Tax officials blamed for the downfall of Rangers

[Frankie 8,562]

15 minutes ago, pete said:

I never blamed him for anything. I just said his name springs to mind.

The inference was clear enough.  

 

Please don't name individuals.

[buster. 5,193]

4 minutes ago, Frankie said:

 

I thought that individual creditors that had at least 25% of the debt could knock a CVA proposal down.

 

I stand to be corrected by someone who actually knows.

[Frankie 8,562]

1 minute ago, buster. said:

I thought that individual creditors that had at least 25% of the debt could knock a CVA proposal down.

 

I stand to be corrected by someone who actually knows.

The tweet has since been removed so information may be wrong.

[Bluedell 5,625]

27 minutes ago, buster. said:

I thought that individual creditors that had at least 25% of the debt could knock a CVA proposal down.

 

I stand to be corrected by someone who actually knows.

I believe that you're correct. 75% of creditors by value must agree for a CVA to proceed.

[Scott7 6,007]

Murray’s tax advisers must have been concentrating on liability rather than the amount of the tax bill. Unusual. Accountants usually concentrate on getting an assessment reduced to nil and then claim rebates on previous. 

 

I wonder how this came to light.  Somebody, staunch, at HMRC poring over old files? BDO perhaps?y

[Bluedell 5,625]

Just to clarify that HMRC have dropped the £24m penalty charge and submitted an amended claim for £68.3m. It's not £20m.

 

There are further appeals in place that could see it drop to £20m, but The Times don't give any suggestion as to who it it that thinks that.

[ian1964 10,724]

 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

3 hours ago, Bluedell said:

 

1. The football debts that newco paid were voluntary. They weren't legally due to pay them.

2. Oldco went into administration due to Whyte not paying the PAYE as much as anything else.

3. Our financial position under Whyte meant we couldn't meet the EBT tax charge without the penalties, so at that point, did the additional penalties make that much difference?

 

We can point back to that being the reason for Murray selling to Whyte but Murray wanted to sell his shares anyway and may have done so without the penalties. Nobody can prove anything one way or another.

 

Trying to trace the eventual outcome of administration back to the penalties is legally tenuous and legally remote and it's unlikely anyone would be successful in legal action. Even if there was, would Craig Whyte not be the major shareholder and therefore beneficiary?

 

We may all want to lash out and blame someone but there's no proof that anyone acted illegally or through bad faith, even though we all have our suspicions. 

 

What is does prove is that HMRC are confirming that there was no fraudulent or negligent behaviour by the club and HMRC have put that n writing, and it blows up the claims that we "cheated" one and for all.

 

Things are going well for the club. Let's not get distracted by this sideshow which has no relevance to the club right now.

we were required by UEFA or FIFA to pay football debts. 

 

I am not sure voluntarily is quite right on that. 

[Rick Roberts 246]

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

Just to clarify that HMRC have dropped the £24m penalty charge and submitted an amended claim for £68.3m. It's not £20m.

 

There are further appeals in place that could see it drop to £20m, but The Times don't give any suggestion as to who it it that thinks that.

Do statute of limitations apply to these things? 

 

On a separate note i've seen a few tweets about behaviour of people within HMRC (leaks etc). Can't remember it ever making any news. Also, i'd like to have thought club would be aware of all of this stuff as soon as it'd happened.

 

 

 

[Bluedell 5,625]

2 minutes ago, Rick Roberts said:

Do statute of limitations apply to these things? 

 

The initial demand was issued in 2009 and as the demands are being revised downwards, I don't think time limitations would apply. I doubt that they could increase them at this stage (other than perhaps charge more interest).

 

3 minutes ago, Rick Roberts said:

On a separate note i've seen a few tweets about behaviour of people within HMRC (leaks etc). Can't remember it ever making any news. Also, i'd like to have thought club would be aware of all of this stuff as soon as it'd happened.

 

I reckon there's not any proof. There's too many internet rumours floating around to know what's real and what's not.