Has the Court of Session Today Made a Decision Which Will Win HMRC the Big Tax Case?

I know that I am not known for the brevity of my blog posts, especially where I have substantial material to work from.

However I am going to change the habits of a blogging lifetime by writing a short post based on a long piece of source material. I will write at greater length but thought this worthy of comment now.

Remember the “Big Tax Case”? That was known, more formally, as Murray Group Holdings & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 692 (TC) (29 October 2012) and the decision can be read in full here.

The Murray Group (and predominantly “Rangers”) “won” the case to the extent that, by a two to one majority, the First Tier Tax Tribunal decided that, except in the cases where the appellant conceded otherwise, the payments which had been made via the Employee Benefit Trust structure by the employer and taken by the employee from the trusts and sub-trusts in the form of loans were not payments subject to Income Tax.

The appeal by HMRC is grinding its way towards a full hearing at the Upper Tier Tribunal and will get there eventually.

Advertisement

Rangers Tax Appeal May Be Heard On 19th July 2013 – Correction – No It Won’t!

Earlier in the week I confidently predicted that the appeal to the Upper Tribunal would probably, based upon the time lag for fixing other Upper Tribunal Tax appeals, not be heard until the summer of 2014, or even later.

Clearly the UTT was awaiting my prediction so that it could prove me wrong.

The date has now been published and the HMRC appeal involving liquidated Rangers and the four Murray Group companies is now scheduled (probably) to take place in Edinburgh on 19th July 2013. So my guess was only 12 months or more out!

The tribunal listings can be seen here.

The hearing is scheduled for the Edinburgh Tribunal Centre, George House, 126 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 4HH.

When Will the “Rangers” Tax Appeal Be Heard? Summer 2014? Later?

The Upper Tribunal (Tax) has on its list a case of great interest to the football fans of Scotland.

Well, actually it is listed as five separate appeals, which will however be heard at the one time.

HMRC is listed as being the appellant against the following respondents:-

• The former Rangers Football Club PLC (now RFC 2012 PLC) (in liquidation
• GM Mining Ltd
• Premier Property Group Ltd
• Murray Group Management Ltd
• Murray Group Holdings Ltd

HMRC Appeal Statement (In response to that of RIFC PLC)

Blogger Paul McConville commented:-

“Many football fans and legal commentators were surprised by the First Tier Tax Tribunal verdict last November and will not be disappointed that HMRC have now launched an appeal against their judgment.

“The ruling of the First Tier Tax Tribunal does not affect the operations and the financial position of this blog as it stands today and the appeal will have no effect on us as this is an historic case for The Rangers Football Club plc (‘oldco’).

“As HMRC stated last June when they decided to vote against the proposed ‘oldco’ CVA, no tax liabilities relating to ‘oldco’ would transfer across to this blog. HMRC would undoubtedly also reaffirm this position to my tax adviser, Deloitte Del Boy.

HMRC Given Leave to Appeal Tribunal Decision re MIH/”Rangers” – Plus Clarification of “Tomo Blog”

As broken by Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News yesterday, HMRC have been granted leave to appeal against the majority decision in the EBT tax case known to one and all now as the “Big Tax Case”( © RangersTaxCase.com.)

After a flurry of anger on Twitter and elsewhere about this “leak” to Mr Thomson, and even more misplaced anger by people who thought this meant the appeal itself had been decided, Mr Thomson published a blog post on the subject. You can find it here.

As far as leave to appeal being granted was concerned, no one I spoke to with knowledge of the appeal system thought that the application for leave would be refused. An appeal can only be taken forward on a question of law.

What, some have cried, was the question of law in this case?

The answer to that question is very simple. (Though the answer to the legal question is not).

Put simply the majority interpreted the legislation and case law to allow them to look at the form of what was done whilst the minority judge applied the same law and reached the conclusion that the substance of what was done was more important than the form.

Therefore there is a clear distinction about how the law should be applied.

That is, undoubtedly, a “question of law”.