FTT Result in 100 Words

Rangers (deceased) win as not liable to pay anything near full HMRC claims.

HMRC wins as Rangers (deceased) still liable to pay something, and a fraction of many millions is still millions.

Either party could appeal further. Neither of them will.

One Tribunal member was not convinced re emolument/loan argument but two were, or at least were slightly persuaded.

Positive result for ex-Rangers does not guarantee positive result for Mr Green’s Rangers at SPL inquiry. Different questions to be answered by each.

Press coverage will be superficial and will treat it as Ibrox win.

Rangers message boards will be full of demands to sue HMRC, SPL, SFA, CW, SDM, SMERSH and DVLA.
I will have a summary up on Scotzine later and a more detailed analysis, in 18 chapters here.

I am off to do something far more important now – musical event at my daughters’ school!

And 147 words to this point. Not bad!

Bye for now!



Filed under HMRC v Rangers

313 responses to “FTT Result in 100 Words

  1. Andy

    Paul, I thought this level of petty writing would be beneath you. Apparently not. HMRC have know about this decision for 3 weeks now. The fact they are only “considering and appeal” appears very much like a sound bite with little substance.

    Contrary to your statement, the verdict clearly states that all advances were loans. Therefore, they are not payments. If payments don’t exist they can’t be undisclosed/additional/outside of contract. The most glaring point is that the SPL didn’t have anything in their rules regarding the treatment of payments into remuneration trusts. This is despite these appearing on the RFC accounts for 10 years. Lock, door, horse, bolted springs to mind.

    • ecojon

      97. While Rangers had used the Remuneration Trust to benefit its players until recently, since 2005 it had not been used for other employees of the Murray Group.

      In the case of footballers, “side-letters” were traced in many instances. This document had, apparently, been treated by the Club as distinct from the player’s contract. Only the contract had been disclosed to the SFA.

    • Carl 31

      I see you continue with the non sequitur.

      The decision in the FTTT is not the decision in the SPLIC. Evidence put to the former was deemed not sufficient to establish in fact that many, but not all, of the payments were not loans, and thus it was not established that PAYE/NIC was due.

      A decision in SPLIC will look at the same (if not, very similar) evidence, but it would not take a huge leap in logic to interpret it differently, and so neither possible decision of SPLIC can be ruled out or taken as given. Consider the dissenting opinion…

  2. stooje

    Get. It. Right. Up. Ye!

  3. When will your daughter know you are a disgraced ex lawyer?

    • cam

      Have a pop at the guy but leave his weans out of it if you don’t mind.

    • John Pollock

      Why are you rangers fans so obsessed with other peoples children? Rather than take the moral high ground, as you are entitled to do on the back of the ruling, in my opinion, you revert to type. When will your daughter know you are a bigot Margaret who likes to point score on the back of child abuse? Ah I see, she already does!

      • I am not point scoring. I am telling facts about the real shame in Scottish football. Your club should have been kicked out of Scottish football for covering it up. Fact.

  4. Carl 31

    “Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party.” 222. pg145

    …and the release date is given as 29th October. If sent then, the final day they can appeal is Christmas Eve, by the calendar. If sent yesterday, the 15th Jan is the deadline. I assume HMRC were sent the decision unredacted and have had it since the end of October.

  5. HMRC cannot appeal unless they are given leave to so, not liking the result is not grounds for an appeal.

    RTC all to late has tried to clean up shop, to many screenshots and databases saved, for him there is no escape from approaching justice, the hunter is now the hunted.

    • redetin

      Given that one of the three tribunal members disagreed with the other two (and presented a substantial body of supporting legal opinion), then I think HMRC will already have sufficient opinion to support an appeal. Had the three tribunal members agreed, then appeal might have been more difficult to justify.

      As to the hunted, when the taxman comes knocking there are a number of people out there who will be considering the value they got from their loans, particularly Mr Inverness*, and the quality of the advice they were given before participating in this scheme. Payback time! 🙂

      *”Mr Inverness’s loans were used to fund lifestyle spending.”

    • Den


      Is it mandatory for anyone of the Rangers supporting persuasion to end every mail, blog or whatever with a threat?

      Do you also have a list, it seems that there are a lot of lists being made up of people who have offended against Rangers?

      Most of the discussion here is about football and the fate of one in particular. I am more interested in the Business, Financial, legal topics that are being highlighted.

      Passions can run high but for goodness sake we don’t people being harmed, it is just a game.

      • RTC will receive justice from a court, I have that on good authority, the fact that you read something that is not there says more about you than I ever could or would want to.

        The grapes of wrath are obviously sour to your taste.

      • cam

        Harmed?,,in what way?
        Brought to book for their actions through law courts?
        Investigated by appropriate authorities that the info they obtained and disseminated was done legally?
        The only harm that has been done is to the good name of Scotlands greatest club.

  6. From the DR

    The tribunal agreed to a request not to reveal the names of those who gave evidence to them.
    That decision means Rangers fans will never know the identities of the HMRC investigators who pursued their club.

    Disgraceful, Dangerous and Disturbing ….
    Plenty to discuss, so why include this …
    What is their agenda ?

    P.S. only following my Google Alerts …. before anyone asks 🙂

    • Maggie

      Another ” who are these people? ” moment.

    • Alan

      The players are hardly difficult to work out, the full decision tells us that Mr Purple signed in 1998 on a 5 year deal, negotiated a new contract in 2001 (extending to 2005) and left before his contract was up, joining a club that paid him £11,000 per week. There are few (there’s only one) that matches that description amongst the signings of 1998 so as I say it’s easy to work out.

  7. JohnBhoy

    Traynor has no shame. A gloating, despicable creature.

    • mcfc

      objective journalism at its best.

      • JohnBhoy

        He holds a position in main stream media so he ought to have an eye on his social responsibilities (though I am sure that some will argue that main stream media should be exempt from such everyday concerns). Instead he continues to give succour to the idea that Rangers are victims and everyone else is an enemy. Irresponsible journalism at its worst.

        • kieren

          I know this reply may be against your opinion but the fact is that The Rangers Football Club Plc has had the finding of the tribunal in their favour,meaning that no tax evasion took place,further to that Rangers Football Club Plc are indeed victims in this simply because of the behaviour of Craig Whyte in not paying PAYE an act that ultimately meant the company was liquidated. So in that respect The Rangers Football Club Plc were victims.

          Now not everyone is an enemy to the club,but by christ there are plenty who are and who have an unhealthy desire to see that football club defunct,unfortunately for people like McConville,Thomson,McGillivan(who incidentally is a proven bigot),and RCT(the faceless one). RCT, full of words but no bottle to show who he/she is. Says a lot does RCT but hides away from the world. Not one of those mentioned has any credibility whatsoever,in fact the phrase”got their eye wiped”comes to mind.

    • Alan

      Incredible irony.

  8. Carl 31

    Just one example of some curious juxtaposition of opinions in the document may be summarised by these two quotes…

    “The burden of proof rests with the Appellants (Rangers) to meet the ‘balance of probabilities’ standard. It is with this yardstick that I make my extra findings-in-fact, and against which the evidence offered by the Respondents is related.” 4, pg61 (dissenting).


    “We are unable to make further Findings-in-Fact in support of there being an orchestrated scheme extending to the payment in effect of wages or salary absolutely and unreservedly to the employees involved, as Mr Thomson urged us to do.” 232, pg58 (majority).

    Did the opinions that formed the majority decision look to some absolute threshold, but the dissenting opinion look to a balance of probabilities? Did the former see the burden of proof with the respondents, but the latter with the appellants?

  9. Adam

    HMRC will not appeal. However, people and i include RTC are right about 1 thing. There is still a lot to come from this and the story is by no means over. But it wont be on HMRC side and it wont affect the decision made 3 weeks ago by the Independent Tribunal. There could be many other investigations into this now, given that this 2/3 year case is the protagonist in many shareholders and many small businesses losing a lot of money.

    The Big Tax Case started the runaway train and Craig Whyte drove it into the tunnel with no end.

    • mcfc

      How can you be sure that HMRC won’t appeal. Do you have a leak from HMRC – better tell DM asap – he needs to know.

      • Adam

        A lot of people portrayed this case as being a precedent but that was always a red herring. When HMRC started off on their quest to recover what they believed to be owed to them, they would have rightfully thought that any victory would have resulted in them receiving money. They now know that an appeal will be completely fruitless and a waste of the tax payers money given that any victory would be an empty one.

        They wont appeal the case.

        • mcfc

          I don’t think they ever expected to recover much money – there was none to recover – unless they forced the sale of the assets and destroyed RFC as a football club. They shied away from doing that when they agreed to D&P as administrators. IMHO they were far more interested in the principles – and the split decision still makes success possible via appeal.

      • Maggie

        Posted a reply to your comment re Yogi Berra
        and meant to say Good Luck for your game tonight.
        If we can beat Barca,you can beat Real.
        As long as no one fouls or hurts Xabi Alonso 🙂

        • mcfc

          thanks Maggie – can’t wait for the match – we did so well last time and then lost the plot a bit at the end. With a bit more composure I think we can do it.

  10. mcfc

    Reading around the MSM there’s a clamour from the Rangerati to stop Nimmo-Smith’s SPL commission immediately.

    But surely, given today’s outcome, N-S and co will also vindicate RFC 100%.

    So why stop the commission – something to hide. Or perhaps the adult bears understand that the evidence may be different, the tests are different and the possible penalties go far beyond title stripping.

  11. John Mac

    This should be quite simple. Did Rangers attempt to pay the fair and moral amount of tax on revenues earned?

    I think the level of complexity in this case shows that they tried extremely hard to avoid paying their fair share.

    I think that we urgently need a politically neutral Government commission into tax law. The current process is obviously not fit for purpose when a case like this can drag out for so long that the company in question goes out of business.

    I understand that it’s extremely complex and made intentionally more complex by highly skilled tax accountants, but there must be a way to make companies pay their fair share. What I have seen here is that yet again lawyers and tax experts rake in huge fees and extend the process as long as they possibly can to make as much money as they possibly can. In the time the Rangers case has taken multiple murder trials could have been brought to court and settled. This is insane.

    If I sell books on the High Street I pay UK Corporation Tax at the standard rate. I struggle to stay in business as Amazon is undercutting me by just enough to make my offerings unattractive to the public. Amazon hardly pays a penny in UK tax. I go out of business. My former employees now claim benefit from the Government. Amazon takes it’s profits from the UK and deposits them in a Caymen Islands bank account. Does this make sense to anyone. Are we a completely stupid nation? Free market? Fair market? Why do we allow ourselves to be trampled on like this?

    • mcfc

      @John Mac

      Some good points – and generally agree – but

      “In the time the Rangers case has taken multiple murder trials could have been brought to court and settled. This is insane.”

      As I understand it RFC had a hand in delaying proceeding by being less than fully cooperative with HMRC.This may have back-fired big time. C’est la guerre !

      • John Mac

        I hope that Rangers lack of cooperation is brought to the attention of the masses when they moan about the tax case dragging on and running them out of business…

    • Alan

      Generally agree but that’s why it was particularly galling to have people at Celtic comment on it and Celtic fans to take the moral high ground when so many of their staff, players and current manager have themselves been involved in aggressive tax schemes, don’t be misled here though it’s across the board, so many footballers investing in nonsense film industry companies to achieve a tax break and then topping this up with offshore loans. Funnily enough although the case relating to Lennon was widely reported down south our Scottish papers were largely silent on it, perhaps as it came a matter of weeks after he decided to talk about Rangers titles, tax and cheating.

  12. Sir Nicholas Fairbairn

    HMRC will almost certainly appeal as almost all majority first tier appeals are given leave to appeal and of course they should in the public interest do so. Elaborate schemes set up to deprive the public purse of legitimate income to fund public services must be challenged with rigour.

  13. mick

    tommy gold the show in scotland worth tuning in to

  14. Adam

    Reading through the findings and from what i can gather then, of all the Rangers associated trusts, the FTTT have ruled that all but 5 were loans in the eyes of the court and all but 5 had no offending paperwork or clauses that would allow HMRC to claim any sort of tax on them.

    The 5 cases are the ones that will end up with a tax liability and that the FTTT is happy for HMRC and Oldco to conclude that between themselves without any resubmission to the Tribunal. These 5 cases were accepted by Rangers due to administrative errors in paperwork.

    In all other cases involving Rangers FC plc, the trusts and loans were at the power of the trustee. There was evidence of interest being paid. There was evidence of capital being repaid and crucially there was evidence of both refusals of loans and certain trust funds not being used.

    Despite being told by many back in the day, the cases of Sempra and Dextra appeared to have played their part and that in the eyes of the Tribunal, this scheme fell on the right side of UK Tax Law and that the EBT scheme was used as it should be, contrary to what has been a very popular online opinion over the last 18 months.

    Finally, it appears Mr Black and his sons, and i think we can guess who that is, on the MIH side of things may have something to pay as well.

    The judges have ruled. The Independent Tribunal have had their say. The “side letters” were loans. They “remain recoverable”. They “represent debts on their estates”. They were never “held absolutely or unreservedly for or to the order of the individual employee” “They are not taxable emoluments”

    Over to the “independent” SPL panel now, i guess.

    Unfortunately for shareholders and a lot of small businesses, it is too little, too late.

    An enquiry should be held.

      • Adam

        It would be nice to debunk some of that actually and i will work to the numbers put on there.

        1. If the tribunal had found 2 against and 1 for Rangers, there is absolutely no doubt on one side of the city, the one would be forgotten about and the rules of court/arbitration/judgements would be getting thrown out there at the merest thought.

        2. As stated in my post above, the tribunal has declared 5 administrative errors/dubieties that will require tax paid, something that happens in the world of tax every day of the year.

        3. No need for a reply as there is no point being made.

        4. In the run up to the takeover, Rangers had fiscally improved their books beyond recognition in the preceding 2 years, albeit under some pressure from a bank not willing to play ball anymore(and quite rightly so) If the BTC was thrown out in April 2011 or earlier, Rangers would not be where they are today. Absolute Fact !

        5. If not for the BTC, there wouldnt have been a CVA. Anyone believing differently is not of sane mind.

        6. Not sure how to answer that one as the club would never have been healthy with that man at the helm. If the BTC didnt exist, tax would have been paid and Whyte nowhere near the club.

        Think thats about it but happy to debate anything.

        • 1. I have no idea what point you’re making here. I support neither Rangers nor Celtic, and I’ve never lived in Glasgow.

          2. So tax was being evaded, then. Glad we agree. Where’s your figure of five coming from, incidentally?

          4. Rangers managed to lose £4m in a few months WHILE IN THE HANDS OF ADMINISTRATORS, and with much of the playing staff taking a large voluntary pay cut. Improvements or not, the club was a total economic basket case with no hope of paying down its debts.

          5. An empty assertion clearly and obviously disproved by the facts. When Rangers were put into administration the club owed over £61m WITHOUT counting the tax case. That is the only relevant “absolute fact”, and unlike yours it has the benefit of actually BEING a fact.

          6. If the BTC didn’t exist, Rangers would have owed the bank £20m, been losing money hand over fist, and would have had to find an extra £22m from somewhere to pay its normal tax bill. Given that the club’s assets were sold for just £5.5m, where would that money have come from? Where did the £22m that Whyte didn’t pay go?

          • Adam

            1. I hope you can excuse me as 24 hours on, the 1 “judge” appears still to be a huge focus of attention.

            2. No. Tax was not being evaded. We cannot agree on that.

            4. I could go on and on about this but to summarise, football cash is seasonal and the first 6 months of the season are where the vast majority of cash comes in with the last 6 months pretty much all expenses. If there was no Big Tax Case, the club was nowhere near a basket case, especially not after reducing total debt by something close to £20m in the previous 2 seasons.

            5. Im not sure as a non Rangers and Celtic fan how up to date you are up with what Craig Whyte did to the club. The £61 debt, barring around £20m was all of his doing. Rangers were conned. Sold a total dummy by a proven liar and proven incompetent individual.

            6. If the club wasnt sold, Rangers would now owe Lloyds £17m as part of their long term loan agreement. Who knows what would have happened with the team, all hypothetical, but its not beyond belief that if there was no BTC, then players could have been bought and CL reached. Europe or not, Rangers would not be in administration if it wasnt for the big tax case. Again i repeat, you would need to be insane to believe so.

            • ecojon

              @ Adam

              A businessman of Minty’s ability and standing was sold a dummy – and yet if my memory serves me right a report was done on wee Craigie that showed he shouldn’t even be touched with an asbestos-lined bargepole. Did not one of the rebel rangers Directors wave that about only to be ignored by the MSM.

              Where was Murray’s due-diligence? He was desperate to get rid of Rangersas evidenced by the £1 sale – how long was it he had it on the market?

              I’m not sure whether you’re a fantasist or a publicist but time you went to Specsavers and got your myopia corrected and tell them to remove the blue tint from your lenses as it will help you to see more clearly 🙂

              Evaded has a certain connotation – how does aggressive tax avoidance sit?

            • 1. And properly so, because the third judge’s verdict makes an appeal far more likely.

              2. Then one of us is lying, and it’s not me. The tribunal explicitly found that some of the EBTs were illegal. I’m still waiting to hear where your assessment that it was only five comes from.

              4. Er, football is seasonal whether you’re in administration or not. Had Rangers not been in administration they’d still have had to pay the players (and the taxman) over the summer. Where would they have found the money? The £22m PAYE bill wasn’t paid *because the money wasn’t there*. Whyte didn’t steal it or set it on fire. It was never there.

              5. So? Whyte was the legal owner of Rangers. Are you suggesting that HMRC should have said “Okay, you owe us £22m but since Craig Whyte is a bit dodgy we’ll let you off”?

              6. If the club wasn’t sold, then Murray would still own it, Rangers would owe Lloyds £18m plus interest, and they’d owe the taxman £22m. Where would that money, plus the millions they owed other creditors, have come from? The club’s running costs were higher than its revenue. You can try to avoid the arithmetic all you like, but it’ll keep coming back at you.

          • ecojon

            @ Wings Over Scotland

            And does that include the Ticketus debt and the loss of ST money for what 2/3 years. Club was on its knees and what period was the last audited accounts anyway?

            I seem to remember the property assets were shown as £120m but were sold by D&P for £1.5m so your quite correct any figures produced out of Ibrox have to be looked at very closely. All sound like a PR line to me – blame Hector enough and maybe he won’t appeal.

            The minority finding is so strong that I wonder if HMRC is actually able to walk away from an appeal.

            • The £61m includes the Ticketus debt, yes. But of course the Ticketus debt was a replacement for, and only a little higher than, the Lloyds debt, so it doesn’t change the underlying picture any. Rangers were bust, with no prospect of paying their creditors. And when that happens to any other business, there’s usually only one outcome.

            • Adam

              It should be remembered that the ticketus money was partly used to pay off a £18m loan which would not have been required to be paid off if it wasnt sold and it also should be remembered that there is a potential criminal investigation pending into misappropriation of funds in relation to the takeover and money in money out preceding the sale.

            • Adam

              ecojon, it appears you are now thinking you know my opinion without me giving it. Murray was desperate to sell because of the Big Tax Case. I would be very surprised if anyone doesnt agree with that.

              How you get from that, that i have blue tints, i will never know.

            • “a £18m loan which would not have been required to be paid off if it wasnt sold”

              Er, no. It DID require to be paid off. Lloyds were pulling the plug because they knew Rangers couldn’t pay and they wanted their money before the club went any further down the toilet. That’s why Murray sold a huge football club for £1.

            • Adam

              Lloyds only wanted their £18m because of the Big Tax Case. If the club wasnt sold, they could not reclaim it as it was a long term loan with a pre agreed payment schedule..

              Again i repeat, if there was no Big Tax Case, there would have been no urgent sale of Rangers.

              Its amazing that people, in light of yesterdays findings, are now trying to re-write history.

            • “Lloyds only wanted their £18m because of the Big Tax Case.”

              Says who? Lloyds wanted their money because the credit crunch had put an end to infinite credit and they realised Rangers couldn’t pay.

            • Adam

              Very silly argument to be fair. On the 1st July 2009, Rangers owed Lloyds £27m. Between July 09 and April 11 that had reduced to £18m.

            • Rangers’ ability to turn even a slight profit hinged on the Champions League and having valuable players like Jelavic to sell. It was not structural, and Lloyds knew it. They’re not in business to gamble on Rangers making the CL group stages.

          • mick

            you have to remember any comment about sevco that is not done with a sevconian tone is seen as bigoeted its a mental mindset installed by jabba and his like

        • ecojon

          @ Adam

          Unfortunately the blame lies firmly at the door of Murray.

          He ran his business at an expenditure level which was suicidal and if he hadn’t got into a mad spending pact with his fans and remained a businessman then Rangers would still be in the SPL.

          He simply ran out of cash and was further hit because of bank mergers and the global recession. And if he had never spent £50 million in EBTs what a warchest he would have had – even more than what chico thinks is necessary.

          He was the man that sold the club for £1 – there is no need to go down the PR route of blaming the Downfall on CW and now Hector. But it’s worth remembering that all these Blue Brothers who were about in the Good Old Days and who appear intent on making a comeback did nothing to stop the club self-destructing and Rangers fans should remember that.

        • Grab the Grass

          In reply.
          1) May be, but the other half would have got onto the case and would also be able to potentially appeal the judgement. This is a substantial victory for Murray etc, but Hector is very keen on clamping down on this sort of thing and may surprise us all again.
          2) One day someone will tell us what this is but it’s not nothing
          3) The point is that players earning that amount of money shouldn’t need to have access to almost free loans unless they were trying to avoid tax.
          4) Pure speculation. RFC PlC was loosing money despite huge amounts being “invested” by Murray et al and at some point the train was going to run out of steam. Having a potential liability of £50M probably made it much harder to sell as a going conern alright, but all that has occurred could still have happened.
          5) Once CW took over and rangers went out of the CL, the only outcome was administration. Hector made sure he had more than 25% of the debt even without the BTC before he put the club into administration and could block any CVA as he has done in all other football insolvency cases.
          6) CW robbed Peter (Ticketus) and Hector to pay Paul (the bank) and took over a loss making business without injecting additional funds. The BTC didn’t enter into it. CW didn’t pay PAYE and NI becasue he didn’t have any money after giving all the season ticket money to Ticketus, but still having all the costs and ont being able to get any more loans or overdrafts from the bank.

          What is missing from this debate is what are the terms of the trusts and who is administering them. The money, once it’s gone into the trusts won’t come back unless the terms of the trust allow the independant trustees to pay it. A small point often lost here is that the loans are classified as a benefit in kind and attract a tax liability on an annual basis – admittedly this is only about 1.5 to 2% of the amount, but is still payable annually until the loan is paid off or the individual is no longer in the UK tax system. Now hector has all the details I’m sure they will be on the trail….

          • ecojon

            @ Grab the Grass

            Yes but I seem to remember reading in the judgement that interest which was repaid was then able to be taken out again as a loan – could be wrong in that but I’m sure it’s in there.

            I am sure that a lot of the recipients will be out of the UK tax system by now. But who would be taxed on a benefit in kind basis – would it be the person taking the loan – which seems to usually be the Murray Group employee – or the named beneficiary of the trust – presumable a family member.

            • Grab the grass

              Ecojohn, If interest was actually charged by the trust then that is a cost to the beneficiary. If the “loan” was interest free then Hector assumes a benefit which is taxable which is an assumed rate of interest of 6.5%. At higher rate this raises a tax payment of 2%. This is paid by the beneficiary but its the non repayment of the loan that’s the key issue. What happens to the repaid loans or if there is a write off seems to be very unclear. Follow the money!

      • mick

        @jono nice we read that no matter what they cheated and should be stripped of titles and any1 saying other than that has no sporting integrity

        Even if the EBTs were legal in themselves, they have to be declared to the SFA, and failure to do so fully is a rule breach carrying the severest penalties.)

        The bottom line is that Rangers have still cheated, and they would still have collapsed. In effect, then, the First Tier Tribunal’s judgement – even if it’s not successfully appealed by HMRC, which it may well be – changes the score but not the result.

        • Adam

          To be fair, we heard all these arguments in relation to the BTC. Look how that turned out. If the “side letters” as stated in the formal findings are “loans” as stated in the formal findings then be prepared to be wrong about this one as well.

          • There’s no connection. The side letter payments could be the most legal thing on the face of the Earth, but if they weren’t declared to the SFA then they’re a massive breach of SFA rules with extremely severe penalties up to and including expulsion from the Scottish game.

            • Adam

              Not, if they are loans. Lets wait and see on that one. Its quite a healthy interest and knowledge you have for a non Old Firm fan.

            • Alan

              All payments to players should be declared uder the SPL rules (assuming the rules were as they were today (although the SPL change their rules so often that that may not be the case)) the question is, is a loan a payment, the answer is, in court and in the real world, no, in the cabal’s commission, probably.

    • redetin

      “The judges have ruled.”
      Surely “the tribunal” ruled?
      Two members ruled in favour of an acceptance of the appeal on principal, one was so strongly of another opinion that she dissented and gave detailed reasons. This strongly hints at an appeal by HMRC being likely, purely to get legal opinion on the disputed points. We’ll just have to wait for their decision.

  15. In these days of woe and want HMRC have been given a political push to pursue every avenue of tax collection for the public purse.

    Yesterdays FTT result amounts to something akin to a bloody nose for HMRC, and a very public one at that.

    I’m sure those on the side of tax avoidance will be patting themselves on the back at a job well done if they have employed similar schemes. They may well be celebrating or perhaps just breathing a sigh of relief.

    There will be other battles with other large and small companies and the hope must be that lessons have been learned and that loopholes are being closed.

    In the case of Rangers oldco BTC , given the publicity HMRC face a stark choice. Fight another day or do walking away.

    There will of course will be a tax valuation presented to Rangers oldco based on the FTT result. We have no figures yet but it will be interesting if academic given the limited funds available to oldco for paying creditors, to discover the final tax burden.

    It should be noted that while DM and others always claimed that the EBT scheme was legal, there was a certain lack of courage in that conviction.

    Everything that later occurred to Rangers as a football team can be traced back to the exchange of a pound note.

    • Adam

      The tax avoidance schemes dont just stop at large and small companies. There are many, many individuals who engage in well known tax avoidance schemes. Perhaps when the Rangers case is put to bed, some of the people who have expended so much energy in what at times was classed as a moral issue, will turn to other high profile individuals and chase and report with the same vigour.


  17. Carl31

    The reported HMRC liability in the last Duff n Phelps report was around £94m. Excluding about £16m that was from the CW period, leaves £78m from prior. £48m was the figure contested in the big tax case, roughly speaking. Was the difference the amount arising from the cases conceded without appeal – about £30m?

    • Adam

      A lot of that was estimated penalties etc. The figure is immaterial now though,

    • ecojon

      @ Carl31

      The BTC assessed figure for Rangers was – excluding the other Murray Group companies involved – £36.6 million (PAYE £27.4m, NIC £9.2m)

      • Carl 31

        that puts a slightly different figure on my fagpacket. If the D&P report’s final figure ex CW period was £78m, and the BTC looked at £37m re Rangers, out of a £48m total, then what was the other £41m comprised of? Would that have been simply penalties and interest?

        I have read in places on TSFM that a number of cases were conceded by the appellants before appeal. This could explain it, but I can’t be sure. There is more to come from this FTTT tale. I guess my thinking leads to the question of any cases of the use of tax avoidance that were conceded not to be tax avoidance. How might they look to the SPLIC?

        I have also read that there were a total of 110 cases and 34 were ‘lost’ by the appellants with 76 ‘won’. Out of these 34 a smaller number were football players. other MIH employees would have no bearing on SPLIC.

        Part of my puzzledness is that I havent read the full 145 pages of TC02372.

        • Adam

          I have read the full 145 pages and i dont know where people are getting those figures from. In the main judgement, it indicates that there are 5 players where there is enough doubt that it could lead to a taxable event and in these 5 cases, the MIH solicitors accepted why that was the case and that they would agree a liability with HMRC.

  18. cam

    Lots of usual suspects away licking their wounds.
    RTC duped you bhoys ,,,lmao.
    Owning Downfall is now a badge of stupidity.
    Downfall 2?,,,,bwahahaha.
    At a Celtic club near you,,,Paul.Phil and Arty C discussing the Gers tax cheats,,,,cancelled due to embarassment.
    What a title party the Gers are gonna have.

    • mick

      cam your cheating dead club was found guilty of financial doping yesterday lets see how your club copes with the even playing field now financial doping on a indusrial scale never seen before in football simple as that cam your dafter than a thought you are read the report

      • kieren

        Can you show in detail that the tribunal found The Rangers Football Club Plc guilty of any financial doping yesterday. The appeal was upheld,what part don’t you understand. Try and get over your undoubted bitterness and reluctance to accept the lawful findings.

    • mick

      the whole world knows now what yous are job done am am proud to have been a minor part of it so giruy fool and troll

    • mick

      forgot to mention cam ticketus weres ticketus

  19. ecojon

    @ Carl31

    Not sure about that but you always have to be careful about what is the basic tax liability figure and then additional penalties added for late payment etc.

  20. Adam

    Nice debating mick

  21. cam

    Arty C has deleted all his blogs and comments,,wonder why?
    When i questioned if this speculation could damage the share price in RFC and confidence in the company i thought it would be prudent to save all that 99% crap to HDD just in case,,,,ebay anyone?

  22. mick

    skelped all over scotland and placed in div 3 ilegally due to no accounts its all a scam simples as that there deluded with this and see it as victory they were found guilty of financial doping yesterday lns will take a good read at it to

  23. The question of morality is often raised when schemes to avoid tax hove into view.

    For me its an entirely different question to the one that should be presented to the tax payer, be they corporate or individual.

    Equality in tax deductions is is of prime importance in maintaining a fair and cohesive society, be it tax on individuals across a wide range of earnings, with rates based on income thresholds or with companies based on profits.

    Equality is important.

    Morality is something else altogether. In raising the ‘moral’ argument for paying tax, schools and hospitals are often brought to the table. Rarely if ever does anyone mention WMD.

    Tax pays for many things, the morality of what we buy is quite separate from the question of how we pay tax equally and how fairly tax legislation is applied.

    • ecojon

      @ Martin

      I am not sure that there can be an equality in tax deductions but there should certainly be at the very least a semblance of fairness and that most certainly doesn’t exist at this time and was probably brought very sharply into focus by the actions of Bankers and the City in recent times.

      • mick

        wait to were all old and theres no nhs they will think and say the bloggers were right

      • Ecojon,

        The equality or lack of it will be debated for ever, but at least fairness should be the aim.

        Morality, as I tried to say is quite another thing.

        One might argue that not paying tax was morally correct when faced with a government intent on an illegal war (to give an example).

        • ecojon

          @ Martin

          Might be fairer or even more moral to only deduct the percentage spent on the MoD. But then sometimes it isn’t always possible to determine what is and what isn’t a legal war and, indeed, whether there is such a thing. However, methinks I stray too far from the subject matter.

          Maybe you should think about submitting a post to Paul on that subject – might get a good debate going.

    • JohnBhoy

      Martin, morality is closely tied to fairness. Fairness refers to an equitable and decent standard of conduct applied consistently; and that, necessarily, involves questions of morality i.e. what we as a society find acceptable behaviour. When we start to decouple morals from, of all places, the business community – because greed is good and loopholes are there to be exploited (not a position you proffer) – that’s when we end up with an unfair and unbalanced society. Obscene bonuses in the banking sector is a case in point. Unfortunately the morals of the business world – the ‘real world’ – are now infecting the public sector.

      On the matter of WMD, I am not a supporter but accept that my taxes are used in ways that do not meet my own preferences.

  24. cam

    Wonder if the Daily Record might ask the RTC blogger if he would like a guest column in the paper?
    Agony aunt?
    Crossword puzzles?
    Car sales?
    Definetly not the financial section!!

  25. mick

    @every1 so were does yesterday leave us and what do you think should happen over the doping and does any1 feel the appeal will happen ,dont forget greens of the radar now so he will be well releved as he is expecting tu to pop up before share issue

    • ecojon

      @ mick

      I think Green would be happy to have HMRC confirm they aren’t going to appeal before his proposed share flotation and also for the SPL to announce, again pre-flotation, that they had dropped the Commission.

      But I’m not that sure that the publicity is that helpful to him as punters will probably automatically make the connection in their mind, possibly subconsciously, that Rangers seems to be mired in controversy.

      Of course it won’t affect what the Bears say but the more the news spreads that institutional investors are flooding-in and fighting to get onboard this oversubscribed issue then the more chance the Bears will feel less guilty at giving the shares a miss and buying the Xmas pressies.

      But who knows? Will it make any difference in the grand scheme? I very much doubt it especially if the original investors cash in their chips and sail away back home with the profit.

  26. Adam

    This is a murder set up. I dont know where to look for replies 😦

  27. Adam

    In reply to Wings Over Scotland -November 21, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    1. There will not be an appeal. No point in going round in circles. Either i will be right or wrong.

    2. No they didnt so you are lying. The Tribunal found that in the case of 5 individuals, (Selby, Inverness, Doncaster, Barrow and Furness) that there was sufficient complexities to warrant a tax liability and this was not contested by the appellant. In no mans language does that equal tax “evasion” and i would urge you to be cautious over making such claims. This can be found in paragraph 210 on the Form of Decision.

    4. So why did we not go into administration in Feb 2011 ? or 2010 ? or 2009 ?

    5. I thought i had made myself quite clear. Rangers were only sold to Craig Whyte because of the Big Tax Case. Im stunned you are disputing this.

    6. Dear Lord, give me strength. If Rangers were still in Murrays control they wouldnt owe the taxman £22m. Why didnt we owe the taxman £22m in 2011 when Murray owned us ? Or 2010 ? Or 2009 ? Or 2008 ?

  28. cam

    Wings over Scotland,,,is that code for the missing blogger flying above Glasgow in RTC 1?

  29. Adam

    Wings Over Scotland
    November 21, 2012 at 8:26 pm
    Rangers’ ability to turn even a slight profit hinged on the Champions League and having valuable players like Jelavic to sell. It was not structural, and Lloyds knew it. They’re not in business to gamble on Rangers making the CL group stages.

    Was that not the case for both clubs and European Football ? Im pretty sure last time i looked, neither Old Firm team had made a profit without European League games or a good run in a long long long long time.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s