Share this content
11

Where is carlh?

Where is carlh?

Didn't find your answer?

Must be a bit of a blow, that the Court of Session have found in favour of HMRC in the Rangers tax case. http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=8213f5a6-8980-...

Replies (11)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
04th Nov 2015 17:47

I have not yet read the full judgment, but

I think I'm right in saying they could appeal to the Supreme Court, so it's possibly not over yet. Also, the Rangers planning was not exactly implemented well, so it may be distinguishable from other EBT loan planning.

Thanks (0)
By The VAT Doctor
05th Nov 2015 22:24

Sheep, cows?

Tidy manure is still manure. And this type of planning stinks to high heaven.  Saw today that the avoiders barrister of choice Jolyon Maugham QC, was spouting on about how the latest decision is wrong.  Considering he earns his 30 pieces from clients such as this, not a surprising view.

Thanks (3)
By James Green
04th Nov 2015 17:59

The ruling has give HMRC confidence to issue APN's for EBTs

We inherited a batch of clients from a firm who merged with us who had undertaken extensive EBT planning.

The providers have been informed this afternoon – and have then informed us and the clients – that HMRC now believe that the issue of APN’s is appropriate for EBT planning, whereas they had held off from this before todays decision.

The effect of the APN is tantamount to the case losing at this stage (although I too understand that it may go to the UK Supreme Court) despite a couple of half-hearted suggestions of further JR’s.

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
04th Nov 2015 19:44

Appeal
I too agree that this matter might be the subject of an appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

It seems that the Court of Session accepted the simple proposition that employee emoluments had been redirected to a third party but remained taxable emoluments of the employees concerned.

David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By rorydowney
05th Nov 2015 09:28

Appeal

Unfortunately it is not Ranger's (IL) decision, it will be BDO, who may not wish to build up more fees on a case that will see them benefit much.

Unless it is beneficial to the creditors of the Old company, it should be a foregone conclusion

Thanks (0)
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
05th Nov 2015 10:13

Edited as incorrect

rorydowney wrote:

Unfortunately it is not Ranger's (IL) decision, it will be BDO, who may not wish to build up more fees on a case that will see them benefit much.

Unless it is beneficial to the creditors of the Old company, it should be a foregone conclusion

 

 

Edit: Had not realised the Murray companies were in liquidation, must have slept through that bit of news in January.. With Premier Properties gone we must be running out of property developers left in Edinburgh; now quite a list of those that have drowned since 2007.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Justin Bryant
05th Nov 2015 12:42

Having now read the judgment
Especially para 60, the loan point is irrelevant. HMRC lost on that issue. The court is saying that the contribution to the EBT is taxable under s62 ITEPA 2003 as the individual is redirecting his earnings to be paid to a third party (the trustees). This is Gosh's new point. Earnings are received by employee but redirected. In the case of the footballers they clearly made a direction to their employer to make the contributions to the EBT by way of letters which arguably formed part of their employment contract. But in the case of the executives, contributions to the EBT did not form part of their contract, were entirely discretionary and were based on standard practice/an understanding between them and employer. Worryingly, their contributions were still taxed as earnings under the redirection of earnings doctrine.

Roberts and the recent SC Forde and McHugh case (concerning NIC) were distinguished for conflicting reasons. Seems like a bad judgment to me.

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
05th Nov 2015 19:31

A possibility
It may come to pass that, for reasons connected to the particular taxpayers, the assessments are not further appealed & so the legal rulings / interpretations of the Scottish Court of Session (equivalent to the English Court of Appeal) are not subject to re-examination in the UK Supreme Court.

They would then be in effect binding on lower courts & tribunals until another case is taken further. (Technically they may not be binding authority in England & Wales, but it would be a brave tribunal that chose to ignore the judgment.)

AWEB members may have their own feelings about that.

David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carlh
06th Nov 2015 09:28

thx cheeky, but I never did/offer EBTs, not my thing, also you can blame Rangers as they shot their foot off for not doing it right, since it had quite clearly - in writing - paid over employee's earnings into the trust. It was a redirection of employee earnings. simples, 

so cheeky 24 hours not 6 months :)

 

Thanks (0)
Stepurhan
By stepurhan
06th Nov 2015 09:54

Some confusion

carlh wrote:

thx cheeky, but I never did/offer EBTs, not my thing, also you can blame Rangers as they shot their foot off for not doing it right, since it had quite clearly - in writing - paid over employee's earnings into the trust. It was a redirection of employee earnings. simples, 

so cheeky 24 hours not 6 months :)

 

But the only cases you have ever cited as supporting you, Dextra and Sempra, were both EBT  cases. Why have you cited them as supporting your view on trusts if you've never been involved in that sort of thing?

For that matter, when I accused you of self-promotion, you denied that you were the one actually offering trust planning at all. (specifically you said you did not own the scheme, but it would still be self-promotion if you were gaining from selling someone else's scheme, so that is a semantic difference) Are you now saying you've never offered ANY trust planning?

By the way, the Sempra decision has been judged incorrect in this judgement, so is no longer a legal precedent that supports your view. Quite the opposite in fact. Any comments on that? (Paragraph 75 of the judgement as kindly pointed out by david winch in the news story comments)

Thanks (0)
avatar
By carlh
06th Nov 2015 10:53

@stephurn

I personally use RT's these are not EBT's, they work for me and others I meet, and if I see if they can be benificial to someones situation I speak up.

clearly you don't want to understand, investigate these further, just an excuse to flame/attack me, if you were genuinely wanting to look at this there are many other channels/routes to go at and many other people to speak to.

a 5 sec google search finds many such channels pick one and contact them. I know you may not have the time to do this, being busy and all that, So I took the first one on the google list and sent it you via PM

Enjoy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Share this content