Murray Group (Rangers) tax case - decision today?

[webberg]

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!

[webberg]

Decision today confirmed

Advocate General for Scotland v Murray Group Holdings and others - Media and Publications - Judiciary of Scotland

[turnover]

Advocate General for Scotland v Murray Group Holdings and others - Media and Publications - Judiciary of Scotland

Looks like HMRC won.

[regron]

Looks like HMRC won.

Yep, not good

[regron]

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.”

[webberg]

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.

[DonkeyRhubarb]

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?

[webberg]

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.

[ASB]

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.

[webberg]

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.