Doesn't work that way. You either win or lose. HMRC says you owe it. You say you don't. You take it to tribunal/appeal and the tax lawyers get involved.
IR35 being an example in my own experience. Also, look what they did to Barclays recently. They changed the rules and hit them retrospectively. That's how HMRC rolls.
What was in our Phil's blog today , a lot of comments on Celtic Quick news kept referring to it , didn't seem to be good news for Rangers !!!
They're ****s. Back when the VAT man and the tax man were seperate entities it was the VAT man who had the fearsome powers, yet it was Inland Revenue who were regarded as the bogey man and the one to be afraid of because of the way they operate. Bully tactics and snidey interpretations of their own (often deliberately blurry) rules. Did you know tax inspectors get a percentage of anything they claw back using those tactics? Fought the ****s twice and won. The snidey ****s.
Campbell Ogilvie, Scottish FA President: “In light of today’s comments by Sir David Murray, and the ongoing speculation surrounding my role as President of the Scottish FA and my previous employment as a director of Rangers FC, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the following points: “I was aware of the EBT scheme in operation at Rangers during my time at the club and, indeed, was a member. The existence of the scheme was published in Rangers’ annual accounts. “My role at Rangers, until the mid-90s, included finalising the paperwork for player registrations. As confirmed by Sir David Murray today, it was never my role to negotiate contracts during my time at Rangers. It is also worth noting that, since the mid-90s, I was not responsible for the drafting or administering of player contracts. “I ceased being Company Secretary in 2002 and became General Secretary responsible for football strategy, in effect becoming the main point of contact between the club and the respective league and governing bodies. “In relation to the recent investigation, I can confirm that I asked to be excluded from the Scottish FA’s Independent Inquiry into Rangers. In the interests of good governance it was absolutely right that this was the case. “I am proud and privileged to be President of the Scottish FA during an exciting period in its history. I have an excellent relationship with our chief executive, Stewart Regan, and the Board of Directors. I would like to thank them for their support throughout this process and look forward to new and exciting challenges ahead at the Scottish FA.” http://www.scottishf...D=3&newsID=9490
Let me say at the outset an excellent post Dev, fair play to you. It is a wee bit discerning that some of the Rangers brethren on this forum think that the tax inspectors randomly bill people and companies for outstanding debts irrespectively if they were owed or not. Surely it cannot be fair for HRMC to bill Rangers and not Celtic after all the swearing of allegiances the bears do at every match. According to our lack of knowledge friends they just pick on someone and bill, so it doesn't make sense that they pick on poor Rangers who never cheated Queen or Country out of anything or any money.
You don't know that. Regardless, Rangers may win the dispute, they may not. It's up to the tax lawyers to sort that out.
Of course it's semantic. You, I, or anybody else on the outside looking in don't know the material facts of the dispute. The tax lawyers are in possession of the facts.
It was an accountant who dealt a lot with IR who told me they get a percentage of what they claw back, Tommy.
I think I must have missed the bit where he said " I can categorically state, and provide evidence to substantiate, that the contracts lodged with the governing body - whom I worked for - and the contracts offered by rangers - whom I worked for - were one and the same " ....or is he just a lying bastard, caught out by issuing a statement which fails to deny that of which he is accused.
