Murray Group (Rangers) tax case - decision today?

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

As indicated, I have penned a piece for this website on my view on the Rangers case.

This is available now.

As with all these articles, they compress and inevitably shorten the arguments and as such some of the nuances are not really brought out.

The decision is public property. My article is public property now as well.

I'm happy to debate my opinion and views here, via PM or email.

This decision is a milestone. Please take time to read it and understand it. If you are struggling to understand it please persevere as it will help you.

If you have questions that you consider are too simple or risk you appearing a fool, I would encourage you to ask them because often the simplest questions bring the greatest value.

It is my opinion that understanding the nuances and implications of this decision will be a crucial factor in weighing future decisions.

Can you provide a link please. I didn't see it.

[bitfrustrated]

Afraid I'd disagree.

The trusts are NOT the employer. You have no employment agreement with them. The agent (probably part of the promoter group) was the employer.

Not according to my tax returns.

The trusts still exist. They received a contribution, made a loan and are now required to look after the beneficiary. That in itself is potentially a problem for another day.

My mistake, the trust is dormant.

The promoter, said to you. "Do this and that and your tax bill becomes this". They may have said "We have an opinion from somebody we've paid and who works for us, that this is "compliant" with all tax law"

Your tax affairs are YOUR responsibility. Could/should you have tested the above statements with a professional, i.e. somebody trained in accountancy and tax and who has to meet the standards of the bodies he/she belongs to? HMRC would certainly say that a "reasonable man" would almost certainly have done so.

Can you rely upon an opinion given to a third party? Difficult territory but in this case a QC is a very difficult person to sue as they give an opinion, not a statement of fact.

Unless you ran this past another professional adviser (and most promoters as firms/individuals are not professionals) I'm afraid that you need to do yourself a favour and bury thoughts of retribution unless you have endless patience and deep pockets.

The promoter presented himself as an expert in the area. In this day and age, myself and obviously others, follow the advice of the experts, be it doctors, mechanics, builders, umbrella companies. If I pay these professionals for a job that backfires, it's reasonable to expect a compensation.

I'm not absolving myself of the responsibility, I sleep walked into this mess. But it's not excusable for the promoter to charge hefty fees for their risky schemes, and dispensing the enquiry letter as a "standard procedure". Akin to a dodgy mechanic installing worn out break pads for a fee, then claiming there's no problems with the screeching noise.

And I never suggested suing promoters would be easy, just possible, and hopefully financially rewarding

[DotasScandal]

Can you provide a link please. I didn't see it.

What the latest Rangers ruling means for EBT contractors :: Contractor UK

[webberg]

Not according to my tax returns.

The promoter presented himself as an expert in the area. In this day and age, myself and obviously others, follow the advice of the experts, be it doctors, mechanics, builders, umbrella companies. If I pay these professionals for a job that backfires, it's reasonable to expect a compensation.

I'm not absolving myself of the responsibility, I sleep walked into this mess. But it's not excusable for the promoter to charge hefty fees for their risky schemes, and dispensing the enquiry letter as a "standard procedure". Akin to a dodgy mechanic installing worn out break pads for a fee, then claiming there's no problems with the screeching noise.

And I never suggested suing promoters would be easy, just possible, and hopefully financially rewarding

I'd be interested in seeing who your employer is in that case.

The promoters don't belong to any professional organisation which has a compensation fund in place, so far as I can.

We looked at this with lawyers about a year ago and concluded that the risk/reward was not worth it.

[StrengthInNumbers]

First to Fourth Respondents – non-participating parties

So Murray group did not even responded - no QC and HMRC got easy way to impress the judges. What a **** up by 1st 4 respondents.

[bitfrustrated]

I'd be interested in seeing who your employer is in that case.

The promoters don't belong to any professional organisation which has a compensation fund in place, so far as I can.

We looked at this with lawyers about a year ago and concluded that the risk/reward was not worth it.

I'm not surprised, if I was a promoter I'd also make sure I'm hard to sue. Though all it takes is 1 precedent, and dominos might fall.

Thanks for your input though!

[centurian]

I'm not surprised, if I was a promoter I'd also make sure I'm hard to sue. Though all it takes is 1 precedent, and dominos might fall.

Pretty much nails it on the head. People engage these guys to be incredibly creative at finding ways to avoid having to hand over money to HMRC, using every conceivable legal means possible

But their first priority is covering themselves - and they will use any and every trick available to make sure they keep hold of the cash they have. To expect them to have done otherwise, given the nature of what they do - is extreme naivety bordering on total stupidity.

[webberg]

First to Fourth Respondents – non-participating parties

So Murray group did not even responded - no QC and HMRC got easy way to impress the judges. What a **** up by 1st 4 respondents.

The first 4 respondents had no money to fund the appeal.

[bitfrustrated]

Pretty much nails it on the head. People engage these guys to be incredibly creative at finding ways to avoid having to hand over money to HMRC, using every conceivable legal means possible

But their first priority is covering themselves - and they will use any and every trick available to make sure they keep hold of the cash they have. To expect them to have done otherwise, given the nature of what they do - is extreme naivety bordering on total stupidity.

Creative indeed, not just in terms of HMRC, but also scheme participants. As soon as their schemes stop attracting fresh punters, they switch the business model to a paid for "scheme defence". Should keep the lights on for the next 5 years or so. Scary part, they do suck in a fair share of scheme participants, as in theory, who'd mount a better defence than scheme inventors?

How's that for a long term business plan!?

[StrengthInNumbers]

The first 4 respondents had no money to fund the appeal.

Where will/can the money come now for appeal?