Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside. - Page 478 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.


Speirs  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Was Speirs talking the truth or lying

    • Yes
      54
    • No
      10

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

This latest article is very strange. All those accountants and experts dealing with administration in 2012 and not one of them found this rather large error by HMRC.

Erm aye ok

Not one of the thousands of Kerrydale Street accountants notices it either. Shockingly poor work really. 

I blame EK_Celt. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

This latest article is very strange. All those accountants and experts dealing with administration in 2012 and not one of them found this rather large error by HMRC.

Erm aye ok

Remember Rangers was the test case after the larger English club settled their EBT liabilites at the time. This was all pretty much new law, and hadn't been tested. HMRC was looking for a target and applied the 65% penalty rate, probably on the basis at the time that Rangers didnt have the resources to challenge.

Happy to send you across a copy of this weeks tax journal, which sets all this out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ShedTA said:

Agreed it's crazy. Big gamble on promotion. Difference is most utd fans agree, whereas in rangers case it's just denial.

Nah. We'll just go bust and come back again :ok:

Utd fan in my boozer was saying that quite a lot of their squad arn't on long term contacts, so if they dont make it, they'll be let go to limit the damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Stu101 said:

Remember Rangers was the test case after the larger English club settled their EBT liabilites at the time. This was all pretty much new law, and hadn't been tested. HMRC was looking for a target and applied the 65% penalty rate, probably on the basis at the time that Rangers didnt have the resources to challenge.

Happy to send you across a copy of this weeks tax journal, which sets all this out.

Is it not the case

(I’m claiming no knowledge or insight, I read it here or twitter)

that HMRC are just not pursuing the charges, as ultimately it’s pointless, as there’s fuck all in the pot anyway, so it’s a waste of resources to fight it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ShedTA said:

The full bill would still have been £68m. It changes nothing. Rangers did not have £68m. The reduction is HMRC's refusing to contest the penalties side of the claim, non contested cos there was nothing in the pot to pay it anyway.

It's old news.

Just read in the Times that HMRC are blaming it on a wee girl who had just started a week.  She never got the proper induction in to how to use a calculator.  Poor lassie carrying the can for all those fake titles in the last 8 years.  What a burden to bear (if you pardon the hun)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mox said:

https://twitter.com/hmrcpressoffice/status/1195380869529255938?s=21

And that's the end of that chapter, a 24 hour myth, decent effort from all involved.

Have you read the letter Mox? It just says they didn't make any mistakes. 

It doesn't say they aren't reducing the figure. 

We'll find out the truth of it in the fullness of time. Not that it matters anymore really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mox said:

https://twitter.com/hmrcpressoffice/status/1195380869529255938?s=21

And that's the end of that chapter, a 24 hour myth, decent effort from all involved.

The thing is, the most vocal staunch “Rangers Da’s“ will completely ignore this.

1 hour ago, RenfrewBlue said:

Have you read the letter Mox? It just says they didn't make any mistakes. 

It doesn't say they aren't reducing the figure. 

We'll find out the truth of it in the fullness of time. Not that it matters anymore really. 

I think this is the answer below???

20 hours ago, sbcmfc said:

Is it not the case

(I’m claiming no knowledge or insight, I read it here or twitter)

that HMRC are just not pursuing the charges, as ultimately it’s pointless, as there’s fuck all in the pot anyway, so it’s a waste of resources to fight it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, sbcmfc said:

The thing is, the most vocal staunch “Rangers Da’s“ will completely ignore this.

I think this is the answer below???

 

Probably. However I'm holding out hope it's a fuck up on HMRC's end just to see some of the eejits like John James explode with their frothing obsession. 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, sbcmfc said:

Is it not the case

(I’m claiming no knowledge or insight, I read it here or twitter)

that HMRC are just not pursuing the charges, as ultimately it’s pointless, as there’s fuck all in the pot anyway, so it’s a waste of resources to fight it?

HMRC was after a headline case to force others to settle. Every other club settled until they came to us. HRMC basically said the bill was 'x'. That basicaly put off buyers for Rangers because the tax bill was so large.

So if you were a shareholder, their is a potential claim against HMRC if they applied the wrong 65% penalty rate. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stu101 said:

HMRC was after a headline case to force others to settle. Every other club settled until they came to us. HRMC basically said the bill was 'x'. That basicaly put off buyers for Rangers because the tax bill was so large.

So if you were a shareholder, their is a potential claim against HMRC if they applied the wrong 65% penalty rate. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You sir are one of the thousands of absolute spastics that make the Huns the wonderful laughing stock we all know today. Well done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stu101 said:

HMRC was after a headline case to force others to settle. Every other club settled until they came to us. HRMC basically said the bill was 'x'. That basicaly put off buyers for Rangers because the tax bill was so large.

So if you were a shareholder, their is a potential claim against HMRC if they applied the wrong 65% penalty rate. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surely Aberdeen Asset Management which settled in 2013 were a much bigger fish (even though the repayment was lower) than Rangers.

I love this victim pish of they were out to get us. We were a test case. Rangers flaunted tax rules and like over 600 other companies who used EBTs were asked to pay the tax on them.

The dispute HMRC had with Rangers was legitimate (and proven to be so in a court of law) and if it put off potential buyers then that was on Rangers not HMRC.

Rangers were a loss making football club propped up by a 'wealthy' owner.  They had 10's of millions of debt to Lloyds, the small tax case, other clubs and creditors. Nobody was going near them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...