> So are you saying that HMRC would not challenge any future CVA as long as > the process was followed? > If so, what is your source for that information? > Not saying it is wrong, but as I said before, I have yet to see anyone > actually refute the claim that HMRC will take any future CVA all the way > to > the high court. Sorry, for clarification, when I say 'process' I really > mean the whole basis of the CVA, in other words creditors not all treated > equally. A better word might have been 'validity'.
The taxman accepts CVAs in a wide range of businesses so they do not see the CVA process itself as being a flawed or illegal process. What HMRC will not accept is creditors being treated unequally which is the de facto position in football because of FL rules. HMRC policy guidance is to vote against all football CVAs because of the FLs football creditors rule. This will cause great difficulties (to the League) if HMRC have enough voting power to prevent a CVA being accepted but AFAIK there is no precedent yet in terms of subsequent FL actions. I understand that Bostons situation was different because of a previous suspended sentence. The FL have themselves stated that Leeds is not a precedent. Clubs may therefore need to ensure that HMRC are always kept below 25% of outstanding creditors, a situation which I'm sure HMRC will be quite happy about. There is no known HMRC policy guidance to do any more than vote against the CVA at the creditors meeting. There is certainly no known HMRC policy guidance to make a legal challenge to any football CVA which is voted through by the creditors meeting, even though HMRC themselves will vote against it at that meeting. It is far from clear what grounds there would be for HMRC making any such challenges as the football creditors rule is outside of the CVA arrangements. Without legal grounds there would be no legal challenge. There is much more that the FL could do to placate HMRC in this. They could for example make a rule which says that football creditors cannot vote at the CVA meeting and at the same time maintain their right to receive 100% payment under their own FL rules, in other words only football creditors who abstain from voting at the creditors meeting would qualify for 100% payment under the FLs own rules. This would also increase the pressure on clubs not to allow HMRC debts to mount up because it would affect the balance of voting power at the creditors meeting. The HMRC policy guidance has been in place for some time and was known about before Leeds and Boston went into administration. If anyone is aware of HMRC guidance which is in any way different to what I am saying here then please point it out. _______________________________________________ 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
