Contrary to our earlier understanding, Rangers did not win a ruling from the Court of Session on who was to be appointed administrator, HMRC and Rangers came to agreement on the appointment of Duff and Phelps, who acted for Whyte during his takeover of the club.
The admission by Duff and Phelps that today’s court action by HM Revenue and Customs was in connection to circa £9m unpaid tax accrued since the takeover in May last year will come as a surprise no one in the Celtic Quick News community. This is why Rangers are now in administration, it’s nothing to do with the big tax case, or indeed, the wee tax case.
Key question is, what will HMRC do now? They’re not going away/. Rangers continued to sign football players despite being delinquent with taxes, and briefed journalists that they rejected a £9m offer for a player on 31 August 2011.
The fact that the business is in administration due to activity carried out under Craig Whyte’s tenure may also interest the Insolvency Service, who are already investigating Whyte’s takeover of the club following information passed by former chairman, Alastair Johnston.
One final push (this week) for the Vanessa Riddle Appeal. We have a Celtic top signed by the first team squad available to auction on eBay. You can bid on the auction and help send Vanessa for the treatment she needs by clicking here. Thanks to Penfold for the donation and to Taggsybhoy for organising (yet again).
If you would like to read CQN Magazine online (for free), click here. You can download a pdf of the magazine using the button at the top of the page, second from the right. Click on the link below to order a hard copy of the magazine.
You can support the online edition by making a discretionary donation here.
1,073 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- »
We know they’ve been cheating for years but yesterday it was confirmed that even this year has been a sham. 10 points deduction is one thing but surely there must be stronger sanctions for clubs playing with a loaded deck? It will never happen but it’s still mathematically possible for them to win this league but seems crazy that this should be possible. Where exactly would the integrity of Scottish football be if that was to happen?
For the sake of our games credibility they should be suspended from this years league & further sanctions should be brought pending the results of the big tax case.
up_over_goal at 08:42
Is anyone getting this? There’s enough scope within the law for a company to go under, owing millions to HMRC, and new company to arise in its place, under the SAME NAME, debt free?
Technically yes, but you have to add in that the administrators are required to act in the best interests of all creditors and must do everything in their power to realise as many of the assets as possible.
Consider this example.
You and I run a shoe shop. We purchased a load of shoes that are now out of fashion and no one will buy. We can’t afford to make payments to the tax man or to the rates people and they threaten to shut us down. We also owe a lot of money to other suppliers and as an interim measure, we are placed in administration.
Now we know there is no way we can pay these debts but we also know that apart from one poor decision, the shop was profitable so we set up a new company called Shoes2.
At this stage all we have is a company, no premises nor stock. The administrator realises he can’t save the company in its current form and has to put the company into liquidation. All assets are then sold and whatever is raised goes towards the creditors at e.g. 20 pence in the pound of what they are owed.
In our capacity as directors/owners of shoes2 we purchase the shop and some of the stock and are able to start again as it were. This is legal and while morally there are issues with it, in this case the tax man just has to bite the bullet. That is unless he can get a court to lift the “veil of incorporation” and say that shoes2 was simply a sham, set up to avoid existing liabilities. If this can be proved, me and you would lose our limited liability and as such could be personally liable for all the debts.
You see in this condensed example that if someone wants to set up a new Rangers, they will have to purchase the stadium, or a stadium somewhere, and will need to get some players.
Mort
James Forest…
Another well written piece.
The behaviour of the likes of MP, Mrs Curran should not surprise you.
As I have said the politics of today are no longer about principles and as sense of justice or even a debate about left and right .It is about self serving troughery on all sides.
Curran is no different from many others she needs to keep her snout in the trough. No shame eh Mags?
And if that means enslaving us all through the mendascious tentacles of the state then so be it.
Will be interesting to see who’s box she gets invited to at Parkhead for the next home game.
angelcf67/steinreignedsupreme-
Archie might well be unCelticminded, but he wrote two of the best biographies I have ever read, on Mr Stein and Jimmy Johnstone.
Considering how bad the relationship was between Mr Stein and the BBC AMcP did not use the book to settle any scores.
‘Undefeated’, his biography of JJ, is just a fantastic book; it deals with the unquenchable human spirit, and should be read by everyone, whether they support Celtic or not, or even if they don’t like football.
Steinreignedsupreme says:
15 February, 2012 at 08:46
angelfc67: 15 February, 2012 at 08:33
Whooft is a massive Hun.
______________________________________
I defo got that last night, just a bit surprised. Ashamed that i didn’t know!!!!
HMRC given court go-ahead to reclaim offshore tax
A court ruling has allowed HMRC to reclaim money that UK residents have placed into offshore accounts. The ruling dismissed opposition that suggested such actions could have crippling effects on those who had to repay.
During the proceedings a judge was told that people who were facing back-payments to HMRC were stricken with fears of bankruptcy, extreme psychological difficulties and also property losses. The judge, Mr Justice Ken Parker, rejected these claims and stated that the payments were “in the relevant circumstances proportionate”.
The rulings have taken place during a case regarding anti-tax avoidance, which the UK Government have been attempting to restrict since the 2008 Finance Act. Avoiding tax via offshore facilities has been referred to by HMRC as “a widely marketed tax avoidance scheme”. The 2008 legislation gave HMRC the ability to act retrospectively and demand unpaid taxes from money placed in offshore funds years prior.
This has led to uproar and dismay from many people who claim they simply cannot meet the financial demands that this legislation asks. Documents shown during the case highlighted 57 people who said they couldn’t pay even if they offloaded all their assets with a further 29 claiming they could only pay if they remortgaged their homes. Others stated that the demands would ruin them and force them into bankruptcy.
One of these individuals is a Mr Robert Huitson, who will challenge the rulings at the Court of Appeal, despite his original appeal request being rejected. His situation was borne out of the “Robert Huitson Family Settlement” trust that he created in the Isle of Man back in 2001. He has now been hit by a £100,000 bill. His lawyer, David Elvin QC, argued that the back-dating conflicts with Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which gives people the “right to free enjoyment of property”. The level of retrospectivity in place with the tax legislation is hitherto unprecedented and Mr Elvin argues that the burden is too great: “It is a legitimate aim to make fiscal policy. However, because it is a legitimate aim does not mean that the imposition of retrospective legislation is therefore proportionate”.
However the challenge was rejected as the judge deemed HMRC to be acting within the realms of fairness, and that HMRC will take matters such as hardship and financial difficulty into consideration when looking into individual payment cases.
A member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, Chas Roy-Chowdhury told Times Online that he was against the retrospective nature of the legislation: “The case related to a particular trust arrangement but could have implications for similar offshore trust-based schemes. It is quite justified for the Government to attack complex schemes set up to avoid tax but it should not do it retrospectively”.
If they think Margaret Curran will do them any good then they are truly stuffed!
Shut up Curran and crawl back to Westminster!
By Agencies/Sean O’Hare
4:31PM GMT 03 Nov 2010
10 Comments
Robert Huitson was one of scores of people who followed specialist tax advice and set up Isle of Man trusts to avoid British income tax.
The scheme was entirely legal and ran for seven years until Parliament closed the loophole retrospectively in the 2008 Finance Act and issued backdated demands for millions of pounds.
Top tax barrister, David Elvin QC, today told London’s Appeal Court that Mr Huitson was ordered to pay up more than £100,000, whilst many others were hit with demands they could not meet, even if they sold all their assets, including their family homes.
The retrospective change in the law had left a legacy of “financial worry, mental health problems and marital breakdown”, said the barrister.
Now, on Mr Huitson’s behalf, Mr Elvin is bidding to persuade Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Morgan and Sir Paul Kennedy, that the Government’s move violated the fundamental human right of Mr Huitson and others to “free enjoyment” of their private property.
Related Articles
The long arm of the UK taxman
08 Sep 2010
The barrister said HMRC had been aware of the tax scheme for several years before deciding to promote legislative action and the retrospective effect of the 2008 Act amounted to a “disproportionate intervention” by the State in individuals’ lives.
“The degree of retrospectivity is unprecedented in the history of tax legislation and imposes an individual and excessive burden on users of the (tax avoidance) arrangement.”
Mr Elvin accused HMRC of “unaccountable delay” in tackling the “simple” tax avoidance scheme which took advantage of the exemption from UK tax of Manx-based companies under a treaty with the Isle of Man designed to avoid double taxation.
And he told the judges there had been no proper assessment of the impact the change in the law would have on individuals who had done nothing wrong.
Mr Huitson is asking the Appeal Court to make a formal declaration that the retrospective aspects of the 2008 Finance Act are “incompatible” with his human rights.
However, Rabinder Singh QC, representing HMRC, points out that users of the avoidance scheme were warned well in advance that it was under review and argues that the retrospective change in the law was “proportionate and compatible” with human rights.
Given the widespread importance of the case, the Appeal Court judges are expected to reserve their decision on Mr Huitson’s appeal until a later date.
The BBC
Will retrospective taxes affect us all?
Analysis By Professor Anne Redston King’s College, London
Mr Huitson’s tax affairs were arranged in Douglas, Isle of Man
The Revenue has just won a landmark court case which allowed the backdating of tax law.
New legislation normally applies to the future, not the past.
But the case of Robert Huitson may change all that.
In 2001 Mr Huitson began using an artificial scheme to reduce his taxes.
He thought the scheme was legal, and so did his advisers.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) did not agree.
So far, so commonplace: HMRC frequently disagrees with taxpayers.
If these disputes cannot be settled, both parties often end up in court, where each side puts forward their argument.
Sometimes HMRC wins, sometimes the taxpayer.
Section 58
In 2008 the government changed the rules.
Unfortunately for Robert Huitson and the other scheme participants, Judge Kenneth Parker did not agree
It made the type of arrangements entered into by Mr Huitson illegal – not just for the future, but for the past as well.
Section 58 of the Finance Act in 2008 said that the change was to be “treated as always having had effect”.
Robert Huitson now owed the taxman more than £100,000.
But he was not the only person who had used the scheme.
Some participants were even worse off.
Of a small sample of the 2,500 users of the scheme, 57 people said that even if they sold their home and all their assets, they would not be able to pay their tax bill.
A further 29 people said they would have to sell or remortgage their family homes; others faced bankruptcy or said they had suffered mental breakdowns.
Last month, Mr Huitson challenged this controversial tax rule in the High Court.
His barrister argued that changing the law for the past was illegal under the Human Rights Act.
Judge decides for HMRC
Unfortunately for Robert Huitson and the other scheme participants, Judge Kenneth Parker did not agree.
The government may be tempted to go further, warns Anne Redston
Human rights law did not, he said, prohibit backdating in a case like this, where the arrangements were artificial and their only purpose was to minimise tax.
He ruled that the Finance Act 2008 legislation ensured a “fair balance” between Mr Huitson and others who used this artificial tax planning arrangement on the one hand, and ordinary taxpayers on the other.
And, since Parliament had previously backdated legislation to deal with an earlier loophole in the same legislation, Mr Huitson should have been aware that the same fate could befall him.
This decision means that many of the individuals involved in the scheme now face homelessness and bankruptcy.
HMRC appeared sympathetic, telling the court that “before seeking to enforce demands for tax and interest”, it would take into account the scheme participants’ financial hardship.
But Judge Parker actively discouraged this compassionate approach.
He said the HMRC should consider whether such treatment was fair to other taxpayers who had not avoided taxes, or to those scheme participants who had set aside money to pay any eventual liability.
He concluded that this “fairness in this broader sense” could significantly restrict the extent to which HMRC could show mercy to those facing serious money problems, even where the individuals’ financial circumstances were “unfortunate and distressing”.
Not the first time
There is no doubt that this was an aggressive tax avoidance scheme, but it raises important issues.
This is not the first time that tax law has been changed retrospectively
As citizens, we have a right to know the legal position before making up our minds.
Giving government the green light to change laws retrospectively erodes our rights and undermines the rule of law.
However, this is not the first time that tax law has been changed retrospectively.
In December 2004, the government announced that it would backdate legislation if it found any new avoidance schemes involving employee share plans.
This threat was carried out two years later, in the 2006 Finance Act.
Even more relevant is that the very tax laws used in Mr Huitson’s avoidance scheme had themselves been amended retrospectively more than 20 years earlier in the Finance (No 2) Act 1987.
This, said Judge Parker, should have “sent out a clear signal to taxpayers and their advisers that the legislature would be very likely to take effective and decisive steps to counter [their avoidance], even with retrospective measures”.
Human rights law
The judge also pointed out that retrospective legislation was not prohibited by human rights law, although there is a strong presumption against it.
In 2003, in the case of MA and 34 Others v Finland, the European Court of Human Rights stated that the key question was whether the backdating struck a fair balance between those affected by the change, both positively and negatively.
In Huitson, Judge Parker considered that the retrospection was fair, because of the effect on other taxpayers and the public purse if the avoidance had not been unequivocally blocked.
Here, the arrangements were clearly uncommercial, designed only to avoid taxes.
Furthermore, the fact that the self-same tax provisions had already been backdated once should have warned participants they were playing with fire.
But the Huitson case is nevertheless worrying.
Is it the thin end of a very dangerous wedge, allowing HMRC to get its own way without bothering to argue its case in the courts?
Or will retrospection be used only exceptionally, most commonly in response to artificial tax planning schemes?
What is certain is that backdating legislation is a cheap, quick and certain way of closing a tax loophole, and it may be irresistibly tempting for the government to use the same method again.
The opinions expressed are those of the author and are not held by the BBC unless specifically stated. The material is for general information only and does not constitute investment, tax, legal or other form of advice. You should not rely on this information to make (or refrain from making) any decisions. Links to external sites are for information only and do not constitute endorsement. Always obtain independent, professional advice for your own particular situation.
Dontbrattbakkinanger says:
15 February, 2012 at 08:58
angelcf67/steinreignedsupreme-
________________________________________
I’ve read that book, that’s why I was kind of shocked.
He started off by slating Murray them fell into the trap of ‘Scottish football needs them’.
Maybe as a historian he has the best interests of Scottish football at heart, his demeanour never came across in that way though.
Mort
Thanks for the lengthy reply.
That administrators must act in best interests of creditors is one thing, but these particular administrators were photographed next to Whyte, Reservoir Dogs style, sitting in Ibrox when he took over the company. Something tells me they will look after his best interests.
Your shoe shop analogy’s a good one (Brogues inc.) but in this case the ‘old’ owner jets off to Monaco, leaving a respectable owner (who has nothing to do with the old one – look, I criticised him openly in the media!) to buy back the shop. Not only that, but the new shop gets all the contracts of the old and a seat on the board of the big shoe shop association, who welcome him with open arms.
Much as we are enjoying the chaos at Bigotville I think we must keep our eye on the possibility that they will shaft Scottish football, the Tax payer and decent society.
With that in mind I think it should be made clear to all in Scottish football that if Rangers Newco are allowed back in to the SPL without making any attempt to pay their dues to society, if they escape from this by way of shafting the tax payer while some of their key people (whyte and his accomplices – and I use that word deliberately) walk away with Millions in the process or some shady buyer waiting in the wings is organising all of this in order to smooth his or her own path to getting control of rangers – THAT CELTIC SUPPORTERS for one will be boycotting the NEWCO and are INVITING the supporters of every other SPL and SFL club to declare their intentions to do likewise.
Should the SFA appear to be complicit in this then our intentions should be made clear that we are going to boycott the national team and we will be asking other supporters to do likewise (less likely to get results I suppose)
We should also boycott the League cup.
This is for starters.
Justice must be done.
Looking at Rangers ducking and diving is giving us all a good up close and personal view of how businesses regularly shaft the tax payer when they go belly up. These people are called ‘risk takers’ but they seem only to take risks with other peoples money. Scum.
.
The World Conga when Rangers Die has Started on Brighton Beach ..
Do Do Do Comon and Do the Conga Do Do Do..
Summa
up_over_goal at 09:06
Regardless of their relationship with Whyte, the administrators are not legally allowed to act in the interests of one more than an other. He must be a really good friend for them to risk such reputation damage this could cause.
A.n. other who wants to set up a new co will still have to purchase the assets and the administrator won’t be able to just sell these for nothing.
Mort
Morning CQN from an admin-free Hebrides.
If anyone wants to request David Murray’s knighthood be repealed then please write here;
Abby Oshodi
Honours and Appointments Secretariat
Ground Floor
Admiralty Arch
London
SW1A 2WH
No newco in the SPL
do one for us summa, it’s effin freezin in north yorkshire
Well it wasn’t the “10,000-pound gorilla sitting in the room and you don’t know what its appetite is” it was a very young recent baby gorilla that did for the horrible’s, that family of Gorillas has certainly been growing at Ibroke.
Will they survive, it seems now the establishment of Politicians, Police and football authorities will now help whomsoever wants that broken club by any means possible to keep them alive? what ever condition being alive means for them
CPR is being offered to Rankers and their tainted 5 stars, it is as James Forrest says truly sickening
Every caller to Radio Snyde or Shortbread should start his call with i am a Celtic fan and a Taxpayer
I think I’m losing credibility in my own house. The others seem to find it quite odd that each time I walk from one room to another I am carrying two radios, tuned in to different stations.
They’re going to find it odder still …….. I’ve just found a third radio in a drawer and I’ve got some string to enable me to wrap it round my neck whilst carrying the other two radios in my hands. Genius!!
At the moment we only have one TV, but I’m working on that….
Mort 15 February, 2012 at 09:13 :
Regardless of their relationship with Whyte, the administrators are not legally allowed to act in the interests of one more than an other. He must be a really good friend for them to risk such reputation damage this could cause.
It’s not just reputational damage that they risk by favouring one creditor. It’s personal liability and criminal charges that should keep them on the straight and narrow.
‘I firmly believe Rangers fans are the best fans in the world’ FPLG, February 2012
I hope the policeman their mob tried to kill in Manchester is given the same air time as Fat Sally.
Ole Johnny Clash- as far as I’m concerned your credibility is untarnished.
And you can take that to the bank.
Mort
Have to get some work done (about 2 days’ worth!), but, on your point about administrators acting fairly, why was there such a battle between HMRC and Whyte as to who the administrator would be? Surely when it comes to the admin process, there’s a lot of leeway when deciding what costs will be cut, where the money stays, who gets paid what etc.?
Of course the administrator won’t sell the assets for nothing – isn’t this where Whyte, as secured creditor, makes his profit, with the dignified consortium waiting in the wings to hand over the readies?
I found the information in the attached link to be very interesting,informative and jellyandicecreamtastic!
Enjoy
Sorry if posted before
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/helpsheets/vas-factsheet.pdf
Morning bhoys, very hard frost, but hun free as ever in the mountains.
Is there a chance that the administrators will null and void season books, and ask punters to pay again ?
The silence from the sfa/spl is hunbelievable, they are obviously complicit in the whole dealings.
Will fifa/uefa just sit back and do nothing, after all it’s one of their members who are making a mockery of their fair play rules.
Unless the people who run the game in scotland are taken to task over this, the games a bogey, the corruption needs to be exposed, but it’s not going to be an easy task, the media in scotland have made their intentions clear, save the hun at any cost.
There must be a hungry jurno out there who is willing to dig and expose them, what is Phil doing ? he must have contacts in the MSM who would be taken seriously.
As it stands they are getting off scott free.
Margaret Curran MP – For one of the country’s poorest constituencies …. Writing to the Treasury pleading for Leninecy in the case of Football Clubs.
Sickening ……
Guys there is a an Establishment Stitch up in the offing here..
Notice the Establishment is no longer defined by religious or even political affiliation merely about exercising control over the masses and ensuring seat at ther great piggy fest.
kitalba says:
15 February, 2012 at 09:00
HMRC given court go-ahead to reclaim offshore tax
Kitalba,
I have no sympathy for anyone caught out by this legislation. The reason they don’t have the money to pay their tax bill is because they have already spent it. I say take everything they owe, that way less people would be inclined to try it again in the future.
I hope thems get stung for every penny they owe and end up defunct in every way.
Jelly and ice cream
I feel physically sick after reading this. Surely to God Whyte has to do time for his actions.
————————-
A JAILED embezzler has told how he helped beleaguered tycoon Craig Whyte sail from one bust company to another, leaving furious creditors out of pocket.
Kevin Sykes, who served an eight-year jail term for a £3million pension fund fraud, set up companies for Whyte to offload liabilities into.
The companies were used to take on liabilities to the taxman and other creditors before going bust, in deals he refers to as “the old switcheroo”.
Sykes, 51, said he never believed Whyte would pay HMRC a penny of the club’s debt should they lose a £49million tax case with Rangers, which could rise to £75million with penalties.
He said: “Let me tell you this, my money is on that not being paid.
“Hypothetically, there would probably be an old switcheroo and an insolvency.
“I guarantee that there are already some insolvency practitioners lined up, and a big firm of lawyers too.
“Somebody might say the intention was always to leave the revenue behind and that was the attraction.
“You could dump £49million of debt, hive the business up and have a new clean start and everybody is happy.
“You could have the assets out under value and there might be development opportunities around the site.
“I think that there will be a hive up to new owners and I think Whyte will do very well from the deal.
“I think it would be very strange for him to get involved if he didn’t think there was a deal to be had.
“The previous owner was probably a guy of good reputation who couldn’t afford to get his hands dirty. But what did Whyte have to lose?
“He has to act within the law and he will say he is acting in the best interests of Rangers.
“Nobody is going to mention the cost to the public purse and that the fans have really paid for it.
“I would have thought there is already somebody waiting in the wings to buy. That’s what would be my opinion, given that level of debt.”
Sykes said there would be no need for Rangers to change the club’s name. He said: “Whatever happens, they will apply under the Insolvency Act to continue using the same name, Rangers Football Club, without changing it.
“Because of the history of the club, they would get leave from the court to continue to use the name.
“There could be an arrangement whereby a lot of people don’t get paid, including the public purse, and the same people could be left running it.”
Sykes believes the next buyer of Rangers would be someone with an impeccable reputation.
He said: “They could possibly buy the club from Whyte free of debt and the old company could be buried
legitimately and their hands could be clean.
“The reality is often that the deal has been done before any formal insolvency dealings have taken place.
“Insolvency practitioners would never admit it on the record but the reality is that they pre-pack companies into administration and out again the same day every day of the week and the taxman gets left behind for millions or even billions of pounds – and that’s legalised cheating of the revenue.”
Sykes met Whyte in the early 1990s, when the pair were young wheeler dealers making their first millions.
They were introduced by Aidan Earley, the former bankrupt behind a “soccer academy” link-up between Rangers and tiny amateur football club Banstead Athletic, in Surrey, as revealed by the Record last week.
Earley’s late brother, Brendan, was Whyte’s right-hand man when the Rangers owner was given a seven-year ban from being a director in 2000.
Sykes said: “When I first met Craig, he was in Glasgow. We proposed the structure to him and he liked the idea of it and we set it up. We set it up through Brendan, the accountant.
“The liabilities would then be taken off balance sheets in special purpose companies in order that they wouldn’t bring his main trading operation down if there was any problem.
“So he was able to be selective in who he paid – and when.
“I’m told a lot of money went to different places and didn’t necessarily end up where it should have done.”
Sykes was secretary in companies – where Whyte was a director – which were dissolved in the late 1990s.
At least 24 companies were wound up while Whyte was a director.
Vital UK was the disastrous venture that led to Whyte’s seven-year ban from being a director.
They collapsed, owing creditors around £400,000, £33,000 in VAT and £280,000 in income tax.
When Vital UK were going bust, all of their assets were sold to a company called Pelcroft. They were immediately sold to another company, which then sold them to another firm.
Subsequent litigation by the liquidators of Vital UK managed to retrieve a large slice of the cash back from Pelcroft for creditors.
Whyte’s ban was handed down by registrar John Simmonds following a trial at the Royal Courts of Justice Companies Court in London in June 2000.
Registrar Simmonds ruled that “the assets of the company (Vital UK) were put out of reach of creditors”.
Despite evidence to the contrary, Whyte’s lawyers claimed he had never been a close business associate of Sykes, which he finds astonishing.
He said: “Considering I used to go out with him and his wife and my wife quite a lot then I would say that’s more than a fleeting acquaintance.
“But wouldn’t you want to play any association with me down?”
In 2008, Sykes and Simon Maya were ordered to pay back £1.5million from a £2.9million theft from a Birmingham company’s pension fund
Busy morning already at work so no time to read back much but have heard a rumour that craig whyte has dissapeared!!! done a runner maybe???
not sure at all how true but would not be surprised!!!
Peter Risdale is criticising the way that Rangers have been run.
No, really!!
Divitbhoy
Everybody has their dues but I thought this bit was interesting and scary too.
HMRC appeared sympathetic, telling the court that “before seeking to enforce demands for tax and interest”, it would take into account the scheme participants’ financial hardship.
But Judge Parker actively discouraged this compassionate approach.
He said the HMRC should consider whether such treatment was fair to other taxpayers who had not avoided taxes, or to those scheme participants who had set aside money to pay any eventual liability.
and
Is it the thin end of a very dangerous wedge, allowing HMRC to get its own way without bothering to argue its case in the courts?
Or will retrospection be used only exceptionally, most commonly in response to artificial tax planning schemes?
What is certain is that backdating legislation is a cheap, quick and certain way of closing a tax loophole, and it may be irresistibly tempting for the government to use the same method again.
My guess from the very beginning was Whyte would end up with the bricks & mortar.
I think the idea all along was to make a pretty penny year on year from the new custodians of the club paying him rent indefinitely.
Good morning from Manchester. Great day yesterday. Discovered how to drink champagne, smoke a cigar and dance all at the same time.
Started series 3 if Breaking Bad. What a life.
In Memoriam Rangers FC
So Farewell
Then
Rangers FC
Your Motto
Was
Aye Ready
As it
Turned Out
You Were Not
Or Were
You?
Keith’s Mum
Says you were all a bunch of fraudsters
SFTB Thribb (aged 17 and a half)
In Memoriam Rangers FC
So Farewell
Then
Rangers FC
You recently
Claimed
100 years of
Unsurpassed Dignity
But You Died
About 75 years
Shy of that
Total
Keith’s Mum says you were all a shower of bigots
STB Thribb (aged 17 and a half)
In Memoriam Rangers FC
So Farewell
Then
Rangers FC
Born in 1872 or was it 3
Winners of 54 or was it 53
Titles
You never
Were
Much good
With figures
Which May
Have
Played a Part
In your Demise
Keith’s mum knows a good bolt-hole in Monaco
SFTB Thribb (aged 17 and a half)
there must be the very real possibility of no new custodians. be amusing if he’s left with a Whyte Elephant.
“The previous owner was probably a guy of good reputation who couldn’t afford to get his hands dirty.”
Aye, that’ll be right.
People need to relax, the convicted conman is talking rubbish. It’s not the case that every day companies already facing tax evasion charges get prepacked and sold off within the same day to escape tax liabilities.
Can anyone tell me when today scheduled press conference is due to take place and what concerns it will be addressing ?
Hail Hail
jock steins celtic says:
15 February, 2012 at 09:32
Asda will take it off his hands.
Hail Hail
Whyte skyed the park last night.
Hiding in Monaco