That's my point, the Revenue don't care about Leeds or Bates, all they want is
a cause celebre to pressure legislators to clarify Tax Law (obviously in their
favour) and to pressure the judiciary to shift their interpretation both of
existing and future legislation.
Of course I could have misread or misunderstood the original postings.
Damian
----- Original Message -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In which case the emhasis would be on "football" to change its rules for
the future.
HMRC might very well say - "look at all this money we lost while
millionnaire footballers got 100%".
Bear in mind HMRC used to have preferential creditor status in
receiverships but that has been changed recently - now the tax man has to stand
in line with everyone else.
There would be nothing to gain from Leeds' case here - but there would be
something to gain if "football debts" lost their special status.
This would create major headaches for football administrators, but
shouldn't affect us with our nice clean balance sheet.
It seems Bates' attempt to push the legal envelope is resulting in changes
to legal loopholes (see also 10-point deductions). But these are unlikely to be
retrospective.
I appreciate that HMRC can retrospectively enforce its rules, but how would
that affect us in this situation? Surely HRMC would be chasing the players who
got an "unfair" distribution from the receivers, not the club?
Not our problem. Danny Mills' problem.
Mark
_______________________________________________
the Leeds List is an unmoderated mailing list and the list administrators
accept no liability for the personal views and opinions of contributors.
Leedslist mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.zetnet.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist
Join The Leeds United Supporters Trust at www.lufctrust.org
