Page 5 of 6

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 13:45 05 May 2011
by Chris Dennis
Thai green wrote: I believe Cobi that the answer is, no we don't owe them anything today. The little I know is that this is HMRC pursuing the F.L. over the strange laws that allow anything connected to football being 'different' to other tax laws that Companies have to face and IMHO maybe the tax-man ( woman ) has a good case to pursue revenue-owed on behalf of other tax-payers. As far as I understand we do not have to pay them anything .I hope that helps?

I agree with Postie's reply.


However we did owe them £293,000 of which they will now only get 0.77p in the £1 (£2256) if the CVA is agreed tomorrow.

Having to write off £290,744 of public money is what irks them and rightly so. Paying a player is football related but the tax due on those payments isn't for some reason. The players will eventually get all the pay owed to them but HMRC will get next to nothing of the tax due on it.

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 14:53 05 May 2011
by Leigh Rapson
Chris Dennis wrote:
Thai green wrote: I believe Cobi that the answer is, no we don't owe them anything today. The little I know is that this is HMRC pursuing the F.L. over the strange laws that allow anything connected to football being 'different' to other tax laws that Companies have to face and IMHO maybe the tax-man ( woman ) has a good case to pursue revenue-owed on behalf of other tax-payers. As far as I understand we do not have to pay them anything .I hope that helps?

I agree with Postie's reply.


However we did owe them £293,000 of which they will now only get 0.77p in the £1 (£2256) if the CVA is agreed tomorrow.

Having to write off £290,744 of public money is what irks them and rightly so. Paying a player is football related but the tax due on those payments isn't for some reason. The players will eventually get all the pay owed to them but HMRC will get next to nothing of the tax due on it.


That's not true Chris. The tax man will, quite rightly, get every penny they are owed on the back pay of the players as well as ni. They are losing out on the 290k but keep spending more than that everytime they go to court and lose.

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 14:54 05 May 2011
by GreenArmy57
ZeeZan6 wrote:
Celia Ellacott wrote: Court report. Nothing to worry about. Got to lunchtime and HMRC v FL case still not reached. So I collared HMRC solicitor on the way out and he gave me a fast, long and full explanation of what was going on.

Basically, both cases procedural. And the Argyle thing just a hangover - adjournment of hearing for Directions in the administration which he said would be adjourned again. No connection between the two and sheer coincidence of the dates.

For once, a wasted morning, but you never know. Got a lot of my book read.


we all appreciate you taking time out of your day to keep up with what's going on, and for keeping everyone informed on here.
Thanks Celia.


Me too, Thanks Celia much appreciated.

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 14:58 05 May 2011
by SurreyGreen
GreenArmy57 wrote:
ZeeZan6 wrote:
Celia Ellacott wrote: Court report. Nothing to worry about. Got to lunchtime and HMRC v FL case still not reached. So I collared HMRC solicitor on the way out and he gave me a fast, long and full explanation of what was going on.

Basically, both cases procedural. And the Argyle thing just a hangover - adjournment of hearing for Directions in the administration which he said would be adjourned again. No connection between the two and sheer coincidence of the dates.

For once, a wasted morning, but you never know. Got a lot of my book read.


we all appreciate you taking time out of your day to keep up with what's going on, and for keeping everyone informed on here.
Thanks Celia.


Me too, Thanks Celia much appreciated.


:iagree: Thank you! Although i had to leave this morning with just "Plymouth argyle are in court this morning :lol: So I kept checking this page at regular intervals throughout the morning

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 15:38 05 May 2011
by Chris Dennis
mrrapson wrote:
Chris Dennis wrote:
Thai green wrote: I believe Cobi that the answer is, no we don't owe them anything today. The little I know is that this is HMRC pursuing the F.L. over the strange laws that allow anything connected to football being 'different' to other tax laws that Companies have to face and IMHO maybe the tax-man ( woman ) has a good case to pursue revenue-owed on behalf of other tax-payers. As far as I understand we do not have to pay them anything .I hope that helps?

I agree with Postie's reply.


However we did owe them £293,000 of which they will now only get 0.77p in the £1 (£2256) if the CVA is agreed tomorrow.

Having to write off £290,744 of public money is what irks them and rightly so. Paying a player is football related but the tax due on those payments isn't for some reason. The players will eventually get all the pay owed to them but HMRC will get next to nothing of the tax due on it.


That's not true Chris. The tax man will, quite rightly, get every penny they are owed on the back pay of the players as well as ni. They are losing out on the 290k but keep spending more than that everytime they go to court and lose.


I stand corrected - the 290k owed was on payments already paid to players for which the tax & NI was never paid plus any VAT owed.

Its a sprat to catch a mackerel with these court cases so they don't lose out big time in the future if another Pompey or Leeds happens.

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 17:08 05 May 2011
by Rupert
penzancepirate wrote: What I don't understand about these sort of threads is why there is so much fan animosity toward HMRC.
They are only unsecured creditors trying to get their money after all, and as a tax payer, I think good on them, so they should, and if other creditors had the courage to do this sort of thing, perhaps we would see far less dodgy clubs around.


Agreed. I'm also surprised that HMRC has not yet managed to put up a better legal challenge to the football creditors' rule.

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 17:29 05 May 2011
by esmer
I don't see why HMRC are trying to put us into liquidation, to me it just seems malicious, punishing honest (I hope) taxpaying fans for the mis management of a handful of directors. If they don't like the football creditors rule then by all means challenge it in court, but why be intent on punishing us.
Also, speaking as a taxpayer, I would point out that the vast majority of our football debt is players and staff wages, which when paid will result in, possibly, near to £1m going to HMRC in PAYE. If they wind us up they get nothing. They are simply being vindictive.

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 18:20 05 May 2011
by Rupert
Argyle were not HMRC's target today.

An extract from a story issued tonight by the Press Associaton:

Mr Justice Newey said HMRC’s claim against the Football League would be tried at the High Court in London on November 28. He said the Premier League would also be represented at the trial.


I won't cut and paste the full story, but this is the taxman's latest attempt to challenge the football creditors' rule. There is no mention of Argyle in the PA story.

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 18:43 05 May 2011
by Ian Newell
Rupert wrote:
penzancepirate wrote: What I don't understand about these sort of threads is why there is so much fan animosity toward HMRC.
They are only unsecured creditors trying to get their money after all, and as a tax payer, I think good on them, so they should, and if other creditors had the courage to do this sort of thing, perhaps we would see far less dodgy clubs around.


Agreed. I'm also surprised that HMRC has not yet managed to put up a better legal challenge to the football creditors' rule.


I was told, but someone who knows these things that HMRC have crap solicitors.

That could be the reason why. :)

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 19:04 05 May 2011
by Mark_Colling
IJN wrote:
Rupert wrote:
penzancepirate wrote: What I don't understand about these sort of threads is why there is so much fan animosity toward HMRC.
They are only unsecured creditors trying to get their money after all, and as a tax payer, I think good on them, so they should, and if other creditors had the courage to do this sort of thing, perhaps we would see far less dodgy clubs around.


Agreed. I'm also surprised that HMRC has not yet managed to put up a better legal challenge to the football creditors' rule.


I was told, but someone who knows these things that HMRC have crap solicitors.

That could be the reason why. :)


I know I've posted this before but I have spoken to Insolvency Practitioners (some with direct experience of the football creditors rule) and they all agree that the rule is unfair to creditors as a whole.

However, they also believe that HMRC have largely exhausted their grounds for getting it overturned. The good news is that they have now been clearly instructed by the judge to deal with the issue directly with the PL/FL so that at least we are spared other clubs as well as us being caught in the crossfire.

When it comes to the case, I'll be backing HMRC; without the football creditors protection, clubs might actually learn to operate like proper grown up businesses.

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 19:08 05 May 2011
by Mark_Colling
penzancepirate wrote: As most club failures see secured creditors taken care of, what's really needed is just a straight forward bill of parliament with a very heavy foot that ensures HMRC, and hence the taxpayer, are always secured creditors in such 'football' cases ... that would put the cat amongst the pigeons that think property charges should take precedence in all cases. It would take care of most of the HMRC losses with the football creditors' rule without having to challenge it.

Prior to September 2003 (I had to Google the date), the Inland Revenue and HM Customs & Excise (as was) had preferential status in exactly the way you state. I think it was removed because it was unfair to the creditors as a whole; remind you of anything?

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 19:09 05 May 2011
by Quintrell_Green
penzancepirate wrote: What I don't understand about these sort of threads is why there is so much fan animosity toward HMRC.
They are only unsecured creditors trying to get their money after all, and as a tax payer, I think good on them, so they should, and if other creditors had the courage to do this sort of thing, perhaps we would see far less dodgy clubs around.

As most club failures see secured creditors taken care of, what's really needed is just a straight forward bill of parliament with a very heavy foot that ensures HMRC, and hence the taxpayer, are always secured creditors in such 'football' cases ... that would put the cat amongst the pigeons that think property charges should take precedence in all cases. It would take care of most of the HMRC losses with the football creditors' rule without having to challenge it.


The contra to the last lines of Pp's first paragraph is that Argyle could be considered a 'dodgey' club and therefore he would be happy to see the Club liquidated. I am sure he does not really mean that? I do not think posters on here are totally anti-HMRC, but the depth of their support and love for Argyle is such that they are keen such establishment creditors are not going to rock the boat in ensuring the Club's survival. I am sure if they were asked about HMRC's recent past soft negotiations in favour of Vodaphone plc for 10's of £M's of tax on profits they would be annoyed too.

Re: Argyle in court, Thursday 5th May.

Posted: 19:17 05 May 2011
by PL2 3DQ
HMRC have lost £30 million over the last 8 years from football clubs who have gone into administration. Shocking!
Owners and directors of football clubs should be more accountable for their financial mismanagement. HMRC should go after them.