Rangers in administration (Non WHU)

[the pink palermo]

A mere Puppy Beckers, certainly not a full blown dog .

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

HMRC seek to appeal Rangers tax verdict (BBC)

HM Revenue and Customs has said it will seek permission to appeal against a tax tribunal ruling in favour of Rangers' use of Employee Benefit Trusts.

The club, which is now in liquidation, used the scheme from 2001 to 2010 to make £47.65m in payments to players and staff in the form of tax-free loans.

HMRC had challenged the payments, arguing that they were illegal.

Rangers disputed the bill and a First Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) ruled the scheme did not breach tax law.

In a majority decision, the tribunal said the payments - of about £49m - were loans, not earnings, and so were not liable for income tax.

[devonshire flu]

In a majority decision, the tribunal said the payments - of about £49m - were loans, not earnings, and so were not liable for income tax.

I'm no legal expert, but it shouldn't be too difficult to establish if they were loans or not. Were any of them paid back? If not, they were earnings.

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

That's what the case was about. Two judges did indeed establish they were loans. The fact they haven't been repaid doesn't matter. The trusts making the loans may ask for their repayment and that, apparently, is good enough.

[Gnome]

That's what the case was about. Two judges did indeed establish they were loans. The fact they haven't been repaid doesn't matter. The trusts making the loans may ask for their repayment and that, apparently, is good enough.

....although there is usually an argument of "substance over form" to be had. Despite the terms of the loans which, if they ask for repayment at all, probably say "repayable on demand". HMRC would need establish that it was 'understood' that no such demand would ever be made that understanding would become an implicit part of the contract.

It's a fallacy that everytining in a contract has to be in writing (save for certain specific types of contract) so if HMRC can persuade the appeal judges that the "understanding" existed that would be good enough to change the status of the transaction from "loans" to "pay".

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

How would HMRC view a repayment including interest, followed by another loan?

[Gnome]

How would HMRC view a repayment including interest, followed by another loan?

They'd look at the whole thing. If the second "loan" were nothing of the sort the same thing would apply, although tax would only be payable on the payment at the time the second "loan" were made.

[sicknote]

they've thrown their toys, rattle,dummy and comfort blanket out of the pram, with the cup tie at dundee utd, refusing to take their ticket allocation


if you can get on the website, then its all here

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines ... -statement

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

I wonder if they'll still demand their 50% of the gate money?

[SammyLeeWasOffside]

A statement from the Rangers Supporters' Assembly read: "The Rangers support has waited patiently for the opportunity to send a clear message to those that tried to destroy our club - starve them of their much-needed cash by boycotting this game.

Pretty pathetic really.

So their aim for the future of Rangers is to destroy every other club in Scotland.

[beckton]

They're still peddling the myth of being innocent victims of an evil conspiracy.

No humility from them but just sheer arrogance.

[QuintonNimoy]

HMRC would need establish that it was 'understood' that no such demand would ever be made that understanding would become an implicit part of the contract.

It seems both extraordinary that it isn't blatantly obvious to the judges, but at the same time I don't see much chance of any party to the agreements breaking a conspiracy of silence for personal gain. Although to be willing to appeal it I suppose HMRC must be confident they can show somehting like this.

So their aim for the future of Rangers is to destroy every other club in Scotland.

I'd like them to attempt to carry this through, then they'll see that no other club in football needs them.

[Wembley1966]

It seems both extraordinary that it isn't blatantly obvious to the judges, but at the same time I don't see much chance of any party to the agreements breaking a conspiracy of silence for personal gain. Although to be willing to appeal it I suppose HMRC must be confident they can show somehting like this.

It was blatantly obvious to one of the judges - in fact her descenting opinion was twice as many pages in the judgement as the 2 judges that thought the scheme was OK.
Also they were found guilty in about 5 of the payments made to players, which when added to the £3m they still owed for illegal use of a discounted option scheme to pay players which they admitted to and the £9m from unpaid VAT & PAYE is still a lot they owe the taxman.

I'd like them to attempt to carry this through, then they'll see that no other club in football needs them.

Other clubs are already seeing that they don't need them - SPL gates are typically up over last year with a more competitive league - half a dozen clubs in with a chance of a Champions League place.

[screech]

they've thrown their toys, rattle,dummy and comfort blanket out of the pram, with the cup tie at dundee utd, refusing to take their ticket allocation


if you can get on the website, then its all here

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines ... -statement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It will be nice to see Dundee beat them and get the money from the next round to compensate any loss of gate money they fail to receive, leaving rangers even further in the ****
Rangers are slowing burning their bridges and pretty soon will realise that rangers need the other teams and not the other way around

[Wembley1966]

The initial statement for the share issue on AIM:

http://www.investegate.co.uk/aim/rns/sch-1--rangers-international-football-club-plc/201212050956047840S

Going to be in a new holding company - Rangers International Football Club plc - so supporters won't be buying shares in the club then!!

Shows that they've already had about £11m from institutional investors which is pretty good. Mike Ashley owns 9% of existing company. Also says that they will be playing at Ibrox and benefitting from the Murray Park training facility - so some other entity owns the properties!

I suspect that this is all a scam from Nigeria:
http://rangersinternationalfc.com/

[York Ham(mer)]

Rangers International what??

Has anyone seen the prospectus yet?

[QuintonNimoy]

I suspect that this is all a scam from Nigeria:
http://rangersinternationalfc.com/

Bandwidth limit exceeded. No expense spared then, Nigerian scammers aren't usually that cheap.

[James P]

Saw some Rangers bod on SSN this morning explaining the reason for the boycott against Dundee United. Said something along the lines that the directors of this club continuously pushed for stronger punishments against Rangers and were completely unsporting! He then said he doesn't expect the current directors of a number of SPL clubs who had it in for Rangers to be still be in charge by the time they make it back to the top flight and it send a message to the new directors that such unsporting behaviour won't be tolerated!

The arrogance of this club is breathtaking.

[York Ham(mer)]

There's a famous quotation: "This has to be said about Rangers, as a Scottish Football club they are a permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace."

They are doing their best to live up to that.

[Wembley1966]

Prospectus published:
http://www.rangersshareoffer.com/