Whose assets are they anyway?

Avatar By

Tykebhoy 13th November 2015 at 10:49 am There is an acknowledgement …

Comment on Whose assets are they anyway? by blu.

tykebhoy 13th November 2015 at 10:49 am
There is an acknowledgement by John James of the source of the court reporting:
“The Wolffe of Parliament Square

This article is predicated on the live tweets from James Doleman. I thank James for his excellent court coverage and his insights that have underpinned several articles and contributions to this site. Charles Green v RIFC is currently being heard before Lord Doherty at The Court of Session Edinburgh.”

blu Also Commented

Whose assets are they anyway?
ernie 6th November 2015 at 1:37 pm #                 

Back to basics Ernie, apply the rules without fear or favour. It’s an easy kick down the road for SPFL/SFA though, until all legal proceedings in Murray Group et al v HMRC are exhausted.


Whose assets are they anyway?
TheClumpany 6th November 2015 at 9:19 am #                 

Poor Derek, a bear of little brain.


Whose assets are they anyway?
 The respondents are members of a group of companies whose ultimate parent company is Murray International Holdings Ltd.  The first respondent is a subsidiary holding company, and the other four respondents are members of what is referred to as the Murray Group of companies.  In tax years from 2001/02 to 2008/09 the respondents entered into a series of transactions pursuant to a scheme designed to avoid the payment of income tax and National Insurance contributions (“NICs”) in respect of their employees.  Those transactions have resulted in assessments by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) to income tax under the Pay As You Earn (“PAYE”) system and corresponding NICs.  The respondents appealed against those assessments.  Their appeal was heard before the First-tier Tribunal, who on 29 October 2012 upheld the appeal; that was the decision of a majority of the First-tier Tribunal (Mr Kenneth Mure, QC, and Scott Rae, WS); the third member of the Tribunal, Dr Heidi Poon, CA, dissented.  The appellant appealed to the Upper Tribunal (Lord Doherty), which on 8 July 2014 refused the appeal and on 22 August 2014 granted permission to appeal on one ground to the Court of Session.  Following that determination the appellant, who represents HMRC, has appealed to the Court of Session.  The first to fourth respondents are now in liquidation and the fifth respondents, RFC 2012 PLC, are now the only party opposing the appeal.  We should note that, although the appeal relates to NICs as well as income tax, it is a matter of agreement that our decision on the income tax issue will apply equally to NICs; consequently the discussion is confined to income tax and the PAYE system.

wottpi at 1:41 – looks like the rest of Murray Group has moved on and BDO would be the only party considering appeal. though, as noted above, why would they act against the interests of the major creditor of RFC 2012?


Recent Comments by blu

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
I seem to recall that part of Dave King’s settlement with the South African Revenue Service was a  requirement that Mr King’s family repatriate business assets held overseas into South Africa. Has anyone any insight into how this sits with NOAL being BVI-based?


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
easyJamboDecember 20, 2017 at 12:44
EJ, I’ve no cause to doubt you or Hearts directors or the company auditors. It’s a fact though that people will speculate on these matters, often getting things completely wrong, intentionally or simply through ignorance.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

easyJamboDecember 20, 2017 at 11:23

blu December 20, 2017 at 11:16 There is an element of truth in Tangoed’s assertion about the need for transparency though – I’m sure there’s plenty speculation on Jambos Kickback as to the identity of the mysterious benefactors. ===================== There is indeed plenty speculation on Jambos Kickback about the benefactor(s).
A couple of well informed posters have all but confirmed that the money has come from partners in an Edinburgh investment company.

EJ,
I’m sure that you and others closer to the club will have a very good idea who these people are but as long as the club is asked to keep their identities private there will be speculation and aspersions cast from the east of Edinburgh and further afield.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One

HomunculusDecember 20, 2017 at 10:57
I’ll decline from commenting further, the majority of members here seem to think it is acceptable to conjecture that Hearts are being funded by the proceeds of crime.

For the avoidance of doubt Homunculus, I agree with your challenge to Tangoed – his subsequent response confirms it is simple speculation, possibly mischievous. My question was more focused on what might be considered as money laundering, tangential and less important than your challenge.
There is an element of truth in Tangoed’s assertion about the need for transparency though – I’m sure there’s plenty speculation on Jambos Kickback as to the identity of the mysterious benefactors.
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus, I don’t think that money laundering was referred to by Tangoed, no doubt they’ll respond to fully explain.


About the author

Avatar