Rangers Tax Case Supreme Court 15 & 16 March

[webberg]

For me, they should go after the scheme arranger but the users are the easier target.

Which level of promoter do you want to go after?

There would be the salesman who walked into the Boardroom;

The firm who hawked the scheme around to IFA's and similar;

The advisers who built the scheme;

The firm/person who had the idea and was the IP behind it.

I'm sure HMRC knows who all the above are but when it comes to pinning the tail on the donkey I suspect that is much more difficult.

[BrilloPad]

Which level of promoter do you want to go after?

All of them. Starting with the lawyers.

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

Because they are obliged by law to do so. HMRC's claim in the liquidation is huge and would swamp all others. Therefore the liquidator is obliged to try and reduce it.

It's also the case the liquidator won at the first two levels and HMRC appealed so it was a question then of defending what they had won. At Court of Sessions, they lost but for all I know HMRC has agreed to pick up the costs. (I don't know but it does happen).

Nobody is obliged by law to continue to appeal a case through the courts, even a liquidator. The liquidator could easily argue that the case has no merit and based on your assessment, even if they win the appeal HMRC win under ToAA or the 2019 legislation. I don't buy the idea that it would be in HMRC's interests to pick up the costs, or to pursue the appeal. Why would HMRC fund an appeal knowing that they might lose?

[Iliketax]

If it is such a fait accompli why would the administrators spend so much money defending the case at the SC?

Have a look at: https://www.bdo.co.uk/getattachment/...-2014.pdf.aspx

In particular:

To date, the cost to the Liquidation of participating in the EBT proceedings has been minimal,
with the costs being funded by a third party. Going forward, the third party has asked for the
Liquidation estate to make a contribution to the future costs of the process. Having liaised with
the Committee, we are now seeking to agree an apportionment of costs acceptable to both
parties.

The 8 December 2016 letter shows £183,256.19 for "Counsel Costs re:EBT" and that a successful outcome is worth £74 million to the creditors.

[AtW]

Which level of promoter do you want to go after?

There would be the salesman who walked into the Boardroom;

The firm who hawked the scheme around to IFA's and similar;

The advisers who built the scheme;

The firm/person who had the idea and was the IP behind it.

I'm sure HMRC knows who all the above are but when it comes to pinning the tail on the donkey I suspect that is much more difficult.

All of the above, including those QCs - people pool to sue HMRC with infinite resources and ability to change laws retrospectively, but nobody is taking action for misselling against all of the above, crazy.

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

Have a look at: https://www.bdo.co.uk/getattachment/...-2014.pdf.aspx

In particular:

To date, the cost to the Liquidation of participating in the EBT proceedings has been minimal,
with the costs being funded by a third party. Going forward, the third party has asked for the
Liquidation estate to make a contribution to the future costs of the process. Having liaised with
the Committee, we are now seeking to agree an apportionment of costs acceptable to both
parties.

The 8 December 2016 letter shows £183,256.19 for "Counsel Costs re:EBT" and that a successful outcome is worth £74 million to the creditors.

Thanks for that. Somebody clearly thinks it is worth pursuing this case.

[webberg]

Nobody is obliged by law to continue to appeal a case through the courts, even a liquidator. The liquidator could easily argue that the case has no merit and based on your assessment, even if they win the appeal HMRC win under ToAA or the 2019 legislation. I don't buy the idea that it would be in HMRC's interests to pick up the costs, or to pursue the appeal. Why would HMRC fund an appeal knowing that they might lose?

First, if the company wins, ToAA will not apply to the company. That applies to the recipients of funds and a lot of those are playing football in the minor divisions of some far flung country.

Second, where there is a point of policy involved, HMRC has been known to allow cases to be heard at high levels by agreeing to meet costs. It's not usual but it's not that uncommon.

Third, if they fund it and lose then they regroup, decide if the policy should be abandoned, supported by a new case or written into law. More importantly they will know how to write that law avoiding the errors in the case.

[centurian]

Second, where there is a point of policy involved, HMRC has been known to allow cases to be heard at high levels by agreeing to meet costs. It's not usual but it's not that uncommon.

Presumably that's because it's taken so long to get to this point - that HMRC want to get final closure on it at the SC - win or lose.

If this case is not appealed, then someone else will come along and start their own chain of cases and appeals - adding another 5 years to the process.

[webberg]

Presumably that's because it's taken so long to get to this point - that HMRC want to get final closure on it at the SC - win or lose.

If this case is not appealed, then someone else will come along and start their own chain of cases and appeals - adding another 5 years to the process.

Precedent is carried by the highest Court.

A decision at FTT might be claimed to "final" but will be trumped by a higher court.

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

HMRC has been known to allow cases to be heard at high levels by agreeing to meet costs. It's not usual but it's not that uncommon.

Fortunately it's not HMRC who "allows a case to be heard". I think you will find that it's extremely rare for HMRC to win a case and pay the other side's costs and encourage them to appeal. Can you name a case? Suggesting that this might apply in this case is at best, a long shot.