Edge EBT thread

[Steve2D2]

PM Access

If you have any desire to pursue group representation please see Norla/Edge Former Employee EBT Self Help Group

Request PM (private message) access if you don't already have it. You can post a request or contact the admins via this page: http://forums.contractoruk.com/sendmessage.php

PM TheDandy here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/priva...=newpm&u=39502
PM Saleos here: http://forums.contractoruk.com/priva...=newpm&u=41765

then make a decision if you have interest in one or both of the groups and if you are willing to foot the likely costs and advise the organiser(s) accordingly

Simply posting a desire to join a group will not achieve anything.

Sorry for the repetition but I want to ensure latecomers are informed

GS

Hi,

Could I get PM rights please ?

[Michael J Perry FCA]

Voluntary settlement

I can provide a free assessment of a potential voluntary settlement with HMRC and will need some information to do that.

I am not advocating such a settlement but it needs to be considered if you have a dispute with HMRC.

I reserve the right to provide you with my credentials and fee structure with no obligation whatsoever.

You can send me a private message (subject to admin approval).

[IPMAN]

So what happened to the Ranger FC vs HMRC Case?

Apologies in advance, but I seemed to have missed the news on

" what happened to the Ranger FC vs HMRC Case? "

cheers

[eek]

Apologies in advance, but I seemed to have missed the news on

" what happened to the Ranger FC vs HMRC Case? "

cheers

The verdict has not been announced yet...

[IPMAN]

The verdict has not been announced yet...

ah so a verdict has been reached?, and if so I wonder why the gagging order?

the 'join group' activity seems to be have momentum and to a large degree I support that, but if we review Michelle's appeal letter and specifically the reference to Rangers FC case, should we really be mega concerned at this stage?.

[eek]

I'll correct my previous statement as the case is due to be held in public between Jan and March Rangers EBT tax case HMRC appeal to be heard in public, judge rules | Glasgow & West | News | STV (I truely thought it had been held and we were just waiting for the verdict).

I'm not involved in any of these claims (I keep my accounts simple as I like to sleep at night) and others would say that I'm biased but you may want to read http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...ings-news.html. The bit were insiders feel that HMRC will win is based on ABERDEEN ASSET MANAGEMENT PLC v. THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS IN RESPECT OF A DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER), 23 October 2013, Lord Drummond Young+Lord Glennie+Lord President which is a binding result that impacts other cases.

[cojak]

Zarkana's post moved to: http://forums.contractoruk.com/accou...ml#post1890767

[varunksingh]

I'll correct my previous statement as the case is due to be held in public between Jan and March Rangers EBT tax case HMRC appeal to be heard in public, judge rules | Glasgow & West | News | STV (I truely thought it had been held and we were just waiting for the verdict).

I'm not involved in any of these claims (I keep my accounts simple as I like to sleep at night) and others would say that I'm biased but you may want to read http://forums.contractoruk.com/hmrc-...ings-news.html. The bit were insiders feel that HMRC will win is based on ABERDEEN ASSET MANAGEMENT PLC v. THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS IN RESPECT OF A DECISION OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL (TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER), 23 October 2013, Lord Drummond Young+Lord Glennie+Lord President which is a binding result that impacts other cases.

Don't agree at all. AAM decision came before FTT gave its decision on Rangers case. After AAM ruling, both sides did another submission. AAM was clearly bonus money in complete control of employees. Rangers was Loans with valid legal repercussions and employees did not had full control. Jury in Rangers considered the AAM ruling before giving the decision. For those who are interested both and some other decisions available in links below. Best is read yourself instead of relying on articles on Internet.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20PLC%20v.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20decision.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../dextra_sp.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Decision.docx

Rangers UTT hearing is starting from 24th Feb to until 21st Mar: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/...s-register.pdf

Remember Ranger was an EBT which was not that strongly implemented for example side letters. In many other case, nothing even remotely like side letters exists. HMRC did not appealed Dextra in 2008 and is now is saying in Ranger's case that ruling was wrong, which FTT decisions makes a strong note of.

Also in many case with full disclosure on Self assessment, HMRC is out of time as proved in http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...d-corfield.pdf

[eek]

Don't agree at all. AAM decision came before FTT gave its decision on Rangers case. After AAM ruling, both sides did another submission. AAM was clearly bonus money in complete control of employees. Rangers was Loans with valid legal repercussions and employees did not had full control. Jury in Rangers considered the AAM ruling before giving the decision. For those who are interested both and some other decisions available in links below. Best is read yourself instead of relying on articles on Internet.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...%20PLC%20v.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...20decision.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/.../dextra_sp.pdf
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...0Decision.docx

Rangers UTT hearing is starting from 24th Feb to until 21st Mar: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/...s-register.pdf

Remember Ranger was an EBT which was not that strongly implemented for example side letters. In many other case, nothing even remotely like side letters exists. HMRC did not appealed Dextra in 2008 and is now is saying in Ranger's case that ruling was wrong, which FTT decisions makes a strong note of.

Also in many case with full disclosure on Self assessment, HMRC is out of time as proved in http://www.tribunals.gov.uk/financea...d-corfield.pdf

So the binding upper tribunal decisions published in October 2013 predate the Rangers FTT case 25 October – 5 November 2010 until 16-18 January 2012? Remember its only upper tribunal and supreme court decisions that are binding and thats only after the verdict is given.

Look I really don't want to enter into arguments with you but I'm getting more than a slightly annoyed with the falsehoods you state as fact...

[varunksingh]

So the binding upper tribunal decisions published in October 2013 predate the Rangers FTT case 25 October – 5 November 2010 until 16-18 January 2012? Remember its only upper tribunal and supreme court decisions that are binding and thats only after the verdict is given.

Look I really don't want to enter into arguments with you but I'm getting more than a slightly annoyed with the falsehoods you state as fact...

I am also not interested in any useless arguments. So last post from my side on this matter and all can see for them selves. Directly COPIED and PASTED below from Rangers decisions

====
197. That view, however, falls to be clarified by the recent opinion of Warren J in Aberdeen Asset Management plc v HMRC in the Upper Tribunal (“AAM”). While that decision post-dates by a few days counsels’ closing submissions in this Appeal, both sent subsequently written submissions on the decision. That case involved benefits to employees by way of share transfers. In para 40 of his decision Warren J interprets Walton J as indicating that payment would result from funds being placed unreservedly at the employee’s disposal, but (perhaps) it was not a necessary condition for payment. However, later in his decision [para 83] Warren J considered that for the purposes of Section 203 ICTA 1988 it was a “… necessary even if not sufficient condition for there to be a payment …” that monies should be unreservedly at the employee’s disposal.
====

Agree 100% with "Remember its only upper tribunal and supreme court decisions that are binding and thats only after the verdict is given". HMRC should also agree with this. AAM was considered and does not apply to Ranger's EBT DIRECTLY ONE FOR ONE. Some parts will always overlap. Similarly AAM decision does not apply to all EBT's ONE FOR ONE.