Originally posted by H20
View Post
I was involved with Sanzar and Garraway over a number of years. My P11D's from Sanzar showed 'Loans' were paid or discharged. HMRC came for me for Tax and NI on these amounts and I paid. Later years with Garraway P11D's showed 'Loans' were not paid or discharged, HMRC came for me for Tax and NI on these amounts and I paid. So damned if you do, Damned if you don't. Therefore do not pay Sacco s--t or his scumbag crew any monies. HMRC treat pre 2011 and post 2011 the same. Taxable income for purposes of paying Tax and NI.
However, I would draw your attention to the original HMRC case against Rangers FC Whereby Dr Heidi Poon was the one ( out of Three) dissenting voice which came out in favour of HMRC by stating that in her opinion:
the dissenting opinion by Dr Poon concentrates on a purposive interpretation (in line with Ramsay) of the underlying transactions. Dr Poon relies upon the cases of Garforth and Aberdeen Asset Management and concludes that the loans made through the EBT were payments of emoluments subject to PAYE and NIC.
This dissention goes also to the Supreme Court Judgement whereby HMRC won the case on appeal. This states that:
From my findings of fact, the juristic purpose of the loans that gives rise to their
recoverability is totally devolved from the commercial purpose that gives rise to the
contingency of repayment enforcement. The contingency of repayment enforcement
144
is designed not to materialise; it can be interpreted as an ‘anti-Ramsay device’ in the
form of ‘a commercially irrelevant contingency’ [Lord Nicholls]. In respect of how
the scheme was ‘intended to operate’, it was the ‘manifested intentions of the parties’
that the loans would never be enforced for repayment – that is how the scheme was
intended to work. For those employees who took a more cautionary 5 approach towards
this remote contingency, they were given the assurance that in the unlikely event that
the loans were enforced for repayment, Rangers would indemnify them against the
loan repayment (as in the cases of Mr Evesham and Mr Coventry). To date, no loan
repayment has ever been enforced; and from the witnesses’ evidence, whether it was
10 Mr Grey or his clients, or the corporate employees, the understanding was clear: the
loans would not be enforced and were intended to be renewed indefinitely till the
death of the employees. As a House of Lords judgment, Scottish Provident gives
authority to disregard the contingency of repayment enforcement of the loans as
commercially irrelevant. In determining the composite effect of the transaction,
15 regard is to be given to how the scheme was ‘intended to operate’. The composite
effect of the transaction in the instant case – the end result of ‘emoluments’ – is
therefore undisturbed once Lord Nicholls’ judgment is followed through, by
disregarding the commercially irrelevant contingency of the loans being enforced for
repayment.
In conclusion I would suspect that as the judgement of the supreme court states, the intention of the 'Loan' were that they were never intended to be repaid and therefore if Sacco s--t and his cronies want any money out of me, they need to go back to court, overturn the judgement of the supreme court, by proving they were 'Loan's ' in the true commercial sense...
Really ???
However, I would draw your attention to the original HMRC case against Rangers FC Whereby Dr Heidi Poon was the one ( out of Three) dissenting voice which came out in favour of HMRC by stating that in her opinion:
the dissenting opinion by Dr Poon concentrates on a purposive interpretation (in line with Ramsay) of the underlying transactions. Dr Poon relies upon the cases of Garforth and Aberdeen Asset Management and concludes that the loans made through the EBT were payments of emoluments subject to PAYE and NIC.
This dissention goes also to the Supreme Court Judgement whereby HMRC won the case on appeal. This states that:
From my findings of fact, the juristic purpose of the loans that gives rise to their
recoverability is totally devolved from the commercial purpose that gives rise to the
contingency of repayment enforcement. The contingency of repayment enforcement
144
is designed not to materialise; it can be interpreted as an ‘anti-Ramsay device’ in the
form of ‘a commercially irrelevant contingency’ [Lord Nicholls]. In respect of how
the scheme was ‘intended to operate’, it was the ‘manifested intentions of the parties’
that the loans would never be enforced for repayment – that is how the scheme was
intended to work. For those employees who took a more cautionary 5 approach towards
this remote contingency, they were given the assurance that in the unlikely event that
the loans were enforced for repayment, Rangers would indemnify them against the
loan repayment (as in the cases of Mr Evesham and Mr Coventry). To date, no loan
repayment has ever been enforced; and from the witnesses’ evidence, whether it was
10 Mr Grey or his clients, or the corporate employees, the understanding was clear: the
loans would not be enforced and were intended to be renewed indefinitely till the
death of the employees. As a House of Lords judgment, Scottish Provident gives
authority to disregard the contingency of repayment enforcement of the loans as
commercially irrelevant. In determining the composite effect of the transaction,
15 regard is to be given to how the scheme was ‘intended to operate’. The composite
effect of the transaction in the instant case – the end result of ‘emoluments’ – is
therefore undisturbed once Lord Nicholls’ judgment is followed through, by
disregarding the commercially irrelevant contingency of the loans being enforced for
repayment.
In conclusion I would suspect that as the judgement of the supreme court states, the intention of the 'Loan' were that they were never intended to be repaid and therefore if Sacco s--t and his cronies want any money out of me, they need to go back to court, overturn the judgement of the supreme court, by proving they were 'Loan's ' in the true commercial sense...
Really ???
Comment