process. At the end of the day I am left with the impression that this has been much ado about very little and a great waste of energy, time and money.

 

I think I speak for all Rangers fans in saying now, enough is enough. I have said before and will say again it is time everyone moved on. There are considerable challenges ahead for this club and Scottish football as a whole.

 

“That is where all efforts and energy should now be focused. We, as a club, will work with all parties who have the good of the game at heart. We are looking forward and I urge all Rangers fans to do likewise. We are rebuilding this Club and are making great strides. The dark days are over and it is time now for all to embrace our ambition for a brighter future.”

 

Manager Ally McCoist said: “I am delighted in many ways by the decision today. As a former player, I know how hard it is to achieve success on the pitch and the suggestion that somehow Rangers sought to gain unfair advantage was deeply insulting to me and others who had worn the Rangers jersey with immense pride.

 

“I found the whole approach to this matter by the SPL utterly bizarre and misguided.

 

“Our fans will take great heart from this and hopefully now – after all that we have been through – there will be a widespread realisation that it is time to move on. Rangers have a huge amount to offer Scottish football and we have always been more than willing to do our bit for the good of the game.”

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/spl-ebt-commission-statement/

 

(PS: Don't turn this in an anti-Green debate, as this is of no consequence just now and he's past.)

Edited November 7, 2015 by der Berliner

[der Berliner 3,744]

Another interesting thing (snatched from FF) ... and some more remarks:

 

... this is very important and has been 'conveniently' lost in the white noise

 

1st tax case result found in our favour in November 2012.

 

So if the Title stripping LNS investigation was about EBT and tax, it would have been binned or kicked out before December 2012. Yeah?

 

But the cabal shoe-horned the title-stripping circus around 'side-letters, which were not declared, therefore making player ineligible to gave played in the games, and the LNS verdict did not arrive until May 2013, 6 months after we won't the FTT.

 

This 'registration' issue was their comfort blanket to pursue the title-stripping after the FTT verdict, and they were very specific about this at the time, and that it was not about unpaid tax, but about player eligibility, but this was booted out by LNS

 

Now that the FTT tax result has been overturned, they are demanding title stripping for the tax alone?

 

After the FTT ruled in our favour we were told that this kangaroo court had to go ahead because it was ruling on player eligibility and not the validity of the EBT scheme.

 

Now they want a replay based on the latter.

 

My question re this is "what does how we paid a player have to do with anything that happened on the field of play?"

It's not as if the players weren't registered properly and ineligible to play.

 

The nub of the matter here is that there was no explicit SFA or SPFL rule governing tax arrangements.

 

Rangers' enemies waited until the club entered administration because they believed they could exploit the rules governing player registrations - something that had never been raised in public during the years the EBT scheme had been in operation.

 

They then attempted to bounce Charles Green into signing away honours as a condition of SFA membership.

 

On what grounds could any future attempt to withdraw honours be based?

 

EBT's were openly available to each and every club therefore we had no advantage.

 

What we did was use them wrongly, NOT illegally (according to the recent COS decision on Wednesday, although this could all change again if/when BDO raise an appeal). SDM has always said that Rangers used EBT's only after seeking expert advice and they were openly declared in our Annual accounts - how can this be termed as "cheating".

 

http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?1068408-LNS-Verdict-About-player-registration-not-tax-%2849-Viewing%29

Edited November 7, 2015 by der Berliner

[ian1964 10,721]

You would think DK would wanting BDO to appeal especially due to his huge investment in the club/oldco

[RANGERRAB 3,654]

You would think DK would wanting BDO to appeal especially due to his huge investment in the club/oldco

 

And maybe the 5,000 other UK companies who had EBT's too?

This judgement (if it is allowed to stand & isn't appealed to the Supreme Court) could have serious financial implications for some or all of them I'd have thought.

I say again: this is the only EBT court case HMRC have won courtesy of three brain dead Scotish LawLords whose verdict was based on 'common sense' rather than whether tax laws had been broken or not

Edited November 7, 2015 by RANGERRAB

[SteveC 150]

And maybe the 5,000 other UK companies who had EBT's too?

This judgement (if it is allowed to stand & isn't appealed to the Supreme Court) could have serious financial implications for some or all of them I'd have thought.

I say again: this is the only EBT court case HMRC have won courtesy of three brain dead Scotish LawLords whose verdict was based on 'common sense' rather than whether tax laws had been broken or not

 

But no sporting sanctions, that's something reserved for one club only.

[BEARGER 1,830]

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 ...

 

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.

 

He has been asked via Twitter 6 times over the last couple of days to name the directors who made the statement, no answer so far. I wonder why.

[RANGERRAB 3,654]

But no sporting sanctions, that's something reserved for one club only.

 

The sporting sanctions we got were as a result of Whyte not the EBT's.

If Whyte gets convicted of fraud one would have to wonder what might happen regards those who administered punishments which were effectively punishing the victim of a crime

[forlanssister 3,114]

Once upon a time Ye Olde SPL and SFL had an "official appointed adviser" a company who specialised in tax avoidance (see today's screed in the Sunday Times).

 

The Chairman of said "official appointed adviser" was none other than a certain Mr Charles Green, I kid ye not.

[SteveC 150]

The sporting sanctions we got were as a result of Whyte not the EBT's.

If Whyte gets convicted of fraud one would have to wonder what might happen regards those who administered punishments which were effectively punishing the victim of a crime

 

Agreed but I was not regretting to the past. I see plying to following an envisaged future scenario re "could have serious implications" for lots of people but pointing out that only we have haters demanding trophies to be taken off us and similar demands would not be made of any others (as we know from Arsenal's case even where, unlike us, EBTs were paid in a period where their trophy haul rate was dramatically improved