Murray Group (Rangers) tax case - decision today?

[LandRover]

Big Group

After yesterday, I feel more strongly that "Big Group" approach is the only real solution in town for those who want to bring all this nightmare to an end. Thinking that the courts are going to decide with the appeals process etc will mean years of grief, it really wears you out. Sadly. I don't believe the judicial system is immune from political influence either.

[steveb555]

...... Sadly. I don't believe the judicial system is immune from political influence either.

This was precisely my initial thought upon hearing the result. After two previous resounding defeats judged on the legal aspects of the case I believe our govt have now 'bought' this decision.

[dirk]

This was precisely my initial thought upon hearing the result. After two previous resounding defeats judged on the legal aspects of the case I believe our govt have now 'bought' this decision.

I thought the same. Something fishy about this decision. Even the wording sounds like David Gauke-esq.

[ASB]

Any company which employs people is legally required to operate PAYE. The deduction of employee taxes and nics is solely the company's responsibility.

If there is a uk/host employer then that is usually the case.

However, where there is an overseas employer and there is not a UK subsidiary (or someone who can be regarded as the host employer) then there is nothing to force the overseas employer to register for PAYE. The employer can indeed pay gross and the individual discharge the tax/ni liability through direct payments.

PAYE20100 - Employer records: set up employer record: DPNI scheme - direct payment (tax and NIC)

If there isn't a UK employer it may be simpler for HMRC to target the individual rather than attempt to transfer liability from a now defunct employer.

Ultimately it seems that if loans are to be treated as emoluments then the responsibility for the PAYE rests with whoever it would have rested with were it just regular salary. If the employer was operating PAYE (and I assume that this was generally the case) then transfer of this liability to the individual has some significant hurdles to cross. If the employer was not operating PAYE then it may not be so difficult since it may be covered by the direct payments regime.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

If there is a uk/host employer then that is usually the case.

However, where there is an overseas employer and there is not a UK subsidiary (or someone who can be regarded as the host employer) then there is nothing to force the overseas employer to register for PAYE. The employer can indeed pay gross and the individual discharge the tax/ni liability through direct payments.

PAYE20100 - Employer records: set up employer record: DPNI scheme - direct payment (tax and NIC)

If there isn't a UK employer it may be simpler for HMRC to target the individual rather than attempt to transfer liability from a now defunct employer.

Ultimately it seems that if loans are to be treated as emoluments then the responsibility for the PAYE rests with whoever it would have rested with were it just regular salary. If the employer was operating PAYE (and I assume that this was generally the case) then transfer of this liability to the individual has some significant hurdles to cross. If the employer was not operating PAYE then it may not be so difficult since it may be covered by the direct payments regime.

Spot on.

From what I understand, most of the promoters were IoM based, and the users would have had a contract of employment with an IoM company.

Some may not have operated PAYE at all, and instead paid the users the small salary gross which they would have declared through self-assessment.

As for those promoters that did operate PAYE on the small salary, assuming the loans were deemed to be emoluments, the question is who is on the hook for the outstanding tax/nic, the company or the employees?

[webberg]

Not that it helps advance the debate much, but I was at a dinner last night (hence not posting) with a group of tax barristers.

(I know how to live!)

They had a theory that the Judges had been "nobbled" as HMRC has a real issue with the designers of the scheme, who unfortunately appear in other schemes as well.

They also advanced the theory that a Supreme Court decision reversing this one would not be a surprise, but the question is whether the case would get that far as the liquidator may not have the funds.

I've had a couple of reads of the decision and will do another later but it's interesting that the Judges thought that the tax point arose at the time the employer paid the trust. That could be very important as it implies that the funds were the EMPLOYEES to dispose as he/she saw fit but did NOT remove the EMPLOYERS obligation to deduct tax.

I think Mr Rhubarb has alluded to this and I can see where he's coming from.

My full analysis will appear on Big Group forum first but given the importance of this decision, I'll post a version here over the weekend for critique/comment/analysis/whatever.

Just bear in mind that my opinion is no better than anybody else's at this stage and it will take weeks/months/years for the full implications to be understood.

[Dylan]

I read it the same, although waiting for a professional analysis from my representative.

[DotasScandal]

They had a theory that the Judges had been "nobbled"...

You don't say
The summary had a Gaukesque tone to it IMO.
It just missed the word "repugnant". I guess the judge didn't want to be too obvious.
Farewell, separation of powers, I guess! It was nice knowing you...

[StrengthInNumbers]

After yesterday, I feel more strongly that "Big Group" approach is the only real solution in town for those who want to bring all this nightmare to an end. Thinking that the courts are going to decide with the appeals process etc will mean years of grief, it really wears you out. Sadly. I don't believe the judicial system is immune from political influence either.

And HMRC will listen to any group once they have decisions in their favour and APNs collected.
HMRC will gradually find a case to use FN and will make it too expensive to not settle.
Big group a great help but this can only end of a scheme wins in courts.

[DotasScandal]

And HMRC will listen to any group once they have decisions in their favour and APNs collected.
HMRC will gradually find a case to use FN and will make it too expensive to not settle.
Big group a great help but this can only end of a scheme wins in courts.

I guess you mean "won't listen"