The case for the defence of Rangers based on the tax tribunal

A look at how it could be proven SPL rules were not breached, based on evidence at the tribunal.

Ibrox Stadium
© SNS Group

In early 2013, an independent commission will hear evidence on whether Rangers breached the rules of the Scottish Premier League between 2000 and 2011.

The practice of giving players payments through a mechanism known as Employee Benefit Trusts is under scrutiny, with the league alleging they were not declared to them.

Rangers, in tribunal evidence, believe it was not necessary under the rules to declare the payments, which they consider to be loans and not compensation for playing football.

Taking the evidence given by Rangers employees, Murray Group Limited and HM Revenue and Customs at the First Tier Tax Tribunal, as well as the opinions of the three-person panel, it is possible to piece together where the case for the defence may lie.

This article is not intended to serve as a definitive outlook of how Rangers’ defence will be presented when the commission sits in early 2013.

It is intended instead to highlight what has been stated at the tribunal which is relevant to the SPL case, and using the statements given to outline how the case for the defence may be built.

This article has two accompanying pieces. The first, Rangers tax case: Your questions answered on the SPL investigation, and the second, The case against Rangers based on the tax tribunal documents.

THE CASE FOR RANGERS

What was said about the premise of EBT payments in favour of Rangers?

Early in the evidence given to the tribunal, "Mr Red", described as a senior member of the tax function at Murray Group Holdings, stated it was "his view [side-letters did not] have to be disclosed as part of the player’s remuneration package to the football authorities. It was not a financial entitlement, he insisted, nor did it represent, in his view, a payment to a player."

"Mr Grey", a solicitor specialising "in football agency work and sports law: but, by his own admission, not holding expertise in "tax treatment of benefits received from remuneration trusts", agreed.

It is stated: "Mr Grey confirmed that the Scottish Football Association requires disclosure of the terms of a footballer’s contract but that does not extend, as he understands, to payments from a remuneration trust.

"While payments from the player’s club must be disclosed, including benefits in kind such as cars and accommodation, benefits from third parties, such as a sports company, need not. However, there is no formal SFA ruling in respect of remuneration trust benefits."

What about “side-letters”?

Mr Grey, the solicitor specialising in football agency work, was involved in the negotiation of Mr Purple’s playing contract with Rangers.

It is stated that "the concluding offer by Rangers was of two elements, half in salary and half in benefit form from the remuneration trust. The contract providing for the salary and a separate document, referred to as a 'side-letter', bore the same date."

It is then stated: "Mr Grey did not consider that the terms of the 'side-letter' required to be disclosed to the SFA. It did not represent a benefit from the Club. There could only be a 'recommendation' by the club to the trustees."

Do the club say side letters were part of contract?

Mr Magenta is described as having worked on football administration matters at the club. He was questioned closely about “side-letters” and benefits payable in terms of these. “Side-letters”, he said, were part of the “package” offered to players but were distinct from the player’s contract.

"The ‘side-letters’, Mr Magenta insisted, did not have to be disclosed to the football authorities. The SFA rules did not extend to payments from third parties, and this, in accordance with an earlier decision by the Club, would include any trust benefits as being distinct from payments in terms of the player’s contract.”

What “facts” did the tribunal decide based on the evidence given?

It is detailed in the “findings of fact” by the tribunal after hearing the evidence that “in the case of certain footballers the terms of engagement were commonly recorded in two documents, one being a contract of employment, the other being described as a side-letter.

“The latter would provide ordinarily for the constitution of a sub-trust in name of the footballer. While the SFA required players’ contracts to be registered with it, Rangers did not consider it appropriate to have side-letters registered.”

What was the tribunal’s view on 'side-letters'?

The majority view of the three-person tribunal concluded that “we consider that the side-letter’s obligation does not amount to an emolument [payment for employment]. Again, it falls within the description of ‘a discharge of an employer’s obligation to an employee’.”

This statement is important as the SPL rule states that wrongdoing has occurred only if payments for playing activities have not been disclosed. It is likely to be argued, therefore, that the conclusion given means EBT payments do not fall within this category.

What is the club's likely defence?

Rangers’ defence is likely to be that the EBTs were loans which were not part of a footballer's contracts, were not payments for playing football, and therefore did not need to be declared to the SPL.

Now read Rangers tax case: Your questions answered on the SPL investigation, and The case against Rangers based on the tax tribunal documents.

One account. All of STV.

This field is required. That doesn't look like a valid e-mail format, please check. That e-mail's already in our system. Please try again.
ShowHide
Forgot password?
This field is required. At least 6 characters please. Did you enter your details correctly?
If you've forgotten your details then use the 'Forgot password?' link.
Need to reset your password?

We'll send a link to reset your password to

We've sent you details on how to reset your password

Please check your email and follow the instructions.

Forgotten your email address?

Have you forgotten the email address that you previously joined with? Don't worry, by emailing enquiries@stv.tv we can help.

One account. All of STV.

This field is required. Please enter at least 2 characters
This field is required. Please enter at least 2 characters
At least 6 characters please
ShowHide
This field is required. At least 6 characters please.
You have to be 16 or over to join
This field is required. This doesn't appear to be a valid date
Type your full postcode and select your address This field is required. It doesn't look like you've entered a valid postcode. Can't find your address? Confirm the details you've given us are correct by clicking here

By continuing you agree to our Terms of Use, including our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy. Any issues contact us.

Upload Profile Picture

Please make sure your image is under 2mb in size and a valid JPG, PNG or GIF.

Are you sure?

Unfortunately, you'll be unable to access our premium content. We’ll be sorry to see you go, but if you change your mind you can rejoin us at any time.

Please verify your STV account

Please verify your STV account using the email we sent you. If you have lost the email, we can send you another one, just click the button below.

Thanks

We've sent you a new verification email.
Please check your email and follow the instructions to verify your account.

Welcome to STV
Thanks for joining us.

Oops!

Sorry, you must be at least 12 years old to place a vote for your Real Hero.

Please review our Voting Terms of Use for more information.

Oops!

Sorry! It seems that you are using a browser that is incompatible with our voting service.

To register your vote please copy the below URL in to your regular mobile browser. We recommend Google Chrome, or Safari.

http://shows.stv.tv/real-heroes/voting

Oops!

Sorry, you seem to have already voted in this category.

Thanks for voting

Now share your vote with friends on your social network

Share on twitter Share on facebook

Cast your vote

Please register or sign in to continue.

Cast your vote

This field is required. This doesn't appear to be a valid date

Cast your vote

Please fill out this form to cast your vote. As you are under 16 years old you will not create an STV account. Why do we need these details?

This field is required. Please enter at least 2 characters
This field is required. Please enter at least 2 characters
This field is required. That doesn't look like a valid e-mail format, please check.
Location This field is required.
Parental Consent This field is required.

That's you. All that's left is to click the 'Submit Vote' button below. By doing so, you confirm that you and your parent or guardian have read and accept our Voting Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Cookie policy, and that the details you have entered are correct. We'll look after them as carefully as if they were our own.