Celtic and Rangers heroes among football stars facing financial ruin

[craig 5,199]

Sidenote, the EBTs were used for tax avoidance, whereas the film stuff was essentially used for tax evasion. But the media sees it as fair to mix themtwo up with one-another and thus deflecting quite a bit of malevolence from the Scum chaps' film schemes in our direction.

 

Not sure I agree with this dB.

 

If those players had letters from HMRC confirming that the schemes were legal then there is no way that they were tax evasion schemes. Tax evasion is illegal and HMRC would never have issued such letters. I believe that these schemes were very aggressive avoidance schemes and if you look at some of the commentary from HMRC they suggest that they were avoidance and not evasion schemes. If they were evasion schemes all those invested in them would not only be looking at receiving APN's but would possibly be looking at legal proceedings against them too.

 

So IF these are avoidance schemes then they aren't really mixing the two up. There is still very little reason to include the EBT narrative in the article, it is a spurious connection at best.

 

There may be Rangers players in these film schemes, so not sure how it is deflection from Celtic to Rangers (assuming your use of the word scum means Celtic).

[craig 5,199]

If Murray International wins its case at the Supreme Court, then, surely, Messrs HMRC have no basis for demanding tax from the EBT recipients.

Equally, Advanced Payment Notices, surely may be resisted, given the imminence of the SC decision.

 

It seems that APN's cant be resisted. Looks like you cant appeal unless you pay the APN. The issue in what you suggest about the SC case is that is against the Club. APN's go to the individuals. It would be up to the indivduls to appeal the APN, but they cant do so until and unless they pay the APN tax.

 

The issue I would have with the APN is that it seems the tax being demanded is sizeable and, in many cases, unlikely to be paid due to the quantum, which essentially means that those receiving APN's are being given virtually no chance of appeal. Seems a little like extortion from HMRC. They seem to be demanding the tax at such a high level as to remove the possibility of appeal. That said, had people not invested so heavily with such high leverage then the tax demand wouldn't be so large and they may have had the liquidity to pay the APN and then appeal.

[craig 5,199]

Oh dear ...

 

 

BTW, that line in the middle should read evasion, unless I am mistaken.

 

You are mistaken I believe.

[craig 5,199]

It's a hell of a coincidence quite how many ex-Celtic players and directors were involved in the film scheme. It's almost as if it was a concerted effort by the club to pay players they might not have otherwise been able to afford and so could be construed as financial doping.

Reckon anyone will investigate that though?

 

Unless the monies were invested by the Club on their behalf then this isn't so. I believe that the film investment schemes were funded by players themselves, not by the Club. This would mean that any investments made were post-tax deductions which would leave Celtic clean. The only way I see them as being in some strife is if they advised the investments but surely they wouldn't be so stupid as to make financial advice to players when they aren't financial advisers ??

[craig 5,199]

TO be fair, I think the difference is that the club itself wasn't involved, I think it was players independently investing their money and claiming the personal tax relief.

 

This is exactly the case as I understand it cal.

[elfideldo 411]

There were almost as many Rangers players involved in these film schemes - WRP DRYVAC that Sutton is listed against shows seven directors, two of which are Barry Ferguson and Craig Moore.

 

https://companycheck.co.uk/company/OC308171/WRP-DRYVAC-LLP/directors-secretaries

 

Durie, Muscat, Hendry, Dodds among others were involved.

 

One of the Ingenious Film Partnerships shows pretty much the England squad of the time - Lampard, Beckham, Gerrard etc (even Roy Hodgson) as well as Rangers and Celtic players.

Edited April 15, 2016 by elfideldo

[aweebluesoandso 290]

On the contrary i think Sellik and their directors are up to their neck in this, Craig Bellamy and others soon after joining that club then signed up to these schemes .The same tax evasion schemes Liewel and Eric Riley were already investors in. Anyone who likes dot to dot games can see the wider picture here.

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

Unless the monies were invested by the Club on their behalf then this isn't so. I believe that the film investment schemes were funded by players themselves, not by the Club. This would mean that any investments made were post-tax deductions which would leave Celtic clean. The only way I see them as being in some strife is if they advised the investments but surely they wouldn't be so stupid as to make financial advice to players when they aren't financial advisers ??

 

Of course, I was being slightly facetious. I was going to finish on PAY YOUR TAXES which was a favourite from the Yahoos.

But from the outside it does look awfy like they were being advised, perhaps informally. Didn't somebody say Craig Bellamy started one of these schemes on the day he arrived?

[craig 5,199]

On the contrary i think Sellik and their directors are up to their neck in this, Craig Bellamy and others soon after joining that club then signed up to these schemes .The same tax evasion schemes Liewel and Eric Riley were already investors in. Anyone who likes dot to dot games can see the wider picture here.

 

Tax avoidance schemes.

 

It makes no difference how many dot to dot games you play, if the investments were made by individuals then they are on the hook for it and the Club can essentially wash its hands of it.

 

Could Celtic have enticed players this way ? Sure, they could have said "We will pay you X per week. However, we know of these tax schemes and if you invest in them then you get multiples of tax relief and therefore your salary is effectively X+ the tax saved from the scheme". Even if they did that HMRC would not be going after Celtic but would be going after the individuals who invested. Those individuals may wish to sue Celtic for bad financial advice but HMRC wouldn't be going after Celtic as they didn't make the investments. With the EBT's we ran the schemes and we also were the ones providing "loans" to players, therefore the Club WAS "up to their neck in it".

 

Even if Celtic did advise this the legal reality is that the individuals chose whether or not to enter that scheme and it became a personal tax affair, not one for Celtic to be concerned about. From a Celtic perspective they paid their players X per week, deducted the tax as per HMRC's tax rates and the individual then did what they wished to do with their personal income.

 

Ours was completely different IIRC. Part of the gross salary was paid as a loan which means that HMRC were not being paid at source, effectively the tax was being withheld by the Club due to the loans.

 

That is my recollection anyway

[craig 5,199]

Of course, I was being slightly facetious. I was going to finish on PAY YOUR TAXES which was a favourite from the Yahoos.

But from the outside it does look awfy like they were being advised, perhaps informally. Didn't somebody say Craig Bellamy started one of these schemes on the day he arrived?

 

You could very well be right. All this would show is that, at the time, Celtic were smarter AS A CLUB than Rangers because they met their tax obligations and simply advised their players on tax avoidance (perfectly legal). We, on the other hand as I say above, withheld the tax as part of the salaries were considered as loans (again, perfectly legal). Where Celtic were smarter was that they removed themselves from the equation because they would have merely advised players what they could do if they wished to do so, whereas we actually ran the schemes and withheld the tax.

 

In the long run it may work out that even though Celtic looked smarter their players and ex-players may indeed end up far worse off than those who were in the EBT schemes.

 

Would it be considered financial doping ? I don't think so because Celtic never forced those players into those schemes, they did so themselves. But then.... I also don't believe that we financially doped either