Murray Group (Rangers) tax case - decision today? Murray Group (Rangers) tax case - decision today?
Page 1 of 21 12311 ... LastLast
Posts 1 to 10 of 205
  1. #1

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    3,887

    Default Murray Group (Rangers) tax case - decision today?

    Rangers tax case appeal judgement to be issued on Wednesday - Football - Eurosport British

    I have no idea what the source of the above might be, but if true this promises to be an interesting day!
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

  2. #2

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    3,887
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

  3. #3

  4. #4

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by turnover View Post
    Looks like HMRC won.
    Yep, not good
    STRENGTH - "A river cuts through rock not because of its power, but its persistence"

  5. #5

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    428

    Default

    Be interesting to see what this actually means though:


    He added: “We accordingly conclude that the primary argument presented for HMRC is correct: the payments made by the respondents to the Trustee of the Principal Trust in respect of employees were emoluments or earnings and are accordingly subject to income tax. Furthermore, those payments were made at the time of payment to the trustee of the Principal Trust, with the result that the obligation to deduct tax under the PAYE system fell on the employer who made such a payment.”
    STRENGTH - "A river cuts through rock not because of its power, but its persistence"

  6. #6

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    3,887

    Default Think breathe act

    I think the opening few lines on the commentary indicate an HMRC victory but...

    We need to read and digest the whole decision.

    We need to consider the differences between the case and other contractor situations

    We need to consider just how applicable the decision might be.

    We now, more than ever, need to explore alternative analysis if (and it's a very big if) the EBT argument is a bust.

    Time for calm heads and cool brains.
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

  7. #7

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by regron View Post
    Be interesting to see what this actually means though:


    He added: “We accordingly conclude that the primary argument presented for HMRC is correct: the payments made by the respondents to the Trustee of the Principal Trust in respect of employees were emoluments or earnings and are accordingly subject to income tax. Furthermore, those payments were made at the time of payment to the trustee of the Principal Trust, with the result that the obligation to deduct tax under the PAYE system fell on the employer who made such a payment.”
    Or, in your case, the scheme provider?

  8. #8

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    3,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DonkeyRhubarb View Post
    Or, in your case, the scheme provider?
    Agreed.

    The assessments at the heart of this decision are on the EMPLOYER for PAYE.

    A key difference.

    Also the judgement requires that the trustee operates at the "request" of the beneficiary. This is partly peculiar to Scottish trusts which have the "protector" clauses. Another key difference.

    We will have to await the full decision later today to study other differences.
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

  9. #9

    Godlike


    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    5,450

    Default

    Given the PAYE obligaton falls on the employer in the context of EBT schemes this would presumably mean the promoter (or similar). Not the user, at least for those where the user was not self employed.

    The follow up question is whether that liability can be transferred to the user. Generally this is not the case with unpaid paye obligations.

    Could it be the case that this become a somewhat pyrrhic judgement for HMRC (assuming it stands) in as much as it may not impact users and the employers at the time are now long gone.

  10. #10

    Super poster


    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    WTT Consulting Ltd - London and online
    Posts
    3,887

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ASB View Post
    Given the PAYE obligaton falls on the employer in the context of EBT schemes this would presumably mean the promoter (or similar). Not the user, at least for those where the user was not self employed.

    The follow up question is whether that liability can be transferred to the user. Generally this is not the case with unpaid paye obligations.

    Could it be the case that this become a somewhat pyrrhic judgement for HMRC (assuming it stands) in as much as it may not impact users and the employers at the time are now long gone.
    Good points above and ones that will be tested in the months ahead.
    Best Forum Adviser & Forum Personality of the Year 2018.

    (No, me neither).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •