• 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.

Pre-Match Thread HMRC v SUFC - FINAL hearing on 1st March. DISMISSED

Forums New posts

Outcome of HMRC court case 1 March

  • Total voters
    450
Status
Not open for further replies.
kentblues said:
Because money coming or to investigate if it was ever owed I wonder. Guess we will never know.
Click to expand...
If you listened to the Trust meeting from the other day, this is the expected outcome. Ron said this winding up was resolved (and paid) 2 years ago and the case would be adjourned.

I'm a bit puzzled if it WAS paid though, why does it have to be adjourned and not just dismissed.
 
palexander said:
If you listened to the Trust meeting from the other day, this is the expected outcome. Ron said this winding up was resolved (and paid) 2 years ago and the case would be adjourned.

I'm a bit puzzled if it WAS paid though, why does it have to be adjourned and not just dismissed.
Click to expand...
He can't just say, it was paid here's my proof. The other party needs to independently verify the information and go through their records.

If they took extracts / kept their bank statements it should be straightforward. If not, then they will have to contact the bank to get copies of their bank statements. They should have copies as its a requirement (Limited companies must keep records for 6 years)

The money may have been received by the recipient but has been allocated to another account, or the money may have been received but with no reference and as such they may have it on their ledger as unknown monies (although they should have instigated a return to sender with their bank long before now)
 
palexander said:
If you listened to the Trust meeting from the other day, this is the expected outcome. Ron said this winding up was resolved (and paid) 2 years ago and the case would be adjourned.

I'm a bit puzzled if it WAS paid though, why does it have to be adjourned and not just dismissed.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t it said in the Zoom thing that it was being adjourned so it could be investigated? Presumably there’s some sort of disagreement between Ron and HMRC as to whether it’s been paid in full.
 
palexander said:
If you listened to the Trust meeting from the other day, this is the expected outcome. Ron said this winding up was resolved (and paid) 2 years ago and the case would be adjourned.

I'm a bit puzzled if it WAS paid though, why does it have to be adjourned and not just dismissed.
Click to expand...
Yes I did listen. But I assume nothing 100%, anymore than I do about March 1. I expect these things will be resolved but whilst they aren't I am nervous (and therefore interested).
Yes his contention is he doesn't owe it. Yet HMRC are pursuing it and it was adjourned not dismissed- so they still think they are owed. All be it he was pursued for VAT fraud all the way to a trial date without a shred of evidence so HMRC thinking they are owed proves nothing either.

Yes most likely adjourned whilst RM schools HMRC on tax owed or vice versa. But would be nice to know if anything else came up like how he would pay if the debt is confirmed.
 
Supershrimper said:
He can't just say, it was paid here's my proof. The other party needs to independently verify the information and go through their records.

If they took extracts / kept their bank statements it should be straightforward. If not, then they will have to contact the bank to get copies of their bank statements. They should have copies as its a requirement (Limited companies must keep records for 6 years)

The money may have been received by the recipient but has been allocated to another account, or the money may have been received but with no reference and as such they may have it on their ledger as unknown monies (although they should have instigated a return to sender with their bank long before now)
Click to expand...
True moneys getting to the wrong place/account is not unusual. But you assume the amount was meaningful so it would have been chased..
 
kentblues said:
True moneys getting to the wrong place/account is not unusual. But you assume the amount was meaningful so it would have been chased..
Click to expand...
True, but if your Ron and you know its been paid I'd imagine he is quite happy to ignore chasers / emails / telephone calls as he knows its been paid.

Probably believes its up the other individual to locate the money. Mindset of I've done just enough on my side, its up to you to find it and proof I haven't.
 
kentblues said:
Yes I did listen. But I assume nothing 100%, anymore than I do about March 1. I expect these things will be resolved but whilst they aren't I am nervous (and therefore interested).
Yes his contention is he doesn't owe it. Yet HMRC are pursuing it and it was adjourned not dismissed- so they still think they are owed. All be it he was pursued for VAT fraud all the way to a trial date without a shred of evidence so HMRC thinking they are owed proves nothing either.

Yes most likely adjourned whilst RM schools HMRC on tax owed or vice versa. But would be nice to know if anything else came up like how he would pay if the debt is confirmed.
Click to expand...
Would be nice to actually and factually know something. If the situation is that simple in RM's favour why not just come out and provide the proof so we can all relax and the furore dies down? It would be fairly straightforward, I would have thought, for RM/TL to show key documents in confidence to the Trust (who are also still owed money) to show that HMRC were repaid by MD Ltd as suggested and that the bridging loan is available/signed and funds are on their way.
 
palexander said:
If you listened to the Trust meeting from the other day, this is the expected outcome. Ron said this winding up was resolved (and paid) 2 years ago and the case would be adjourned.

I'm a bit puzzled if it WAS paid though, why does it have to be adjourned and not just dismissed.
Click to expand...
They will investigate to c if what Ron said was correct
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

.



Club News
Fixtures and Results
League Table
SUFC Ticket Stats
Shrimpers Trust
SoccerBase
SUEPA (Ex Players)
Shrimperzone on Facebook
Shrimperzone on Twitter
Shrimperzone on Instagram


ShrimperZone Sponsors

FFM MSPFX Foreign Exchange Services
Estuary MFF2
Zone Advertisers Zone Advertisers

ShrimperZone - SUFC Player Sponsorship

Southend United Away Travel


All At Sea Fanzine


Back
Top