Are Rangers Appealing the “Wee Tax Bill”? A Triumph for Mr Whyte, and a Death Knell for Rangers?

The Rangers Tax Case Blog has reported that, apparently, Rangers are launching a late appeal in connection with the “wee tax bill”.

For all then comment that Mr Whyte has looked all at sea in recent weeks, this may well be a master stroke by him, if he wants (a) to keep the arrested sums available to the administrator/receiver (b) survive long enough to generate cash from sales in January and (c) trigger an Insolvency Event prior to the relevant court or tribunal rejecting the efforts to recover the money by him.

I explain, in some detail, below how this might work but there are options open to Mr Whyte to allow him to put off transfer of the money till the end of January anyway. However, despite the brilliance of the stratagem, it will do nothing to assist his general reputation and would be seen as a most blatant attempt to thwart the taxman getting his money.

I think such a move, if correct, is the best proof possible that his plan is to take the club down and extract as much cash from the carcass, before leaving the joys of establishing a “Rangers 2012” to someone else, whilst Mr Whyte sits on the Monaco sea front reading his Rangers Annuals from the late 70’s.

Such a move, if followed though, might be a devastating blow in favour of Mr Whyte, but at the same time, many more nails knocked into the Rangers coffin lid. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out

 

The Story So Far  

The sum of £2.3 million had previously been arrested by HMRC in connection with that bill. In terms of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1985 s73J inserted by the Bankruptcy and Diligence (Scotland) Act 2007 that sum was about to reach a total period of 14 weeks since it was arrested. Under s73J on the expiry of 14 weeks, the sum arrested would be remitted by the bank holding it to HMRC.

Some wise people (and me) had speculated that, as soon as HMRC got its hands on that money, there would then be aggressive efforts to obtain payment of anything else which was outstanding and not subject of an appeal. It has been noted that HMRC have not been reluctant to lodge winding up petitions in connection with Hearts and it has been asked why not with Rangers too? I think that the prospect of getting £2.3 million made it worthwhile to hold off till the 14 weeks passed; otherwise Rangers entering insolvency beforehand might have left HMRC with little or nothing.

It seemed odd that, once those funds were trapped, Rangers did not simply hand them over the HMRC. This led some to speculate that the insolvency event would take place before the 14 week deadline, to keep the funds available to an administrator/receiver, and under the floating charge assigned to the former “Wavetower”, the company through which Craig Whyte bought Rangers, the funds would be heading to Mr Whyte’s castle rather than the tax man.

No one thought that the bill itself, of which £500,000 has already been paid, would be subject of an appeal as (a) Rangers had formally accepted the liability prior to the takeover and (b) Mr Whyte’s Circular to shareholders at the takeover committed Wavetower (effectively Mr Whyte) to pay this bill.

How on earth can (a) he appeal now, (b) does this help with the funds and (c) what happens now?

I think he will need to be instructing agents to carry out various actions as soon as courts open on Monday. What I suggest below might actually be more procedure than is needed, but it would be the “belt and braces” approach.

 

Raise an Action of Suspension, Interdict and Reduction?

There are two ways of stopping an arrestment resulting in an automatic transfer of funds under s73J.

The first would be to obtain an interim interdict from the Court of Session preventing HMRC acting on one of the constituent parts of the process, namely (a) the summary warrant under which the sum was adjudged to be due to HMRC (b) the formal agreement between Rangers and HMRC if registered “for preservation and execution” (c) the “charge for payment” or (d) the arrestment itself. As well as the interim interdict, there would be a crave for a decree suspending the relevant part of the process then “reducing” or quashing it and thus preventing HMRC completing their diligence. The big problem Mr Whyte would have with this is as follows.

If Rangers apply for an interim interdict against HMRC, then this would not be granted without HMRC having a chance to object. At any such interim hearing, counsel for HMRC would, I suggest, drive a bus through any argument Rangers could put up. The bill has been agreed, part payment made, and the new owner has been in place for seven months. The arrestment was effected almost 14 weeks ago. It is well nigh impossible to see what substantive argument would get round the factors that (a) Mr Whyte has known about this for some time and (b) he has had the opportunity for a lengthy period to take the best legal and accountancy advice about the bill. Even if he had received an opinuion now that the bill was not in fact due, then frankly the court would consider that he has long since missed the boat, and even if he did have an argument available to him, he should have pursued this some time ago.

Of course, it might be that there is some fundamental flaw in the documents mentioned above which would render the process invalid, in which case his waiting to the last minute effectively buys him another 14 weeks. I find that hard to imagine though. And if, for example, the Sheriff Officers have erred leading ultimately to HMRC not getting its money then the Sheriff Officers will be on the phone to their indemnity insurers immediately.

The risk for Rangers is that, if they seek an interdict and fail, they might be seen as having “shot their bolt”.

If Rangers’ argument is simply that the bill itself is wrong, then I think it would be very hard for the judge to grant an interim interdict. The position would be that they were coming to court far too late. Of course, if Rangers were prepared to lodge £2.3 million as caution for the sum arrested, then the court would be more kindly disposed to an interdict, but Mr Whyte won’t want to put up another £2.3 million if he can void it (and if indeed he has it!)

 

Make an Application under s73M(1) or s73Q(2) of the Debtors (Scotland) Act at Glasgow Sheriff Court?

S73L states that automatic transfer cannot take place where an application is made under either of the above sections.

S73M relates to the lodging of a “note of objection” to the arrestment. This can been done by the debtor (Rangers), the arrestee (the bank) or a third party. The grounds for objecting are as follows:-

(a)the warrant in execution of which the arrestment was executed is invalid;

(b)the arrestment has been executed incompetently or irregularly;

(c)the funds attached are due to the third party solely or in common with the debtor.

It is unlikely, though not impossible, for grounds a or b to exist. I see no argument regards c.

The application must be lodged “before the expiry of the period of 4 weeks beginning with the date of service of a copy of the final decree under section 73C(2) of this Act or, as the case may be, the date of service of the schedule of arrestment.

The 4 week period is long past. But there is an inherent jurisdiction allowing a party to apply to the court out of time. Grounds for a late application being late can cover various matters, but wilful disregard for the rules is not one of them.

As long as the application includes a request that it be allowed to be received although late, the Sheriff Clerk cannot simply reject it. That is a decision for a Sheriff.

S73N (1) specifies that “before the expiry of the period of 8 weeks beginning with the day on which an application by notice of objection is made under section 73M(1) of this Act, the sheriff shall hold a hearing to determine the objection.

Therefore if the application is lodged on Monday, there would have to be a hearing by 30th January 2012. Of course, the 8 week period is a maximum and, in theory, a hearing could be fixed for the following week (or even day!). How likely is it that HMRC could get the case accelerated up the court lists?

If therefore there is an allegation however spurious, that any of the three factors mentioned above is there, the automatic transfer would be delayed (For the avoidance of doubt, I do not mean to suggest that any such application lodged by agents for Rangers would be done by them in the knowledge that it was spurious.)

The fact that the bill is subject to a late appeal to the FTT would NOT be a ground for an application under s73M.

 

S73Q can be dealt with more quickly. This covers applications by the debtor where it is stated that the arrestment is unduly harsh. S73R gives the procedure. If the Sheriff is satisfied that the arrestment is unduly harsh to the debtor (Rangers) he may recall it in whole or in part. There is no time limit for lodging such an application, nor any for the court to deal with it.

 

The lodging of either application would prevent the funds being automatically transferred until the matter was dealt with. The application would NOT release the funds, but if insolvency struck before the matter was dealt with, then the funds would probably revert to the administrator/receiver.

 

Neither of the Sheriff Court applications are connected however with a late appeal to HMRC. That can only relate to the Court of Session proceedings.

 

The Late Tax Appeal

The Taxes Management Act 1970 s49 tells us the rues for tax appeals. An appeal should be lodged with HMRC and thereafter with the FTT within 30 days of the decision or assessment to be appealed. Applications after that date are out of time.

Here the application should be at least one year, and probably more, late. However, if HMRC refuses to accept the appeal out of time, the taxpayer can ask the FTT to accept the appeal on that basis anyway.

The FTT needs to be satisfied that satisfied that

  • there was a reasonable `excuse’ for the lateness of the appeal or postponement application
  • the application has been made `without unreasonable delay’ after the expiration of the time limit.

The HMRC Handbook refers to “reasonable excuse” as encompassing “`absence, sickness or other reasonable cause`. Moreover, it may cover not only the absence or sickness of the appellant himself but also that of his agent. However, the reasonable excuse has to be personal to the appellant: so a late appeal should not be agreed where for instance a new decision of the Courts, unconnected to the instant case, has made an appeal more viable. In that case the remedy, if there is one, is by reason of an error or mistake claim, TMA70 Section 33.

Malcolm Gammie wrote in the British Tax Journal in 2010 that “the Tribunal’s discretion in these matters is not limited in any way and it can accept late appeals if it believes that it would be in the interests of justice to do so.”

I find it well nigh impossible that, in these circumstances, either HMRC or the FTT would accept the appeal out of time. The cases show a reluctance on the part of the FTT to do so. For example, in Ogedegbe v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 364 (TC) the Tribunal saidWhile this Tribunal has got power to extend the time for making an appeal, this will only be granted exceptionally. Moreover, there must be at least an arguable case for making the appeal. In the present circumstances I cannot see that the Appellant has even an arguable case. He has at no time provided evidence of any taxable supplies during the period to which the tax assessment relates. He has shown no grounds for a conclusion that the expenditure, to which the input tax related, was incurred for the purpose of making taxable supplies. The combination of the facts that the appeal was lodged many months late and that the appeal had no realistic chance of success persuade me that the Appellant’s application for an extension of time should be refused.”

Even if Rangers’ position now is that their advisers, or former advisers, erred in their advice, then the FTT would view this as something to be taken up between Rangers and those advises, or their insurers.

However the application would still need to be made and rejected. This will buy some time.

 

What Happens Now?

 


If Rangers succeed in stopping the automatic transfer of funds, then I expect HMRC to look to proceed full steam ahead with a winding up petition for anything owed to then now which is not under appeal. To contest this, they are going to need deep pockets to pay the solicitors, counsel and advisers they will employ. However, if “Wavetower” pay these costs for Rangers, then I imagine that they would demand return of the costs with interest and additional “management fees” from the insolvency. Thus Mr Whyte has a great reason to keep the arrested funds out of the taxman’s hands – 2.3 million reasons + interest and fees to be precise!

Whilst the steps above look to be the acts of a desperate man clutching at straws, as long as the flimsiest of cases can be put forward, then the professionals involved will be able to act within their ethical boundaries. Whether lodging a spurious appeal or applications makes Mr Whyte more of a fit and proper person is for the SPL and SFA to judge!

Mr Whyte might not pursue all of these options, but the scatter gun approach gives the best chance of stopping the loss of that money. I wonder if his advisers might have told him that they would be prepared to lodge the application or applications, but that they would not be prepared to stand up and argue the points?

When I think that there no more legal novelties to come, Mr Whyte pulls another one out of the hat!

 

 

 

Advertisements

16 Comments

Filed under Civil Law, Courts, Football, Hearts, HMRC v Rangers, Rangers

16 responses to “Are Rangers Appealing the “Wee Tax Bill”? A Triumph for Mr Whyte, and a Death Knell for Rangers?

  1. TheBlackKnight

    Excellent as always Paul. Still can’t see it floating though.

    I’m sure the SFA and UEFA will be follow, following this one with interest 🙂

    • Thanks TBK.

      If my surmise is right, and I offer no guarantees on that, Mr Whyte doesn’t need to bother about Uefa of the SFA/SPL. He will stop the transfer of £2.3 million. Have a fire sale in JAnuary, and wind the club up, getting back his £18 million + what he has spent + interest + fees.

      The problem of what happens to Rangers will be for someone else to solve.

      • TheBlackKnight

        Unless HMRC decide to wind them up prior to that happening?

        There is a strong rumour RFC are a number of months behind in tax commitments (PAYE/NIC)

        That could get interesting given the new powers that may be utilised come April next year (phoenixing)

  2. Frankie

    Didn’t I read something on here a few weeks ago suggesting that Rangers had a good case against a certain bill as the assessments had been raised too late? Or was that a reference to the big case?

    You quote a FTT decision: “The combination of the facts that the appeal was lodged many months late and that the appeal had no realistic chance of success persuade me that the Appellant’s application for an extension of time should be refused.” However, if only one of those two factors (the lateness) applies, the outcome might be different.

    • Frankie,

      The comment about the assessments being late came from a commenter subsequently outed as a “man of a thousand names” on the RTC Blog, and the general view is that that argument was a dead duck.

      You are correct that a late appeal which had a sound legal basis would have more chance of getting through. The problem for the “wee bill” is that it has already been accepted by Rangers and Mr Whyte has been in charge long enough not to be able to say it has crept up on him.

      However, if my view is correct, he does not care about the eventual outcome – he just wants to keep the cash away from HMRC.

  3. steven doyle

    If whyte winds the club up and walks away with his 18m plus interest ,I can’t really see what the whole point of it all has been

  4. jim62

    Simply lodging “late” challenges won’t stop the arrested funds being paid over…he will need to seek leave of the courts to allow his “appeals” to be lodged late and he will need to ask the courts to fix hearings on those motions almost instantly. HMRC will have caveats lodged and will argue that his “late” challlenges should not be allowed for all the reasons you put forward

    He also needs to find money for Lawyers!!

    He is “functus”…

    • Jim,

      Quick – change your tune to a more positive one and you might get the instructions!

      Isn’t it analogous to a Minute for Recall? It’s not the job of the Sheriff Clerk to refuse to accept it (although I have known some who thought it was) but for the Sheriff to deal with on the assigned day. Meanwhile lodging the application stops the transfer.

      If the s72Q(2) “hardship” application is made, then there is no time limit for this, and no maximum time for hearing it. HMRC”s caveat would not be triggered by lodging a s73Q(2) application. I don’t think the caveat would be triggered either by the lodging of an application to be allowed to lodge a notice of objections late, as the Sheriff would simply be fixing a date for that hearing, rather than granting the request to be allowed in late.

      It’s similar to a case I had many moons ago where the client came in the day before three poinded motor vehicles, of very high value, were to be uplifted for sale. Hotfooted into Glasgow with the relevant forms completed and whilst nowhere near as ropey as the Rangers’ arguments are assumed to be, we were not on the strongest of grounds, and far after service of charges etc. However it froze matters, stopped the uplift, and gave enough of a breathing space for the client to sort things out.

      If I was a law lecturer, I could turn the Whyte Saga into one huge cross-subject case study!

  5. The Battered Bunnet

    Top stuff Paul. May thanks for the time and effort you put in to these posts.

    It’s all so very easy to rattle out a personal opinion, but you consistently take the trouble to do the background research and deliver a well evidenced piece time after time.

    Thank you.

    TBB

    • Thanks TBB.

      Digging down to see the “how” sometimes helps to work out the “why” and if it provokes wiser folk to look at it and point out the flaws or run with the points made, then the blog is worthwhile.

      I will keep digging up relevant Statutory Instruments and court cases for as long as is needed!

  6. However spurious the grounds for any action may be, I am absolutely certain that Whyte will consider any avenue that has even the remotest potential to further what he perceives to be in his own self-interest.

    I don’t see any part of this latest manoeuvring to be remotely brilliant; it is precisely what one would expect of the kind of psychopathic mindset which Robert Hare Ph.D analysed extensively in THE classic study of corporate sharp practice. He published a summary of his findings in his book, “Snakes In Suits,” which ought to be required reading for anyone who wants to figure out what people like Whyte may be thinking. Hare, a Canadian, is the first person who is approached by the law enforcement bodies in several countries when they need the best psychological insight they can avail themselves of to investigate serious crimes, including in the boardroom.

    There is a huge, general misunderstanding amongst the public about what a psychopath actually is. It’s most certainly NOT Norman Bates, which is what many unenlightened people seem to think. (The character of Bates, incidentally, was a paranoid schizophrenic which is a very different thing from a “Psycho”.)
    In short, psychopaths are “unencumbered” by any scruples, shame, moral principles or remorse. They always act in their own interests and no one else’s. They aren’t even capable of empathising with the pain or suffering of anybody else and they don’t hesitate to do the kinds of things that you and I would reject as too shameful to even consider.
    Put these creatures in a collar and tie, sit them in a boardroom and you can guarantee a scandal along the lines of Banco Ambrosiano, Enron, Lehman Bros, Robert Maxwell, etc.
    Every time.
    I expect Rangers FC to join that list soon and it won’t worry Whyte one jot what happens to them once he’s got himself out of Dodge with the maximum personal benefit he can strip from the carcass.

    • Henry,

      Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments. The bare faced cheek of his actions would be more palatable if justified on psychological grounds, but if not, he seems to be a good old “chancer”.

      The interesting thing about the scandals you mention is how much they are motivated by pure greed and how much by other factors. In some cases, things happen because they can. It becomes a game – can the crook outwit the auditors. In other circumstances the face of the outfit is there through pressire from outside. Roberto Calvi being the tool of Licio Gelli and P2 being a fine example.

      Obviously we are not suggesting that Mr Whyte falls into the category of fraudsters you mentioned (NB This is for anyone reading on Mr Whyte’s behalf – I wish to make this clear).

      At the end of the day capitalism permits the type of exercise which may be going on here, and whilst it remains legal, the morals won’t get in the way. That might not be right, but that is the world sadly we live in.

      Maybe in 10 years’ time we will see an interview with Mr Whyte where he goes over these events. Maybe a new version of “In the Psychiatrist’s Chair” would be the perfect forum?

  7. Pingback: The Rangers Wee Tax Appeal – If The Telegraph is Right, Did Craig Whyte Mislead the Court in an Affidavit? | Random Thoughts Re Scots (and Other) Law

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s