Rangers Tax Case Supreme Court 15 & 16 March

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

Here we go again....

https://www.cchdaily.co.uk/rangers-e...-supreme-court

I think there may be a live feed.

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

Here we go again....

https://www.cchdaily.co.uk/rangers-e...-supreme-court

I think there may be a live feed.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

Day two. Fascinating to listen in on all these great minds.

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

https://www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html

Day two. Fascinating to listen in on all these great minds.

Well what an absolutely fascinating couple of days in the Supreme Court. Most likely the last big case for Andrew Thornhill, undoubtedly one of the greatest legal minds for many years. If you can find the time try and sit through the recording on the SC site. One has to wonder how things might have panned out if Thornhill had been permitted to defend the case in the Inner House. Many interesting points from Counsel and the Lords who were equally cerebral. The SC seemed to take a different tack to the Inner House, and may or may not come to the same conclusion. In essence the IH concluded that this was tax avoidance, we don’t like it and you can’t do it, whereas the SC were saying that we all know Rangers were trying to avoid tax; the question is: Does it work? Both sides made polite reference to the 2011 legislation and Thornhill referred to the pending 2019 legislation, neither of which are relevant in law to this case, but perhaps worth considering in that there is new law to prevent this type of avoidance and the SC wouldn’t therefore be going out on a political limb if they allow the appeal.… not that the Lords worry about politics! Me thinks the Lords are too smart for this ruse! A number of the Lords (Hodge, Neuberger, Carnwath) were players in key historic cases, as was Thornhill who was treated with some reverence by the Lords. “If you don’t know, nobody will”.
Julian Ghosh for HMRC took a more literal approach along the lines of the IH, as in: “This is a simple case, this is wrong”. One of the reasons the case made it to the SC was to clarify the law in this complex area, not the least the law relating to the operation of trusts, all of which has is hugely significant.
I’m not smart enough to pick a winner but if I was a betting man I think that the appeal might just succeed and if it does it will come down to intellectual rigor and not the sentiment expressed by the IH. HMRC will be hoping that they win conclusively and can crack on with a strong mandate for their retrospective 2019 legislation.

[webberg]

[QUOTE=

HMRC will be hoping that they win conclusively and can crack on with a strong mandate for their retrospective 2019 legislation.[/QUOTE]

The 2019 law is arriving regardless of result here and a loss for HMRC will just make them more determined.

[WalterWhite]

Well what an absolutely fascinating couple of days in the Supreme Court. Most likely the last big case for Andrew Thornhill, undoubtedly one of the greatest legal minds for many years. If you can find the time try and sit through the recording on the SC site. One has to wonder how things might have panned out if Thornhill had been permitted to defend the case in the Inner House. Many interesting points from Counsel and the Lords who were equally cerebral. The SC seemed to take a different tack to the Inner House, and may or may not come to the same conclusion. In essence the IH concluded that this was tax avoidance, we don’t like it and you can’t do it, whereas the SC were saying that we all know Rangers were trying to avoid tax; the question is: Does it work? Both sides made polite reference to the 2011 legislation and Thornhill referred to the pending 2019 legislation, neither of which are relevant in law to this case, but perhaps worth considering in that there is new law to prevent this type of avoidance and the SC wouldn’t therefore be going out on a political limb if they allow the appeal.… not that the Lords worry about politics! Me thinks the Lords are too smart for this ruse! A number of the Lords (Hodge, Neuberger, Carnwath) were players in key historic cases, as was Thornhill who was treated with some reverence by the Lords. “If you don’t know, nobody will”.
Julian Ghosh for HMRC took a more literal approach along the lines of the IH, as in: “This is a simple case, this is wrong”. One of the reasons the case made it to the SC was to clarify the law in this complex area, not the least the law relating to the operation of trusts, all of which has is hugely significant.
I’m not smart enough to pick a winner but if I was a betting man I think that the appeal might just succeed and if it does it will come down to intellectual rigor and not the sentiment expressed by the IH. HMRC will be hoping that they win conclusively and can crack on with a strong mandate for their retrospective 2019 legislation.

What does a ruling either way actually mean for users of loan schemes though?

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

What does a ruling either way actually mean for users of loan schemes though?

It probably depends on what the ruling says, but HMRC's current thinking is that they have you regardless.

[webberg]

What he said.

If HMRC lose, then pre 2011 they say ToAA gets you and post 2011, they say Part 7A gets you.

What's more interesting is if they win, the employer is primarily liable for tax deductions.

Why then are they not chasing more employers?

(We have seen a very few Reg 80 - PAYE assessments - issued very recently. Whilst one swallow does not make a summer perhaps the penny is dropping?)

[Not Losing Any Sleep]

What he said.

If HMRC lose, then pre 2011 they say ToAA gets you and post 2011, they say Part 7A gets you.

What's more interesting is if they win, the employer is primarily liable for tax deductions.

Why then are they not chasing more employers?

(We have seen a very few Reg 80 - PAYE assessments - issued very recently. Whilst one swallow does not make a summer perhaps the penny is dropping?)

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

[LondonManc]

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

[webberg]

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

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).