Guest smoggeordie Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 NUFC VAT Appeal Successful Newcastle United's appeal against the decision of the Manchester VAT Tribunal, given on 21st August 2006, was heard before Mr Justice Mann in London during February 2007. The Judgment was handed down this morning and the appeal was successful. This means that the Decision of the Tribunal no longer stands. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I'm sure this references some horribly embarrassing previous incident, but as they've all started to run together could you refresh my memory? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrette Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 That thread title is megacringetastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smoggeordie Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 That thread title is megacringetastic. I thought it was quite good Not a clue what it's about though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Well the title is really really bad Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smoggeordie Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Well the title is really really bad So are you, penguin boy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 That's nowt, I was going to post this under 'No VAT for TWAT': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6483283.stm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kasper Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Well the title is really really bad So are you, penguin boy. Righty. I'll beg Dave to give you a medal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest smoggeordie Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 That's nowt, I was going to post this under 'No VAT for t***': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6483283.stm That's canny good, still like mine though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 useless as tits on a bull the lot of you http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1857929,00.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Basically, Inland Revenue wanted the Premiership clubs to pay more VAT, so the Premiership asked us (who had the best kept books) to stand against Inland Revenue in court as a test case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobby Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 PeeWee? http://members.tripod.com/~Pweee/Picts/53.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Basically, Inland Revenue wanted the Premiership clubs to pay more VAT, so the Premiership asked us (who had the best kept books) to stand against Inland Revenue in court as a test case. Are you absolutely sure about that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Basically, Inland Revenue wanted the Premiership clubs to pay more VAT, so the Premiership asked us (who had the best kept books) to stand against Inland Revenue in court as a test case. Are you absolutely sure about that? Yes, or at least one of the best. I remember being suprised, but that was definitely the reason for us going through the court as the test case. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Basically, Inland Revenue wanted the Premiership clubs to pay more VAT, so the Premiership asked us (who had the best kept books) to stand against Inland Revenue in court as a test case. Are you absolutely sure about that? Yes, or at least one of the best. I remember being suprised, but that was definitely the reason for us going through the court as the test case. Now I might be wrong about this, but didn't the auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts a number of times? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Basically, Inland Revenue wanted the Premiership clubs to pay more VAT, so the Premiership asked us (who had the best kept books) to stand against Inland Revenue in court as a test case. Are you absolutely sure about that? Yes, or at least one of the best. I remember being suprised, but that was definitely the reason for us going through the court as the test case. Now I might be wrong about this, but didn't the auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts a number of times? Definitely not recently. In fact the Premier League described our books as 'transparent' iirc. I know this kind of contradicts what everyone believes about shepherd cooking the books, but people do come up with theories that aren't true about him, but become considered truth. I don't like him much as a football chairman either, but he deserves credit rather than falsehoods in this instance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Basically, Inland Revenue wanted the Premiership clubs to pay more VAT, so the Premiership asked us (who had the best kept books) to stand against Inland Revenue in court as a test case. Are you absolutely sure about that? Yes, or at least one of the best. I remember being suprised, but that was definitely the reason for us going through the court as the test case. Now I might be wrong about this, but didn't the auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts a number of times? Definitely not recently. In fact the Premier League described our books as 'transparent' iirc. I know this kind of contradicts what everyone believes about shepherd cooking the books, but people do come up with theories that aren't true about him, but become considered truth. I don't like him much as a football chairman either, but he deserves credit rather than falsehoods in this instance. Can you provide me with a link to back up what your saying, please? I can't back up what I've said at the moment, by the way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Seems that they did in fact sign off on the 2005 accounts: Opinion In our opinion: the accounts give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the Company and the Group as at 31 July 2005 and of the loss of the Group for the year then ended; and the accounts and the part of the Directors’ Remuneration Report to be audited have been properly prepared in accordance with the Companies Act 1985. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Basically, Inland Revenue wanted the Premiership clubs to pay more VAT, so the Premiership asked us (who had the best kept books) to stand against Inland Revenue in court as a test case. Are you absolutely sure about that? Yes, or at least one of the best. I remember being suprised, but that was definitely the reason for us going through the court as the test case. Now I might be wrong about this, but didn't the auditors refuse to sign off on the accounts a number of times? Definitely not recently. In fact the Premier League described our books as 'transparent' iirc. I know this kind of contradicts what everyone believes about shepherd cooking the books, but people do come up with theories that aren't true about him, but become considered truth. I don't like him much as a football chairman either, but he deserves credit rather than falsehoods in this instance. Can you provide me with a link to back up what your saying, please? I can't back up what I've said at the moment, by the way. I am trying to find a link, right now Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Can't actually find the 2006 accounts, only the preliminary results. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1693358,00.html Describes how we were the test case. I definitely do remember though that we were chosen as the test case specifically because our books were amongst the best of the clubs being pursued. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Wouldn't be a very good test case if the clubs admitted that the majority of them had books that were a lot worse than ours, the tax man would just go after the clubs with dodgy accounts, wouldn't they? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Wouldn't be a very good test case if the clubs admitted that the majority of them had books that were a lot worse than ours, the tax man would just go after the clubs with dodgy accounts, wouldn't they? Arsenal were next on their list. Tax men always go for the people that are going to provide them with the most money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indi Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Wouldn't be a very good test case if the clubs admitted that the majority of them had books that were a lot worse than ours, the tax man would just go after the clubs with dodgy accounts, wouldn't they? Arsenal were next on their list. Tax men always go for the people that are going to provide them with the most money. Hang about, you just said that NUFC were chosen by the Premier League to be the test case, not that they were targeted by the taxman, which is it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Brazilianbob Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 This is all about us claiming back VAT off money paid by the club to agents involved in transfers. The Inland Revenue (IR) say we can't claim the VAT back because the agent is acting for the player not the club or something along those lines. We took our case to a tribunal, but the tribunal agreed with the IR. We then appealed against that tribunal decision and a High Court Judge has ruled that the tribunal decision was erroneous in law, and the Judge has remitted the case back to a fresh Tribunal hearing where the process will begin all over again. However, if the fresh tribunal finds against us again, that won't necessarily be an end to it, because we will have the option of appealing the decision to the High Court Judge again. If he then agrees with the tribunal and finds against us, we will have the further option of appealing to the Court of Appeal (CoA). If the CoA finds against us, we can take our case to the House of Lords (HoL). After that the only remaining avenue of appeal is to go to the European Courts of Justice (ECJ) based in Strasbourg. Conversely, if either the tribunal, CoA, or HoL finds in our favour, the IR has the same rights of appeal and can appeal against those decisions all the way to the ECJ, and given the financial implications for the IR, with most football clubs claiming back substantial amounts of VAT, I would imagine the IR will fight this case all the way to Strasbourg. In other words "it ain't over until the fat lady sings". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now