Surely the terms of the loans will be you only have to pay it back if you reach the ripe old age of 1690 or something like that?
This is where it all gets murky again. If the loans are owed to the trust and not RFC, as I have heard said, who are the loans repayable to? The trust no longer exists. It was dissolved when the club stopped using EBT's (so av been told).
It didn't rule that on ALL of them, though. The two judges that upheld the appeal said that the majority of the payments could be legally classified as loans. There are still 30-odd that are being classified as remuniration<sp> If yesterday's ruling means that the "loans" aren't an additional form of "wages", it still leaves the ones ruled as not being "loans". I think I'll refrain from the inverted commas for any future posts
Neil Patey has said that some of them will have been arranged in a circular beneficiary arrangement meaning it passes from the trust to the employee's familys. In that case, no-one will need to pay them back. For outstanding tax on these loans, even if the employee is now liable, I don't think it's HMRC's style to go after them as much as the corporate bodies so it looks like your Barry Fergusons and Sounesses might not owe anything either from repayment or tax.
Yes indeedy. Vindication of what Rangers have said all along and against the "we telt ye's and ye's widny listen". Thanks bhoys.
I know. What's weird Phil been saying? Or are the Guards investigating an apparant suicide in rural Donegal?
Fuck them, Gambol. The majority of the Internet tims are hypocritical mhongos who are not interested in balanced views and only want to point score as to claim some sort of righteousness. I've left you some rep. PS. This applies to the internet Rangers fans too, though this site seems to be pretty free from it.
You still are. This ruling will reduce the outstanding amount by about £40 million or thereabouts. Some of the employees' arrangements were still considered to be liable to the oldco and constituted tax being avoided/evaded. Basically, if you're accused of stealing a lorry but found guilty of nicking a car, you're still a thief What the appeal decision does do, though, is change the whole narrative of the end of Murray's time - a sugardaddy instead of Whyte could've absorbed all of this hanging over the club and come sailing out after the BTC with Rangers still in the SPL and still operating under the same company. However, that would make HMRC much more likely to appeal (I think it's 30/70 that they will as there's no money for them to recoup and it'll cost - had the company still been trading, I think they would appeal to attempt to recoup more revenue) The decision is still absolutely massive (IMO) but it's not the vindication nor declaration of innocence some would have you believe.
But the ones that weren't ruled as loans, I thought they weren't ruled as non-loans either, almost like a not proven scenario, I'm probably just making that up though.
Um, possibly The original bill presumed that the payments were taxable (and penalties and interest etc etc were added). Most of them are now shown to be loans in a legal sense and not taxable. So, in short, **** knows There appears to still be a bill, though, which suggests to my non-tax-expert brain that they were taxable remuneration payments.
So, let me get this straight. Your club was put into administration and is now to be liquidated and it turns out you did nothing wrong? Ouch.
I agree with some of what you are saying, I went over to the garage there for milk and saw the front of one of the rags, it read: "Murray accuses taxman of ruining club" Well, no David, that was you, as soon as you sold to Shytey, we were ****ed. Regarding the bold bit, Rangers have been found not to have broken any rules regarding the EBT's. Sure, it might've been "immoral" but that's big business for you.
