HMRC confirm they over billed Rangers oldco...

both. They kept us informed through the initial process. They were first to the story last night.


wrongly liquidated. Imagine if this was McDonalds or some other multi million pound company who couldn't just rise again after a false tax claim. It would make the national and international news.

it's hardly something that can be brushed off with a shrug of the shoulders.

an entire company was destroyed, jobs lost, lives ruined, millions spent on court cases scrutinising false info because HMRC were employing someone who either couldn't work a calculator or worse still didn't want to use a calculator properly.

You’re just not listening To the actual facts are you? 😂
 


The case was split into two pieces, one regarding the use of side letters for EBT's and the second regarding the amount of damages due.
This is a story from July with HMRC saying they are dropping pursuit of the larger figure as it's be a waste of money chasing a dead business fur money they'll never get back.

Don't forget, Rangers v1 were also not paying PAYE, despite having an ongoing case via HMRC at that time.
 
The other lad is saying they can't recover the cash from Rangers because they don't exist anymore. So it's not that they were fined/charged the wrong amount, the revenue are saying they can't collect it (I haven't read any articles). That's totally different to being charged the wrong amount in the first place (in which case I'd agree with you).
So the times etc. Are reporting an incorrect story?
 
So the times etc. Are reporting an incorrect story?
The article says up to £50m is to be wiped off, then says a £24m penalty charge has been 'wiped out' which sounds like written off rather than was wrong in the first case. It mentions another £2m but doesn't say anything about the other £24m to get you to the £50m reduction.

It quotes the chairman saying the ambiguity of the tax burden put off potential buyers saying he might have been able to sell if the tax bill had only been £20m, which is now estimated to be the outstanding amount, outstanding being the important word there.

I think it's a huge stretch to go from what's in the article to saying a mistake from the revenue put them out of business, and I just do not believe that they were fined a gross figure rather than a tax balance calculated from that. No way that happened and nobody noticed or challenged it :lol:
 
Disgraceful that a club involved in massive tax avoidance, that would otherwise have funded hospitals, schools, social services, homes for military veterans etc can be so profligate with our union flag and use it time and again without shame.

Sickening hypocrisy from Rangers fans. Sickening.
 
1. Has the taxman actually admitted to making any mistakes?

Whilst I would certainly say that HMRC is more than capable of making mistakes, it is difficult to see how they have here.

Whilst charging a 65% penalty needs HMRC to prove deliberate behaviour which is a very high bar where a taxpayer has taken suitable qualified advice as to their position, what has most likely happened is that HMRC have taken an unusually pedantic step of recognising that even if they were to pursue both the quantum of the assessment and the penalty levied back through the Courts, there will still be insufficient assets in the liquidation to gain any more than what they will on the new agreed basis.

2. Ally McCoist believes Rangers wouldn't have gone bust if it was known in 2012 that the final tax bill would be lower - do you agree?



I have to say I think that is incorrect given that the liquidation, even after these adjustments, is still only offering pennies in the pound to creditors.

3. Are Oldco Rangers due money back from the taxman?

No, because the liability had never actually been paid.

4. The £24m penalty figure in the original overall bill of around £94m had never been confirmed by any legal process - but was it a mistake by HMRC to originally ask for this? Why would they now drop the claim?

A penalty is charged in terms of a percentage, in this case 65%.

Therefore it cannot be levied until the final additional tax is agreed but I suspect it was lodged as a protective claim in the liquidation.

The legal process was still open to challenge this through the Courts but as I said above, I suspect there are sound commercial benefits of not pursuing the penalty where no funds are available to pay it regardless of outcome.

5. The Times article says up to £50m is set to be wiped off the tax bill. How likely is this, and what would you estimate the final reduction to be?

I can’t comment without hard figures around some of the variables but I think the important part is that in reality, whether £50m, £30m or £10m, HMRC were never getting that money. It just doesn’t exist.

6. A letter from HMRC says they are dropping the £24m penalty charge because 'there is no evidence of fraudulent or negligent behaviour'. So has the taxman over-reached himself by making the £24m claim? Why would they use such language if they still had a case?

Penalties are calculated on behaviour with the highest reserved for the most offensive conduct. Whilst I suspect HMRC may have overplayed its hand seeking a penalty of such a high threshold, it may have replaced it with a lessor one had there been funds available to pay it. As it is, another 5 years of litigation would produce no additional money for the treasury.

7. A further £2m worth of claims were overstated by HMRC and the figure has now been wiped off the original bill. Why would HMRC overstate figures?

I am not sure what this relates to, but again, I suspect it is more administrative in light of no funds being available to pay regardless.

8. Is it right to say HMRC could still pursue the full amount or close to it if they wanted, but have simply decided it's not worth the hassle?

Correct

9. Given that BDO won a reduction of unpaid tax to £68.3m in September 2018, what has actually changed now?

That is unclear until the next liquidation report is published.

10. How much money does Rangers Oldco actually now owe to HMRC?

Again, until the latest liquidation report becomes available all we know formally is that the penalty has been withdrawn (c£24m).

11. The Times claims £12m of interest charges is likely to be reduced "significantly". How likely is this, and by how much?

Interest is calculated on the tax not paid from when it should have been until when it is. As such if the underlying tax is reduced, the interest naturally reduces as a function.

12. So if HMRC do lose out on interest is it because they have lost the argument?

I believe it is because the pot available in liquidation is already exhausted and therefore there is no material financial benefit for HMRC to continue pursuit.

13. Will creditors now expect an improved return?

Improved, yes, but not substantially. The latest liquidators report shows that to that date an interim dividend of 3.91p in the £ had been paid, amounting to £1,365,856.

It then states that with the HMRC provision reduced by £30m, an additional £1m is available to creditors.

14. Who is the big winner from this development?

The creditors clearly come out of this in an improved position, but I’m not sure anyone is a big winner.

15. What about players who it is claimed have had penalties wiped out, are they due money back?

I am not aware that any player had the liability transferred to them, and therefore none to my knowledge suffered the tax or penalty.

This is in contrast to the thousands of EBT users who have been personally pursued by HMRC over the years.

16. What if they have gone bankrupt as a result, could they take legal action?

Possible, but an insolvency practitioner is best placed to answer this.

17. Could Oldco Rangers and Newco Rangers join forces if it was beneficial to club?

Hard to see how that could be done in law, they are two separate entities.

18. Could Sir David Murray or anyone else involved in the dispute sue HMRC, and how likely is it they would be successful?

This is a legal question more than tax, but I struggle to understand why as he has not suffered any personal financial loss.

Source : Tom Wallace - Head of Tax - WTT
 

Back
Top