Derby AGAIN

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Jiffie

Well-Known Member
Apr 6, 2020
3,675
1,275
113
72
The Mail are running a story that Derby's prospective buyers have taken a step back, they want HMRC to cut the 30mil they are owed to 7.5mil, something that HMRC have never done for any other club in administration as far as I am aware. The belief is that any lessening of the tax debt would have far reaching consequences and open the HMRC floodgates up to more challenges and maybe even retrospective action from other clubs.

The story claims they maybe facing liquidation.
 
Maybe a bargaining ploy, I’d be surprised if HMRC will take any less than that are owed.

As pointed out it would set a challengeable precedent for all bankruptcy proceedings, I would be amazed if HMRC agreed to it, I can just see parasite tax lawyers already looking at offshore accounts to put the top up of their retirement funds into when challenging on behalf of their clients.
 
Maybe a bargaining ploy, I’d be surprised if HMRC will take any less than that are owed.

At one time and over the years, there was an implication that HMRC would accept a compromise if the likely proceeds of any admistration meant they would receive a lesser amount than that owed in the final distribution of realised assets.

However, since December last year, HMRC have been elevated to secondary preferential creditors in any administration. That means they rank behind Creditors with a fixed charge, Adminstrators Fees/expenses, and Prefential creditors (money owed but unpaid to employees), but ahead of prescribed creditors (ringfenced fund), secured creditors with a floating charge (banks), non preferential creditors (suppliers) and shareholders (Morris etc).

Unless there is something fundamentally flawed in their claim. there is no way HMRC will dilute their legitmate right to unpaid taxes and contributions with their new position. That would create a precedent and undermine their efforts over many years to raise their status in insolvency proceedings.

If you asking me how I know, it's because I've been there many moons ago in a previous life, but long before they finally got their status elevation.