A FORMER senior HM Revenue and Customs inspector believes his former employers made an error in using a 'grossing up' method to calculate a huge £74m Rangers' tax bill - that is being blamed for the club’s financial implosion.
BDO, the liquidator of the old Rangers business believes the taxman's calculations are wrong and if their challenge is successful would bring down its £94m tax claim to just £43m.
The taxman said around £74m was owed for the club’s use of EBTs from 2001 to 2010 to pay players and staff as part of the overall tax claim.
But if BDO's challenge is successful it could drop to just £23m - with £24m penalties already wiped out by agreement and interest payments also cut.
Stephen Outhwaite, a former senior tax inspector specialising in investigation and regulatory issues said that 'grossing up' should not have been applied to staff and players and should only apply to directors if they are unable to make good the income tax paid by the company.
READ MORE: HMRC overestimated Rangers’ tax bill ‘by up to £50 million’
Mr Outhwaite, now a tax dispute resolution expert said that under the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions Act) of 2003 (ITEPA), while 'grossing up' is a common feature in many HMRC Employee Benefit Trust settlements, it is "not appropriate where the payments were to an employee or the director who has no material interest in the company".
In April 2010, HMRC began an investigation into Rangers’ use of EBTs to players from 2001 onwards.
A total of 111 sub-trusts were said to have been set up between 2001-2010 for Rangers directors, players and other staff - along with employees of Murray International Holdings and its subsidiary companies.
A total of 53 Rangers players and staff received side contracts giving undertakings to fund their sub-trusts with cash.
Mr Outhwaite added: "Thinking about the Rangers case, then any payments made via EBT to non-directors should not fall within the Section 223 charge, and so 'grossing up' would be inappropriate in the case of the non-directors and if HMRC’s claim included grossing up for them it would have been incorrect."
Executives within the board overseen by owner Sir David Murray said confusion over the club's tax burden had deterred potential investors when the club was put up for sale in 2011, and ultimately culminated in the operating company's collapse under controversial businessman Craig Whyte - who had bought it in May 2011 for £1.
READ MORE: Queen's Park set for historic vote on future of amateur status
Rangers went into administration in February 2012 over outstanding PAYE and national insurance payments, and subsequently entered liquidation in June 2012.
The amounts paid into the trust varied from a total of £6.3m received by Sir David Murray to £7,500 for Bellshill-born defender Steven Smith, who left the club in 2011.
The average amount received by Rangers and Murray Group employees was about £445,000.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article