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

[Frankie 8,664]

Full judgement available here:

 

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

 

Point [1] and Conclusion [92] suggest HMRC have won BTC and any continuation of case will depend on whether or not RFC 2012 (i.e. BDO) appeal...

[forlanssister 3,114]

I can't see why Oldco/BDO would want to fund any action. BDO shouldn't care who the creditors are. It's just their job to make payouts to those identified, and HMRC are now included.

 

I can't see who is going to appeal this.

 

Perhaps David Murray will break the habit of a lifetime and do the honourable thing put his hand in his pocket and fund the appeal.....

[Zappa 0]

Good use of the RFFF?

 

A better use of the RFFF may be dealing with the footballing-related fall-out that may come from this decision.

 

There maybe isn't a hell of a lot of the RFFF pot left after it was recently used to help fund a new artificial pitch at Auchenhowie.

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

Perhaps David Murray will break the habit of a lifetime and do the honourable thing put his hand in his pocket and fund the appeal.....

 

If he had the money for that, it might have been better used to settle with HMRC. It's one thing to use a clearly dubious tax loophole, it's another entirely to use it on a scale that would jeopardise the club's future and not put any money aside in case they come after you for it. Every bit as much of a s**v as the shower of wankers who followed him.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Oleg_Mcnoleg

[limeburner 0]

Perhaps David Murray will break the habit of a lifetime and do the honourable thing put his hand in his pocket and fund the appeal.....

For things like this,he only uses other peoples money.

[der Berliner 3,811]

If you read this, you have to ask the question why none of the previous judges et al saw it like these people did ...

 

HMRC wins second appeal over Rangers 'Big Tax Case'

 

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has won its second appeal over the so-called "big tax case" involving payments to former Rangers employees.

 

Judges in the Inner House of the Court of Session allowed an appeal by the Advocate General for Scotland, acting on behalf of HMRC, over the use of the now-outlawed Employee Benefit Trusts between 2001 and 2010 by companies run by Sir David Murray, including the now-liquidated Rangers.

 

The court ruling agreed with HMRC's contention that the scheme amounted to "a mere redirection of earnings which did not remove the liability of employees to income tax". The decision is in relation to Murray Group companies and does not affect the current regime at Ibrox.

 

HMRC had previously submitted a demand for £46.2m to Murray's companies, the majority of which related to oldco Rangers, which was consigned to liquidation in the summer of 2012, four months after entering administration.

 

The Murray argument was that the payments were loans made with the discretion of the trustee of the sub-trust but that was dismissed by the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Carloway, sitting with Lord Menzies and Lord Drummond Young.

 

The judges decided that any income derived from employees' services is classed as earnings and subject to income tax.

 

Lord Drummond Young said: "That accords with common sense. If the law were otherwise, an employee could readily avoid tax by redirecting income to members of his family to meet outgoings that he would normally pay: for example to a trust for his wife... or to trustees to pay for his children's education or the outgoings on the family home."

 

The judges ruled that the "true nature" of the payments to Rangers players were bonuses, which were typically negotiated by their agent and formalised in a "side-letter" separate to their official contract.

 

Lord Drummond Young added: "It seems to us to be self-evident that the obligations in the side-letter were part of the employee's employment package, and provided him with additional remuneration. They were negotiated as part of the total employment package.

 

"Furthermore, so far as the footballers are concerned, at least, it seems to us that if bonuses had not been paid they might well have taken their services elsewhere.

 

"We realise that the fifth respondent (RFC 2012) was in, potentially, a difficult financial position, competing for good players in an international market where other countries may not have the same rigorous approach to taxation as the United Kingdom.

 

"Nevertheless, the law is clear: the payments made in respect of footballers were in our view derived from their employment and thus the payments were emoluments or earnings."

 

An HMRC spokesperson said: "HMRC has a responsibility to make sure people pay what they owe and will always challenge tax arrangements where we do not think they work.

 

"As supported by the decision in this case, HMRC's view is that Employment Benefit Trust avoidance schemes do not work.

 

The news of the appeal came on the day Rangers posted a loss of £7.5m for the financial year ending June 30, 2015.

 

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/10055416/hmrc-wins-appeal-over-rangers-big-tax-case

 

I was almsot expecting the word "hospital" in there.

 

Well, with so many Yahoo-minded people at the SFA and SPFL, it will be an utter surprise if they are not going to chase for titles and cups.

[Little General 80]

If you read this, you have to ask the question why none of the previous judges et al saw it like these people did ...

 

 

 

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/10055416/hmrc-wins-appeal-over-rangers-big-tax-case

 

I was almsot expecting the word "hospital" in there.

 

Well, with so many Yahoo-minded people at the SFA and SPFL, it will be an utter surprise if they are not going to chase for titles and cups.

 

taken from FF

 

A relevant section of the Nimmo Tribunal ruling:

 

"The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules."

[RANGERRAB 3,744]

The law is an ass. How can the CoS seriously over-rule previous judgements ?

 

What new evidence was presented ? What was missed from previous judgements ?

 

Can these three bewigged buffoons tells us where the previous judgments(FTTT & UTTT) were wrong?

 

Or is today's judgement more to do with drawing a line under all of this to prevent the truth coming out who was behind all of this knowing RIFC 2012(i.e. BDO) not pursuing this further?

[der Berliner 3,811]

taken from FF

 

A relevant section of the Nimmo Tribunal ruling:

 

"The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful. What we are concerned with is the fact that the side-letters issued to the Specified Players, in the course of the operation of the EBT scheme, were not disclosed to the SPL and the SFA as required by their respective Rules."

 

I know that, but how much of Lord Nimmo's judgement actually stands today? Just asking.

[Little General 80]

A relevant section of the Nimmo Tribunal ruling:

 

 

 

I know that, but how much of Lord Nimmo's judgement actually stands today? Just asking.

 

All of it by the looks of it.