Journalist
Share this content

Rangers lose tax case replay

4th Nov 2015
Journalist
Share this content
Glasgow Rangers gates
istock_martin_mccarthy_gr

HMRC has won its tax case appeal against Glasgow Rangers after judges ruled that payments made by the football club’s former owners under the Employee Benefit Trusts (EBT) scheme ‘were taxable earnings’.

HMRC argued the payments had technically been ‘earned’ by Rangers employees, but had lost appeals at tax tribunals in 2012 and 2014. They avoided a hattrick of defeats as their appeal was upheld by three judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh yesterday.

The scheme involved payments of up to £48m to various offshore trusts set up for footballers and other staff employed under the umbrella of former Rangers owner Sir David Murray's group of companies. The Murray group contended that the payments - made through the now outlawed EBT from 2001 to 2010 - were loans and not taxable income.

However, in the latest decision on what has become known as the ‘big tax case’, Court of Session judges ruled that if income was derived from an employee's services in their capacity as an employee, it was an emolument or earnings and “thus assessable to income tax”.

‘In accords with common sense’

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Drummond Young said HMRC’s argument “accords with common sense.

“If the law were otherwise, an employee could readily avoid tax by redirecting income to members of his family to meet outgoings that he would normally pay…

“The funds are ultimately derived as consideration for the employee's services, and on that basis they are properly to be considered emoluments or earnings.”

An unfair sporting advantage?

The judgement will not impact financially on the current Rangers setup, as the club went into administration in 2012, and then liquidation. The club then reformed in the Scottish third division in 2012 as a ‘newco’ consortium initially led by businessman Charles Green.

The tax liability falls on Rangers ‘oldco’, and will be considered by liquidators BDO alongside claims from other creditors from the club's 2012 financial collapse.

However, it remains unclear whether the verdict will lead to any sporting sanctions, as opposition fans have argued that the scheme allowed Rangers to gain an unfair sporting advantage by attracting players who otherwise may have not come to the club.

Analysis from Rob Wilson, Sport Finance Expert, Sheffield Hallam University

“Four or five years ago HMRC made a clear statement that they were going after professional sport teams that, in their opinion, were reusing money that was being deducted as national insurance contributions. This was being used to prop up various football clubs with short term cashflow problems and countless clubs got into trouble.

“Rangers were in trouble before their most recent takeover, and were served a winding-up petition from HMRC as well, so it’s fair to say it’s not new, but they should have known better.

“In terms of gaining an unfair advantage, absolutely they have. They’ve been able to use money that isn’t officially theirs, which has allowed them to field a more competitive squad. How much of an advantage we’ll never know, but I think we can safely say that the evidence points to clubs that spend more money being more successful.

“In terms of punishment, it’s more likely the Scottish Football Association (SFA) will take action rather than any government body. Although HMRC has been posturing about winding clubs up we haven’t seen them follow through on that for one reason or another – normally because someone comes in and saves the club, pays the bill and off they go again.

“Between them the regulatory bodies will look to take some sort of action, assuming the case is proved. Sanctions could be anything from a transfer embargo to a points deduction or refusal of entry to the league above if they were to be promoted.

“If the SFA were to sanction Rangers that would have an impact on the football club’s financial position moving forward. If they didn’t get promoted they wouldn’t receive greater revenue in the next season and that would damage their future financial prospects. We talk about off and on-field performance being inextricably linked, and again all the evidence we’ve turned up at the university supports that.

HMRC ‘will always challenge’ avoidance schemes

Commenting after their appeal was upheld a HMRC spokesperson said: “HMRC has a responsibility to make sure people pay what they owe and will always challenge tax arrangements where we do not think they work.

 “As supported by the decision in this case, HMRC’s view is that Employment Benefit Trust avoidance schemes do not work.

“HMRC has collected over £1.3bn in tax through 1,500 users of similar schemes.

“HMRC will continue to settle appeals by agreement where appropriate but will if necessary continue to litigate cases where settlements cannot be agreed.”

Rangers fan groups have criticised HMRC's approach to the tax case, accusing them of wasting taxpayers money chasing a 'phantom debt' from a company that no longer exists. 

Ruling gives HMRC ‘confidence’ to issue APNs for EBTs?

In a follow-on from the case, AccountingWEB user James Green commented on an Any Answers thread that the ruling has apparently given HMRC “confidence to issue APNs for EBTs.

“We inherited a batch of clients from a firm who merged with us who had undertaken extensive EBT planning”, commented Green. “The providers have been informed this afternoon – and have then informed us and the clients – that HMRC now believe that the issue of APNs is appropriate for EBT planning, whereas they had held off from this before today’s decision.

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

The verdict may still be challenged in the UK Supreme Court by Sir David Murray or Rangers ‘oldco’ liquidators BDO.

Replies (55)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By TMR
12th Dec 2015 09:41

Tried that. The response was HMRC will only discuss AFTER the loans have been repaid, but the protection notices would remain on the company. It was even suggested a complete unwinding back to the company, the response to that was HMRC would regard that as falling within Part 7 a and therefore definitely a paye/nic charge would be raised following FA 2011, on such a transaction. Asked what kind of investments could be made by the Trustees if the loans were repaid and what restrictions the trustees would be under post FA 2011, the response was each investment would be scrutinised by HMRC at the time and they would decide whether Part 7 a applied. Thus unfettered access to the funds when in the company to invest has now become entrapped in an HMRC managed operation.

When mentioned that doesn't give much appetite to repay the loans, HMRC response was they knew the loans would never be repaid hence the paye/nic notices should stand. It was indicated a Follower's notice would likely apply following the Ranger's result and we would be open to litigate, or we could come to some negotiated settlement, the figures from which don't make nice reading. Heads HMRC wins, Tails the taxpayer loses. C'est la vie.

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TMR
12th Dec 2015 10:33

Magna Carta

The Magna Carta was written to protect the common man from the Crown, seems time erodes even the most basic of common principles. 

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
12th Dec 2015 11:56

Additional protection

TMR wrote:

The Magna Carta was written to protect the common man from the Crown, seems time erodes even the most basic of common principles. 

We now have the additional protection of the Human Rights Act 1998.

David

Thanks (0)
avatar
By TMR
13th Dec 2015 08:47

Fodder

Sounds like fodder for lawyers, be far quicker and less stressful to give it all to charity, go bankrupt and live off the state.

A lifetime of hard work, taking risks, employing people, paying substantial taxes, saving and planning for retirement all seemed to be a responsible way to conduct one's life....... and they say God works in mysterious ways. Hey ho!

Thanks (0)
David Winch
By David Winch
13th Dec 2015 11:26

Law or accountancy

When deciding matters of principle, tax is a branch of the law.  In matters of calculation, tax is a branch of accountancy.

David

Thanks (0)

Pages