Well we seem to agree on the whole. Apart from the fact that HMRC couldn't challenge a football CVA. I believe they could challenge a CVA and would want to do so in order to get football to stand in line with everyone else. I also personally believe that they would be granted the right to challenge the fact that not all creditors were treated equally in a football cva, but I guess we wont know that until the next CVA where HMRC are owed, and then if their challenge is accepted by a judge. By that I don't mean that the challenge is upheld, but simply that they have grounds to challenge football CVA and the matter should be debated/decided in a court of law.
I agree with you that the upshot of this is that football clubs will make sure that HMRC aren't owed anything, or at least a significant %. None of the above negates the fact that Bates said HMRC told him that they will challenge football CVAs, and I have still to hear anything official to refute that. As I said, in the absence of a direct statement we will have to wait for the next football administration where HMRC are owed anything. Come on you pinks. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:leedslist- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RickD > Sent: 31 August 2007 18:57 > To: leedslist > Subject: Re: [LU] LU: Taxman drops Leeds Utd legal challenge > > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
