Rangers Rumours Archive September 19 2011

19 Sep 2011 15:19:03
People still believe that we will lose the tax case (Celtic fans probebly) but why would mr whyte take on a club that he thinks will be in 59 million pound in debt soon? i have a very good freind that is studying law and beleves that rangers will win the case... and if they do he will give rangers 5 million in january to keep the fans happy! i hope this is the case but i truley believe in my freind i wouldnt put this up if i didnt!

Firstly, in my experience there is nothing worse than a half qualified Legal, they see themselves as understanding the law when in reality the have fffffff all experience or clue for that matter.

Secondly, administration, if it does come will not necessarily be a bad thing. Yes it is not ideal but if the bills are as big as some predict it would be a means of getting through without taking too much relative hurt. In this case Whyte will probably do rather well for his investment and in a couple of years we will be in a healthy state going forward for a relative not a wild amount of pain.

19 Sep 2011 11:14:18
Just like to say Happy Birthday McCoist team played great yesterday things are looking good under McCoist. In McCoist We Trust.

Billyboy1

19 Sep 2011 06:49:08
Found this article regarding HMRC's claims against companies using EBT schemes and thought my fellow bears would be interested as it shows that all is not lost:
A leading accountancy firm says that HMRC has launched its long anticipated clampdown against users of Employment Benefit Trust (EBT) schemes, but many of the claims for backdated taxes are 'wildly inaccurate'.
UHY Hacker Young says that many of the thousands of individuals who have used EBT schemes in recent years are likely to have received correspondence from HMRC in recent weeks demanding payment for unpaid taxes.
Typically, penalties are not being sought if past tax liabilities are settled immediately, although court action is threatened for individuals who don't comply.

EBT Legislation
The Government first published draft legislation which targeted intermediaries (mainly EBTs) which provided 'disguised remuneration' to clients. Thousands of contractors are thought to have used such schemes over the past decade.
The Finance Bill 2011, published on 31st March 2011, contained the legislation which effectively outlawed disguised remuneration schemes, and its provisions became law on 6th April 2011, even though the new rules had not received Royal Assent. All payments made to clients via these schemes are now subject to standard income tax and National Insurance rules.
In addition, anti-forestalling measures were put in place, which apply to loans and similar payments made between 9th December 2010 and 5th April 2010, as payments made between these dates would have been subject to the new regulations had they been made on or after 6th April 2011.
You can read more background to the EBT clampdown here.

HMRC's case 'far from watertight'
According to the accountancy firm, many of the HMRC demands for payment are just 'hot air', as Steve Theaker, partner at UHY Hacker Young's Abergavenny office commented:
"Several of the letters I have seen are wildly inaccurate estimates of the amounts of tax actually in dispute. HMRC could at least get the numbers right.
"HMRC has litigated twice on the taxability of loans from EBTs and lost on both occasions. The courts have essentially ruled that EBTs were a legitimate form of tax planning prior to HMRC's announcement last December. HMRC seems to be pinning its hopes on judges reversing the precedent which has already been set - but why would they do that?"
"HMRC's case is far from watertight. Taxpayers should think very carefully about how they respond to these letters. If they chose to settle they may end up paying tax which HMRC has no legal right to. The letter actually says that if taxpayers chose to settle, but subsequent litigation finds in taxpayers' favour, the settlement cannot be reopened."