Disinformation and Deceit
23/10/2011 333 Comments
Coming hot on the heels of the public acceptance of truth that this blog has been bringing you, the disinformation campaign has stepped up a gear.
A rumour has recently started to take hold that HMRC’s case against Rangers is in trouble because of a 6-year rule for bringing assessments against taxpayers. This rumour, which we will see is entirely false, has been taken to heart for the comfort it provides by the less sentient creatures who inhabit the world of Rangers messageboards. Let me clear this up now: it is rubbish.
The real rules are as follows:
HMRC “normally” have 24 months from the end of an accounting period to start an enquiry.
Where a company has provided “inadequate disclosure”, the statute of limitations was recently reduced to four years, but remains six years where a company has “acted carelessly”. Sounds promising for Rangers fans? Well, do not get too excited. In cases involving “deliberate misstatement”, HMRC has a full 20 years to open an enquiry (let alone conclude it).
Those who have been following this blog will be in little doubt as to in which category Rangers will find themselves. “Deliberate misstatement” is so much at the core of this case, it could be the title of a film about it. Not only did Rangers FC repeatedly misstate the facts (to fans, ordinary shareholders, and HMRC alike), they got caught in a very provable way. (The patient will be rewarded with a full explanation in time).
Back to the 6-year myth: where did this particular piece of disinformation originate?
This yarn first found life on a blog: ScotsLawThoughts.wordpress.com. What follows is a comical (well it amused me!) tale of the extent some will go to try to prevent the truth from taking hold.
A poster on that blog by the name Louie posted:
Sorry Paul have been busy with papers, to clarify Malcolm is not sitting on the Tribunal. He was asked to scan the developments in Edinburgh and give opinion on the arguments presented, he was not overly impressed by the naked naivety of some of the HMRC positions. He picked up on the six year rule immediately a very grey area that no self respecting Silk should or would stray into, Whytes people are using it in their presentation and defences.
All in all I am told he thinks Andrew has driven a coach and horses through HMRC submissions, he is annoyed because he wanted a clear run at the matters involving English clubs, he will be HMRC lead in any proceedings, however he feels Edinburgh matters could put this event some way off.
Interesting? It might keep the candle of hope burning if you did not know the facts. Firstly, the posting tries to invoke the reputation of Malcolm Gammie QC. That particular Malcolm is a very highly regarded English tax lawyer. He has no role whatsoever in the current case against Rangers.
The bit that tickled me most is that I asked Paul McConville, publisher of the blog in question, to forward me the IP address assigned to Louie for his posts. I compared it to the IP addresses used on RangersTaxCase.com. “Louie” has posted on this site no less than 120 times. Regular readers might be surprised to learn this as they will not recognise the name. Breathe easy, for Louie is better known on this site by his other names:
- … and in his latest incarnation: ashton
Submitted on 2011/03/29 at 6:30 am
I can tell you that you will need a bigger shovel to fill in the hole you are digging. The “Tax Inquiry” involving Rangers FC, will be formally abandoned at the Edinburgh First Tier status, on 18th April 2011, do have a nice day.
It is not a continuation, there never was a hearing last October, hence First Tier status. Believe me I should know and I do know, c’est la vie.
Any secret dossiers on the go, you know the sort, refs, tax cases, care in the community, lack of care in the community that sort of thing,cos your taxation fairytale is just that..must dash ..golf is a calling,,,tout de suite…
Submitted on 2011/03/31 at 8:37 am
Now that scotzine has saw sense and capitulated to whyte’s lawyers, who’s next.
Submitted on 2011/08/16 at 8:57 am
Story is , Thornhill of Pump Court Tax Chambers, is suggesting that those favoured by the scheme, were not direct employees of Rangers, that they were in fact subcontracted due to the nature and structure of disputed scheme. There could be a problem there with SFA registrations, however Thornhill is said to be claiming that the players/subcontractors gifted control of said registrations to Rangers FC, which would also affect tax status.
Appears he has blind sided HMRC with this justification of the scheme, insisting no defence is necessary, for a perfectly legal use of taxation law and legislation. The general consensus is that Thornhill is leading by a country mile, HMRC being a poor second at this stage.
Submitted on 2011/09/05 at 9:37 am
Word going round at Centre 1, that the big case is being abandoned.
Submitted on 2011/09/05 at 9:58 am
I wasn’t suggesting anything BK, I may be a lowly maintenance worker, but I overheard several high heid yins, while I was doing some maintence on the exec floor. The rank and file seem to be talking about it that way now also, seem to think it would have also been not went this length of time, if it was nailed on. Strange that the owner dismisses ant view, his own apart as comedic.
Submitted on 2011/09/05 at 10:29 am
I still don’t get it, if rangers and their bosses have committed a criminal offence, evasion, they would face criminal charges, if they have committed no offence, avoidance, why is taxpayers money being wasted, it is one or the other, criminal or not.
Submitted on 2011/10/11 at 9:39 pm
Paranoia is alive and well and being practised by a few here.. RTC has been consistent in his doubts as to any outcome.