• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Breaking News Shrimpers face yet ANOTHER tax dispute

Spaceman Spiff

Attila the Admin⭐
Staff member
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
11,888
Location
Kennington, London
It never ceases to amuse how the expert witnesses on here fail to see that for whatever Ron says, however wide his credibility gap may appear at times, their own is far wider (for a number of, I would have thought, fairly obvious reasons)! Makes for entertaining reading on the way home though, thanks one and all.

Peace in our times chaps, it must be - it says so here!
 

stortford

Schoolboy
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
86
If this debt is simply the paying over of deductions an employer (SUFC in this case) has made from their employees isn't it the returns the employer themselves has made that calculate the amount (assuming its not an investigation etc where there are interest and penalties)?

I'm not sure it's HMRC picking on football clubs as such, more like becoming less tolerant with any employer that has a poor payment history and therefore ticks their higher risk boxes.
 

Hotman

reason, honour, integrity
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
5,611
Location
Not here
Agreed. I'm afraid this is another ruse to disguise the club's appalling cash-flow situation. If you or I think we've overpayed tax, we apply for a rebate - we don't withhold it from our PAYE! His behaviour is thoroughly reckless.

Matt
Wrong. If you've overpaid PAYE / NI as an employer you are actively encouraged to deal with it in this manner. Even goes for SMP funding, online filing incentives etc.

For once, I'll side with the club on this until further evidence shows it to be wrong - seems to be just simple mis-allocation by the pillocks at HMRC as I've seen it many times over.

As an employee, you are correct, it is your job to apply for a refund.
 
Last edited:

choggy

Coach
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
566
Location
London
Can you be locked up for tax evasion, I know it worked for that gangster Al Capone.

You have to prove criminal intent for that to happen (ie deliberately cooking your books to hide the amount of tax you have to pay). That doesn't seem to be the case here though, RM seems quite happy to tell HMRC exactly how much money he isn't going to pay them.
 

The Late One

Coach
Joined
Oct 24, 2004
Messages
914
Southend United face yet ANOTHER winding up petition after reportedly withholding £200,000 from their November and December PAYE submissions to the taxman.

If you believe everything you have read in the Echo in recent weeks this cannot be true...as PAYE is only due once you have paid your empolyees - so nothing to worry about chaps
 

Beefy

Life President
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
18,906
Location
Old Leigh
Seems a huge amount of tax for such a small squad. Obviously it's not just relating to the playing staff, but still.
 

Beefy

Life President
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
18,906
Location
Old Leigh
I know that this is going back over very old ground, but the was an article in the Irish Times today about a private members bar in Dublin which has applied for Examinership (kind of an equivalent of Administration). Anyway the Judge in the Court who was listening to the petition heard that the owners had been using money which should have been paid over to the taxman to instead fund day-to-day business costs. The Judge clearly doesn't follow English football very closely because he went loopy at the idea. He described the way that this and other businesses were using the tax-payer as a Bank as being "a form of thievery".

That's pretty much the way I feel, too.
 

Matt the Shrimp

aka Harry Potter
Joined
Oct 27, 2003
Messages
19,929
Location
Lewisham, London
Wrong. If you've overpaid PAYE / NI as an employer you are actively encouraged to deal with it in this manner. Even goes for SMP funding, online filing incentives etc.

For once, I'll side with the club on this until further evidence shows it to be wrong - seems to be just simple mis-allocation by the pillocks at HMRC as I've seen it many times over.

As an employee, you are correct, it is your job to apply for a refund.

I stand corrected - thanks for the clarification.

Matt
 

Spaceman Spiff

Attila the Admin⭐
Staff member
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Messages
11,888
Location
Kennington, London
Wrong. If you've overpaid PAYE / NI as an employer you are actively encouraged to deal with it in this manner. Even goes for SMP funding, online filing incentives etc.

For once, I'll side with the club on this until further evidence shows it to be wrong - seems to be just simple mis-allocation by the pillocks at HMRC as I've seen it many times over.

As an employee, you are correct, it is your job to apply for a refund.

Hurrah! A rare informed voice among the din of judgmental speculation...
 

philtalkin

Manager
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
1,056
He doesn't have a legal to stand on.

If there was an overpayment in the £2.1m, and frankly, this should have been identified before it was paid and sorted out then, then it should be claimed back.

However, the "overpayment" is simply SUFC claiming there is on, it has not been agreed with HMRC and as such the withholding of PAYE is reckless in the extreme as it opens another case of non-payment of tax, which will have interested added to it and probably an additional penalty.

I am quite astounded that RM can be so stupid.

I am astounded you feel RM doesn't have a legal to stand on (sic). Which department do you work in again?

There wasn't enough time to check the amount owing and, even if the clubs accountants had spotted the error, in the short space of time we were given, we would have had no choice but to pay the full amount claimed by HMRC. Otherwise it would have looked like the club was making yet another desperate attempt to avoid paying.

Of course, the disputed amount has not been agreed with HMRC, as they have refused to enter into discussions and, believe they are correct. However, HMRC should not have ignored the clubs requests to meet and resolve the issue, either way.

Maybe HMRC are correct (although I am sure the SUFC accountants would have spent more time going in to the details than HMRC). However, they should have already met with the clubs acountants and owe it to all businesses to try to resolve any issues of this type, without resorting to bully boy tactics.

Who will end up with egg on their face, the public face framed by the beautifully coiffured locks or the faceless jobsworths at HMRC?
 

Reg Martin

No Relation
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
2,516
I used to do some book-keeping for some friends who ran their own business. It was quite common for the taxman to overbill them and retrospectively correct any overpayment on later bills.
So the fact that the club are disputing the amount owed is nothing out of the ordinary. It sounds like HMRC weren't interested in looking into the club's claim that they had overpaid and RM decided to take matters into his own hands.It does sound like it has forced the HMRC into agreeing to discuss the club's claims so from RM's point of view its job done. Though admittedly it doesn't do anything for the nerves of us supporters.
 
Top