Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There


For several months, it must have been difficult for Craig Whyte’s spin doctor to catch his breath.  It seemed as if Whyte, through Rangers or one of his other highly profitable businesses, was in court daily for failing to pay debts to some supplier or an ex-employee, and was having large sums of cash arrested.  The hits kept coming: the BBC broadcast a documentary alleging that Craig Whyte acted as a director while disqualified. The BBC show also made claims that Mr. Whyte was involved in lots of financial fast foot-work.  One scheme seemed to involve pocketing cash that was supposed to be destined for the tax man.  Such were the frequency and magnitude of the accusations against Mr. Whyte that a strange thing happened- it got boring! “Craig Whyte in court over debt” had, by last week, become the least interesting headline you could imagine.  Even the most upstanding Rangers fan developed a tolerance for news that would have shocked had Sir David Murray been in the same position.

When bad news is coming thick and fast, the best PR men would advise to just take cover until the shelling stops.  This week has seen Whyte’s men emerge from their bunker to start the counter-offensive.  A rumour of a negotiated solution to the Big Tax Case emerged on the Follow Follow fanzine website (from a low post count little-known participant).  Darrell King then “confirmed” the story on Radio Clyde last night.  Rangers messageboards have since gone into a frenzy of exaltation.  Salvation is at hand!

As this blog has said a few times, to a drowning man even the smallest straw is worth grasping.  It is with this understanding of the need to have hope that the mendacious arts of the PR firm have been deployed in Rangers’ support once again.  Journalists of low IQ and/or a willingness to prostrate themselves for the cause are very helpful in these exercises.  

The basic subtext being spread is that Mr. Whyte has grown weary of trying to negotiate with the sectarian pygmies in the Scottish offices of HMRC and he is heading to face the main men in London.  A deal that would solve Rangers’ massive tax problems for the paltry sum of £5 million (or some other manageable amount) is on the cards.  “Ha! That will silence that Rangerstaxcase nutter!”

One problem: Mr. Whyte is expressly prohibited from negotiating the Big Tax Case directly with HMRC.  This privilege is reserved for Rangers’ former owner, Murray Holdings Limited- who have their own less serious problems with EBTs and who presumably see a tactical benefit for themselves in keeping the cases together.

Who says Whyte cannot negotiate with HMRC?  Well, Craig Whyte and Michael Scott McGill (representing Murray Holdings Limited) agreed this when they signed the Share Purchase Agreement that delivered Rangers into the hands of Whyte.  Don’t believe me?  Look at this extract from the document below:

Maybe Mr. Whyte arranged for Sir David Murray to join him in London to participate in discussions?  Maybe Mike McGill has some helpful advice that could help include Rangers’ mounting unpaid PAYE, NIC, and VAT remittances in the settlement?  Or maybe Mr. Whyte does not mind having relative strangers sit in on some rather personal discussions?

The big men in London were none too receptive when they were approached by Rangers’ representative in January of this year with an offer to settle for £11 million.  We are supposed to believe that they will now settle for £5 million once Whyte subjects them to the negotiating prowess that saw Rangers land David Goodwillie over the summer for a pittance?

In a week where the head of HMRC has been excoriated by the parliamentary public accounts committee for doing sweetheart deals with tax delinquents, what seems more likely: that a deal is at hand or that a PR charm offensive with the goal of raising the flagging morale of Rangers fans is underway?

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

1,592 Responses to Rangers’ Negotiations With HMRC: The Truth Is In There

  1. Hugh McEwan says:

    JoeMc says:
    30/12/2011 at 12:54 am

    It’s not a criminal offence not to file accounts by the due date – at companies house Level it only gives rise to a civil penalty for late filing.

    =====================================

    Thanks for clearing that up.

  2. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Hugh

    You minx…

  3. Hugh McEwan says:

    OnandOnandOnand says:
    30/12/2011 at 1:09 am

    Hugh

    You minx…

    =====================

    😮

  4. OnandOnandOnand says:

    I have to apologise for an earlier misleading comment, I said the loss on LM Logistics (the one featured in the BBC documentary) was £609,000, I forgot about the other £100,000 or £105,000, not sure which, lost in the original LM, the one that went into CVA, bringing the total loss up to £714,000.

    Why does this matter? It wasn’t Wee Craigie’s money that was lost, it was small investors, some greedy, some desperate, lured by the promise of 9.25% return, far higher than you can get elsewhere. The accounts don’t mention it. I appreciate it was after the accounting date for MCR but it was a material event.

    Pensioners, people nearing retirement, they’ve lost that investment, so now have to rely on the performance of Countryliner, a near bankrupt bus company in south England worth diddley squat to pay their money. It could be your parents/grandparents who have lost their savings in this company. These funds were flagged up as high risk but some financial accumen would have been assumed in choosing the investments. They were turnarounds, but has Wee Craigie done the business? I think we still await his first success, for sure, it isn’t going to be Rangers

  5. Hugh McEwan says:

    The accounts being signed off is on follow follow now, from a moderator no less. Some chap who calls himself Sherbrook Loyal.

    ==========================

    I’ve had a few texts suggesting that our accounts have now been signed off or audited. I don’t know the correct term for this but is it true that they had been lodged without the necessary sign off or something?

    If so, this has apparently now been resolved.

    I had heard speculation that one possible cause for them not being signed off was because of something looming large over our heads. Some business with the tax authorities or something.

    We could put 2 and 2 together to get 5 and say whoever needed to sign the accounts off has now been satisfied that our future may not be as bleak as some people have painted?

    Sorry for the short post, on iPhone, and I’m not teasing – This is all I got about the accounts and most of it was too technical for me.

    Does this make sense to anyone?

    ——————————————–

    I look forward to reading them.

  6. OnandOnandOnand says:

    Sorry, also forgot to mention that the investment by ordinary people in MCR was a mere £2m, about £300,000 of which went on “fees”.

  7. nowoldandgrumpy says:

    This is a very impressive report by Christian Aid about the Secrecy surrounding football club ownership. Well worth a read especially for anyone who wants to know the real effects of tax evasion in football.

    “The difference between their lives is vast,
    but football fans and those in need in
    poor countries are victims of the same
    phenomenon: the use of financial secrecy by
    business entities in a way that minimises
    their tax liabilities and accountability”.

    “We discovered that a total of 14 English
    Premier League members and a further five
    in the Championship, together with one in
    League One and two in the Scottish League,
    are now based offshore. Until recently, that
    was also the case for one of the clubs in the
    League of Ireland”.

    http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/blowing-the-whistle-caweek-report.pdf

  8. wattyler says:

    nowoldandgrumpy says:
    30/12/2011 at 3:40 am

    This is a very impressive report by Christian Aid about the Secrecy surrounding football club ownership. Well worth a read especially for anyone who wants to know the real effects of tax evasion in football.
    __________________

    That it is bang out of order them taking a moral stance on tax evasion/avoidance, showing stats of how the money could be used.

    I mean what right minded person would stoop to that behavior exept a paranoid liberal dogooder with an agenda.

    Tongue firmly in cheek.

    Good read.

  9. salah al din says:

    “Nobody doubts that if the right offer is received, the Croatian will make his farewell to Ibrox faster than you can say “Cash up front, please” – which, it would seem, will be the determining factor in the matter, rather than the nominal size of whatever bids might come in from south of the border.

    That is a two-way process it should be added, going by what I have heard from a couple of clubs whose view is that if Rangers come calling upon them for replacements they will want to count the folding money before shaking hands and transporting it to the bank post-haste.”

    From a Forsyth article in the Telegraph.

  10. Bawsman says:

    Wow:

    I asked three questions of our MM journalists on this blog last night, Roddy Forsyth answers two of them in his Telegraph article today, thanks Roddy 😉

    “The SFA’s investigation into Craig Whyte’s fitness to be in charge has yet to be resolved and exchange of correspondence between the respective legal teams continues.

    As of Thursday night, too, the defamation writ threatened by Whyte against BBC Scotland for its investigation into his business affairs had still not been received at Pacific Quay, despite the Rangers owner’s thunderous threats of “immediate legal proceedings” when the programme was broadcast in October.

    New Year beckons, but it seems that few resolutions are in sight at Ibrox.”

    The unanswered question was: provide us of proof of just ONE company Craig Whyte has ‘turned around’ successfully?

    Thanks in advance Roddy 🙂

    Could you imagine the MM leaving the above unchallenged if it was Celtic involved?

  11. Paul McConville says:
    29/12/2011 at 5:16 pm

    No knowledge of accounts being signed off, but the Rangers Company Secretary did have time this afternoon to tweet that “Once again last night showed a real need for goal line technology”.

    Perhaps he was at the game last night and is sitting with a suitably expert firm of auditors in Glasgow signing off the accounts for dispatch to Companies House as we speak!
    ————————————————————————————————

    Well, as I predicted yesterday afternoon, it appears from Adam’s source that the accounts will be lodged today! (Yes, I realise I did not actually predict that, but if I was a particuar kind of journalist I would claim to have done so!)

    Let’s remind ourselves of what the accounts should cover. BAck to our good friend, the Companies Act 2006, section 393 – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/393

    393 Accounts to give true and fair view

    (1)The directors of a company must not approve accounts for the purposes of this Chapter unless they are satisfied that they give a true and fair view of the assets, liabilities, financial position and profit or loss—

    (a)in the case of the company’s individual accounts, of the company;

    (b)in the case of the company’s group accounts, of the undertakings included in the consolidation as a whole, so far as concerns members of the company.

    (2)The auditor of a company in carrying out his functions under this Act in relation to the company’s annual accounts must have regard to the directors’ duty under subsection (1).

    And for the commenter who suggested that it was only a civil matter not to lodge accounts on time –

    Section 451 – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/451

    451 Default in filing accounts and reports: offences

    (1)If the requirements of section 441 (duty to file accounts and reports) are not complied with in relation to a company’s accounts and reports for a financial year before the end of the period for filing those accounts and reports, every person who immediately before the end of that period was a director of the company commits an offence.

    (2)It is a defence for a person charged with such an offence to prove that he took all reasonable steps for securing that those requirements would be complied with before the end of that period.

    (3)It is not a defence to prove that the documents in question were not in fact prepared as required by this Part.

    (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale and, for continued contravention, a daily default fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 5 on the standard scale.

  12. curious onlooker says:

    nowoldandgrumpy says:
    30/12/2011 at 3:40 am
    This is a very impressive report by Christian Aid about the Secrecy surrounding football club ownership. Well worth a read especially for anyone who wants to know the real effects of tax evasion in football.
    —————————————————————————–
    Thought for the Day

    I hope that those posters who claim their fierce indignation is born of a moral stance against the avoidence of tax and it´s consequences will be buying tents in the January sales so you can occupy the high ground on a consistent and on-going basis.

    I can obviously understand the premise but only wish that each and every injustice out there(social, political aswell as fiscal) was approached with the same collective determination and tenacity. It´s sad and predictable that people won´t break stride as some soverign states commit attrocities but when it comes to fitbaw they´ll put their all into it.

  13. curious onlooker says:

    PMcC
    “Well, as I predicted yesterday afternoon, it appears from Adam’s source that the accounts will be lodged today! (Yes, I realise I did not actually predict that, but if I was a particuar kind of journalist I would claim to have done so!)”
    —————————————————————-

    You should listen to us laymen every now and then !

  14. Paranoid Timdroid says:

    curious onlooker says:
    30/12/2011 at 8:33 am

    I think Marxism would brand it false consciousness. I agree with your point though, if people cared about the world as much as they cared about their football teams, the world would be a much better place. Although we’d still have wars, some form of world order, and extremes of riches and poverty. So maybe not.

  15. Barcabhoy says:

    Bawsman says:
    30/12/2011 at 12:28 am
    Has MBB complied with the SFA ‘demand’ for him to supply details to them as to why he was he was barred from holding a directorship for 7 years?

    ——————————

    Stuart Regan stated on twitter that he could not comment as it was a current case. Therefore, Whyte has either not answered the questions or the SFA have not come to a decision on what they have been given to digest

  16. curious onlooker says:

    Barca
    It´s not an easy issue for the SFA and any impatience would IMO demonstrate an immature and skewed approach to this particular affair.

  17. curious onlooker says:

    PT
    It is idealistic but we approach a crossroads.

  18. curious onlooker says:
    30/12/2011 at 8:33 am
    ————————————————————–

    I am forever happy to listen to people who know what they are talking about, as education is always a good thing.

    Some people might view this as a moral crusade – some might be delighted that their footballing rivals are in an apparent mess – some might view this matter as symbolic of a wider struggle.

    The bottom line and indeed the FACT of the matter is that, if Rangers were to receive an investment of, say £75 million tomorrow (and this is not me predicting how much they need to fill a hole – simply mentioning a random figure) then all their problems would disappear.

    If the next Euro Millions lottery winner wanted to invest such a sum in Rangers, allowing them to settle their liabilities to HMRC etc, does anyone think that (a) there would be a prospect of criminal prosecution re tax affairs (if indeed there are circumstances justifying such action) (b) that the SFA would decide Mr Whyte, for all his alleged failings, was not a “fit and proper person” or (c) that UEFA would take any action in connection with what some have viewed as the dubious way in which the licence to play in Europe this season was obtained?

    No.

    There is an excellent New York Yankees baseball website called It Is About The Money, Stupid – http://itsaboutthemoney.net/ . The same principle applies here. All the righteous indignation and moral outrage would be as naught if Rangers were in position to pay all of their bills. That would not mean that the indignation and outrage would be wrong – but that they would have no effect.

    CO – you wish every injustice was approached with the same tenacity (which seems to be an implied admission that Rangers’ actions are an injustice – but I will pass on in case you were not). However you do not know what else the commenters and readers here think or are involved in. And, for example, for all the mention of Vodafone etc and its alleged “tax deals”, that has given rise to the UK Uncut campaign.

    Is it wrong, in an imperfect world, that all the attention and time and money directed at sport, or “reality TV shows” or tabloid press or manufactured pop stars goes there, rather than to helping the poor and dispossesed of the world? Of course it is.

    However these things, however some might have no love or respect for them, do provide many people with interest and distraction. I am not saying that is necessarily wrong – this is not an “opium of the masses” or “bread and circuses” post – as people need to have sources of pleasure in their life.

    The alternative might be a North Korean style society where individualism and anything not done for the benfit of the “Glorious Leader” is demonised. I think we can all agree that we do not want that.

    Anyway, back to keeping an eye on the PLUS Newswire – for news of the Accounts!

  19. curious onlooker says:
    30/12/2011 at 8:55 am

    Barca
    It´s not an easy issue for the SFA and any impatience would IMO demonstrate an immature and skewed approach to this particular affair.
    ———————————————————————————————-

    CO – You will be aware of Mr Regan’s statement on 1st December.

    “We have been in dialogue with the club on this matter and in light of today’s developments have requested clarification by return. We await disclosure of key information before we can make any further comment.”

    Almost a month has passed. What has happened? The absence of further comment implies that the “key information” has not been disclosed.

    IMO any action by the SFA to expedite their inquiries, whilst of course remaining within their rules, would be entirely proper and would avoid any scurrilous suggestions that the SFA was treating one member in a different way from others. I believe that, on the rare occasion, such a suggestion might have been hinted at.

  20. curious onlooker says:

    PMcC
    The general “system” out there is, has always been and always will be imperfect.
    Today´s level of imperfect is high alongside an increasing degree of what may be termed in 1984 parlance, thought control or perhaps non-thought control.

    I could go down the road of a 8,000 word piece, outdoing even you but I better not !

    Suffice to say, society is on it´s way to a dark place in many respects and whilst you all keep your eye on this particular ball don´t forget the bigger picture and if any of you feel strongly on a particular area then why not start a blog on it and do something about it.

  21. stunney says:

    Roddy Forsyth:

    “The SFA’s investigation into Craig Whyte’s fitness to be in charge has yet to be resolved and exchange of correspondence between the respective legal teams continues.

    As of Thursday night, too, the defamation writ threatened by Whyte against BBC Scotland for its investigation into his business affairs had still not been received at Pacific Quay, despite the Rangers owner’s thunderous threats of “immediate legal proceedings” when the programme was broadcast in October.

    New Year beckons, but it seems that few resolutions are in sight at Ibrox.”

  22. Adam says:

    Just looking at the Plus Market and i see there has been a couple of transactions just before Christmas for 50 and 500 shares respectively.

    No mention of the 10 shares allegedly bought by someone on here. Who was it that claimed so again ?

  23. stunney says:

    stunney says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    30/12/2011 at 9:26 am

    Please rescue!

  24. Barcabhoy says:

    I dont think this is a case of the SFA treating Rangers differently. Whyte and Rangers are 2 seperate bodies.

    There is no question over Rangers being fit and proper for Scottish Football. Given the history, it would be churlish and stupid to say anything else

    Whyte, however is a completely different matter. Far from proving he is fit and proper, his entire business history, the publicly available element, would suggest he is completely inappropriate. The SFA should now act to ensure the protection Murray promised, and laughably failed to deliver.

    Protection is a relative term, but the SFA should not allow Whyte to be shooting into an open goal. Rangers seem to be reliant on an individual with no publicly known successes, with a string of failures and a litany of questionable corporate practices.

    That isnt a good thing for Rangers or Scottish football

  25. Adam says:

    CO – I mentioned this a few times in the past. Apparently its quite funny when a guy works a turnstyle, steals money from a football club and steals 2 lots of money from the taxman in order to pay for his Saturday night out, but its rancid, “undignified” and morally corrupt when Rangers do something similar.

    In my opinion, Social/Private Tax dodging is worse than Corporate Tax dodging. 99.99999% of social/private is Evasion. A huge percentage of Corporate is avoidance.

    Completely take Rangers out of the equation and im a lot more comfortable with a business who pays £5m a year into various government funds trying to keep £1m of that to themselves than the millions of people illegally claiming benefits or doing “cash” jobs knowing fine well they are evading tax.

    No doubt, i will be directed to benefitcheatsblog.com though 🙂

  26. curious onlooker says:

    PMcC
    My understanding that post BBC doc. the SFA asked CW/RFC to clarify on the issue.
    That CW/RFC had not replied.

    That after (as you state) release of unaudited accounts alongside public clarification by CW on the disqualification issue that the SFA again requested further timely clarification, this time in a public manner.

    As it stands we don´t know if CW/RFC have responded to the request.
    We do know that the issue is delicate and an uncommon one for the SFA.
    We do know that the wheels of the SFA can go round slowly (the fast-track system re.players apart).

    Impatience given current timescales is unreasonable but can be expected given human nature.

  27. Barcabhoy says:

    The SFA’s concern, amongst many, will be that Whyte might be pushed into actions detrimental to RFC if he feels cornered

    Nonetheless, the fitband proper rule exists for a good reason. To keep inappropriate individuals away from our clubs

    On the evidence available, Whyte looks like the poster boy for inappropriate

  28. Paranoid Timdroid says:

    Adam says:
    30/12/2011 at 9:26 am

    You’d be as well buying 50 as 10. Not sure there is a broker out there who would charge a commission that makes either option more or less attractive. 50 shares at 14.8p a time would hardly break the bank! Can’t even see who the counter party or RSP was on this one, or whether there is an order book on RFC these days, don’t have access to Level 2 on Plus. Very little trading going on, I’d have thought a journalist or 3 might have bought a few with a long term view to hedging their bets and putting themselves in a position to ask awkward questions at the AGM should it all go pear shaped.

  29. curious onlooker says:

    Barca
    “Nonetheless, the fitband proper rule exists for a good reason. To keep inappropriate individuals away from our clubs”
    —————————————————–
    The problem is that whether fit and proper or not he already is at a club.

    I´d imagine it´d be easier to keep people away than drive them out.

    The SFA might consider reviewing their procedures and being more pro-active on the investigation pre-takeover.
    Would there have been grounds to doubt CW being fit and proper if they had the same details that the IBC possessed pre-takeover ?

  30. H says:

    CO / Adam

    This is the rangerstaxcase.com.

    Save us the crass attempts at deflection and pursuits of moral perfection.

  31. Adam says:

    Paranoid Timdroid says:
    30/12/2011 at 9:50 am

    You’d be as well buying 50 as 10. Not sure there is a broker out there who would charge a commission that makes either option more or less attractive. 50 shares at 14.8p a time would hardly break the bank! Can’t even see who the counter party or RSP was on this one, or whether there is an order book on RFC these days, don’t have access to Level 2 on Plus. Very little trading going on, I’d have thought a journalist or 3 might have bought a few with a long term view to hedging their bets and putting themselves in a position to ask awkward questions at the AGM should it all go pear shaped.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    I understand that, but i was merely pointing out that someone on here claimed they had bought 10 shares in order to get access to AGM and complaint rights etc. It appears, from the plus records, that they havent bought them at all.

  32. stunney says:

    New blog up.

  33. Paranoid Timdroid says:

    Adam says:
    30/12/2011 at 9:55 am

    Unless they were bought many moons ago it would appear that they were talking rubbish, aye.

  34. curious onlooker says:

    Adam
    Gain from corporate greed (re.illegal and/or immoral earnings) seems to find it´s way to the 1% in a disproportionate manner and for that reason I can´t agree with questionable avoidence.

    But that´s just my opinion.

  35. John You're Immortal says:

    curious onlooker says:
    30/12/2011 at 8:33 am
    nowoldandgrumpy says:
    30/12/2011 at 3:40 am
    This is a very impressive report by Christian Aid about the Secrecy surrounding football club ownership. Well worth a read especially for anyone who wants to know the real effects of tax evasion in football.
    —————————————————————————–
    Thought for the Day

    I hope that those posters who claim their fierce indignation is born of a moral stance against the avoidence of tax and it´s consequences will be buying tents in the January sales so you can occupy the high ground on a consistent and on-going basis.

    I can obviously understand the premise but only wish that each and every injustice out there(social, political aswell as fiscal) was approached with the same collective determination and tenacity. It´s sad and predictable that people won´t break stride as some soverign states commit attrocities but when it comes to fitbaw they´ll put their all into it.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Was this insight always with you or did the epiphany arise out of introspection as a result of the plight of your team…..? Next stop Patronising Central! Ho-hum

  36. nowoldandgrumpy says:

    Adam says:
    30/12/2011 at 9:35 am

    (Sorry off topic but I could not let it pass)

    Completely take Rangers out of the equation and im a lot more comfortable with a business who pays £5m a year into various government funds trying to keep £1m of that to themselves than the millions of people illegally claiming benefits or doing “cash” jobs knowing fine well they are evading tax.
    ==================
    Ah the voice of the Express reader.. Please stick to an area than you have knowledge in rather than what the Tory press like to provide you with, unless of course you know for a 100% fact that there are millions of people wrongly claiming benefits. Try and live off of £67 per week as many millions have to and that IS a fact.

    I like your posts when you know what you are talking about.

  37. Adam says:

    nowoldandgrumpy says:
    30/12/2011 at 11:09 am

    Ah the voice of the Express reader.. Please stick to an area than you have knowledge in rather than what the Tory press like to provide you with, unless of course you know for a 100% fact that there are millions of people wrongly claiming benefits. Try and live off of £67 per week as many millions have to and that IS a fact.

    I like your posts when you know what you are talking about.
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Im not sure what “trying to live of £67 per week has to do with anything” Ive not made any comment at all about people who are in genuine hardship or in a situation where they rely LEGALLY on benefits.

    What i am saying is that there are millions in the UK defrauding the benefit system or working illegally, or taking illegal tips, or doing jobs on the side.

    If you dont believe this, then Im afraid you are deluded.

  38. nowoldandgrumpy says:

    Adam says:
    30/12/2011 at 11:21 am

    nowoldandgrumpy says:
    30/12/2011 at 11:09 am
    =============
    (My final comment on this as it is off topic)

    I am not deluded, I work in the real world of poverty. I assume you think it would be okay for an employer to avoid paying £1 million in tax and for that same employer who pays minimum wage to their staff and tells them that tips will make up a living wage, or they employ staff on the Black Market so as to avoid paying Employer NI contributions and lower than minimum wage, then their staff are the ones cheating the system.

    Yes there are people out there who clearly cheat the benefit system and I have no time for these people nor have I any time for the millionaires or billionaires who hire fancy accountants or lawyers to avoid paying their taxes.

  39. Adam says:

    ” I assume you think”

    You shouldnt assume anything.

    All im saying is that if a huge business is contributing £5m when it should be contributing £5.5m then i believe that is “less of a crime” than the people who contribute nothing but steal up to £5 BILLION per year.

  40. John You're Immortal says:

    Adam says:
    30/12/2011 at 12:19 pm

    All im saying is that if a huge business is contributing £5m when it should be contributing £5.5m then i believe that is “less of a crime” than the people who contribute nothing but steal up to £5 BILLION per year. [Edit]
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Yes Adam, £5 BILLION is a big number, but then presumably seeing you’ve quoted the number, you’ve researched it and I’d expect that this is the cumulative figure from the entire UK population? If not, forgive me for getting ahead of myself. However, if it is, then I bet it’s CONSIDERABLY less than the cumulative figure representing all tax avoidance schemes by all UK-based companies. It’s also considerably less than the amount of benefits going unclaimed, largely because the processes involved make it so difficult for the supposed beneficiaries to understand their proper entitlements, per

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/10/britains-unclaimed-benefit-billions

  41. Adam says:

    John, firstly, it was a quoted figure from David Cameron. It doesnt include many more billion in unpaid taxes from illegal work. It is representative of benefit fraud and all that goes with it.

    It will be less than the cumulative figure of tax avoidance schemes, but I will always argue that a guy earning £20,000 a year and paying £4000 in taxes but finding a way to avoid £400 of tax is less of a crime than someone wrongfully claiming £5,000 per year in illegal benefits.

    The same then applies to companies paying millions and saving a relative amount.

    I might be wrong but im sure the government gets something like £700 billion from Employers all around the uk in various taxes.

  42. duggie73 says:

    Double choc chip ice cream is CLEARLY tastier than strawberry. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a deluded fool.
    Why should I have to put up with living in a world where I have to waste more time shopping because idiots keep filling valuable freezer space with a self-evidently inferior product, using up valuable resources which could be better used to feed the poor of the world while contributing to global climate change which will surely doom us all.

    It is a damning indication of the bigotry of Celtic fans who post on here that rather than combat this societal evil they obsessively post on here on issues surrounding football and Rangers.

    Tune in next week as I once and for all singlehandedly prove that teaching all the parrots in the world to swear in Polish is better than putting mayonnaise on chips. By saying so.

%d bloggers like this: