HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS is being blamed for the expected collapse of Rangers FC.
The Scottish club announced on 13 February that directors had lodged papers in Edinburgh's court stating their intention to enter administration.
The management have said HMRC is likely to keep it tied up in court over a tax tribunal for years which would affect Rangers' ability to continue to trade.
Duff & Phelps insolvency partners Paul Clark, David Grier and David Whitehouse, all partners at Duff & Phelps, have been drafted in to assist with negotiations.
Rangers FC and the taxman are battling out a compensation case over the club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).
HMRC claims to be owed £24m in unpaid PAYE tax due to the club using EBTs which provide employees with non-repayable interest free loans.
However, in a question and answers section of the Rangers' website, management said: "Even if Rangers wins the tribunal, HMRC has made it plain that they will ‘appeal, appeal and appeal' the decision,"
"The practical effect of this will be to plunge the club into years of ongoing uncertainty. It would also mean the club having to pay immediately a range of liabilities to HMRC."
Chairman Craig Whyte said he was keen to "rid" the club of its tax case in an interview to fans on the club's website.
"If we can get rid of the tax case which has been hanging over us for the past two years like a dark cloud then we can move forward with confidence," he said.
Rangers has about two weeks to reach an agreement with the taxman before it enters administration.
Let's hope HMRC have a stronger case than in the recent one involving RedKnapp and Mandaric. If they do then they should pursue the case. If the tax is due Rangers should pay up!
Posted by: johnc, 14 Feb 2012 | 13:02
"Even if Rangers wins the tribunal, HMRC has made it plain that they will ‘appeal, appeal and appeal' the decision,"
If HMRC have said they will constantly appeal the court decision until it goes in their favour, then it stops being a court case and more of a witch hunt?
Also, to appeal a court decision, do you not need to supply new evidence that would have otherwise changed the original outcome of the case? Surely you can't keep appealing a verdict just because you don't agree with the judge's decision!
Posted by: Confused Slightly?, 15 Feb 2012 | 00:00
You may also like
If budgeting is to have any value at all, it needs a radical overhaul. In today's dynamic marketplace, budgeting can no longer serve as a company's only management system; it must integrate with and support dedicated strategy management systems, process improvement systems, and the like. In this paper, Professor Peter Horvath and Dr Ralf Sauter present what's wrong with the current approach to budgeting and how to fix it.
In this white paper CCH provide checklists to help accountants and finance professionals both in practice and in business examine these issues and make plans. Also includes a case study of a large commercial organisation working through the first year of mandatory iXBRL filing.