HomepageCommercial LawPrivate LawPublic Law & Human RightsCriminal LawEU & International LawCareers


Have Irlen Syndrome, or need different contrast? Click the button below for options.

Background Colours


Enter you email address below to subscribe to free customisable article notifications.

Alternatively, click the button below for our various RSS Feeds (available journal wide, or per section).

Breaking the Trust of Football Fans: The Rangers FC Tax Case

Article Cover Image

About The Author

Mark O'Neill (Regular Writer)

Mark is a graduate of the Open University, where he recently graduated with a First Class Honours in his BSc (Hons) Open Degree. Mark is currently working full time for the Financial Ombudsman Service as an Adjudicator, while also undertaking an LLM in Sports Law in Practice at De Montford University with the aim of working as a solicitor specialising in sports law.

[Read More]

Rangers are the second most important institution in Scotland after the Church of Scotland.

David Murray

Since the launch of the Premier League in 1992, mega TV and sponsorship deals have left clubs at the top level of the game flush with vast sums of money; transfer fees of £20 million or more are more common place than ever before. And, with greater amounts of money coming into the game, clubs have had to become more financially sophisticated,some resorting to desperate measures to seek a competitive advantage in the arms race of modern elite football.

Nothing demonstrates this more than Glasgow Rangers FC (‘Rangers’), the former superpower of Scottish football whose dramatic fall from grace culminated in an infamous liquidation. The rise of the Phoenix club which formed in 2012 from the bottom division of the Scottish football has been slow and steady, and its ascendance has always had a big cloud over it: its historical use of controversial Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) to remunerate its players and staff as a tax avoidance measure. It was these EBTS that were the focus of a landmark UK Supreme Court decision last month.

The Fall of Glasgow Rangers FC

The well-documented liquidation of Rangers was triggered by after-effects of the 2008 Banking Crash.. Lloyds – ttaking over from the defunct HBOS as the club’s bankers – had discovered that an unpaid overdraft of almost £20 million was owed, which it decided to call in. Unable to cover that cost, Murray International Holdings Ltd (MIH) sold its shares in the club to businessman Craig Whyte, whose financial mismanagement saw the club struggle to pay off tax bills and debts. As a result, Rangers was forced into liquidation in February 2012.

Charles Green managed to save Rangers as a football club by creating a new company with which to own it (the ‘newco club’). The ‘newco club’ was forced to reapply for membership of the Scottish FA and Football League, and had to begin its new life in the bottom division of the Scottish Football League in the 2012/13 season.

RFC 2012 plc v Advocate General for Scotland

The question before the Supreme Court in RFC 2012 Plc v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] was whether EBTs used by Rangers between 2001 and 2010 were valid tax avoidance measures. The club had used EBTs to avoid paying Income Tax and Class 1 National Insurance contributions (NICs) to 111 employees: players, staff and other personnel connected to MIH, the parent company which had owned Rangers since 1988. Crucially, during that nine-year period, Rangers had spent just over £100 million in transfer fees and won 13 trophies, thereby maintaining their position alongside Celtic as one of the superpowers of Scottish football.

Rangers had already faced some punishment for its use of EBTs. In 2012, an independent commission chaired by Lord Nimmo Smith had imposed a fine of £250,000 on the ‘oldco’ club for its use of EBTs. Controversially, however, it opted not to strip the club of any of the trophies it had won during the period that the EBT structure had operated.

However, HMRC – represented in the litigation by the Advocate General for Scotland – had decided to take the matter further . It argued that the use of EBTs was a mere ruse for the ‘oldco’ club to avoid paying its real tax obligations, allowing it to inflate its short-term cash flow and spend money it should have paid in tax. Indeed, conservative estimates put the club’s debt to HMRC as somewhere between £25-48 million.

The club successfully defended  the arrangements in the lower Scottish courts: both the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UTT) had found the EBTs to be legal. However, thesedecisions were overturned by Inner House of the Court of Session. The long-running litigation therefore culminated in the Supreme Court in March 2017, after an appeal against the Court of Session’s decision was brought by the ‘oldco’ club’s liquidaters.

What is an EBT?

An EBT is a trust which can be established either in the UK or offshore. It is set up by a company to hold cash, or other assets like shares, to provide benefits to employees and their families in order to attract and retain quality staff. They have been used extensively by companies to minimise their tax obligations.

In order for an EBT to function, a company sets up a principal trust, from which comes a subtrust in favour of an employee. The trustee of the sub trust has the power to appoint trust property to the beneficiary – the employee – at their absolute discretion.


In RFC 2012 Plc v Advocate General for Scotland [2017], the EBT structure took the following form. Murray Group Management Limited (MGML), a subsidiary company of the ultimate parent company MIH, set up a trust known as the Remuneration Trust. This allowed any company within the Murray group of companies which wished to benefit one of their employees to make a cash payment to the Renumeration  Trust in respect of that employee. The company would then recommend that the trustee of the Renumeration Trust should create a sub-trust and resettle the sum which had been forwarded to it, asking that the capital and income should be applied as per the wishes of the employee beneficiary.


The sub trust would then make a payment to the employee in the form of a loan, nominally repayable over ten years at an interest rate of 4.5%, which would accrue and be repaid at the end of the term. Rangers established 108 sub trusts for individual employees, 81 were for club employees such as players and executives, and 27 for other Murray Group employees. Whenever the club signed a player, his terms of employment were recorded in two separate contractual documents: his standard employment contract, which stated that his remuneration would be subject to the usual deductions of Income Tax and NICs, and a side letter in which the club agreed to recommend that the Renumeration Trust set up a sub trust in favour of the player, and to fund the sub-trust with the amounts agreed in the contract of employment.

Because the funds forwarded to the player were considered to be a loan, they were not liable for Income Tax deductions or NICs. This allowed the club to make significant short term savings on its wage bill.

But HMRC argued that these payments from the trust should constitute income rather than loans, and thus be liable to tax. The club successfully defended this argument in the FTT and the UTT by arguing that while the scheme might involve aggressive tax avoidance, it was not a sham.

Income Tax and the law

Two pieces of legislation cover the period of the club’s EBT scheme: the tax years 2001/02 and 2002/03 were governed by the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (ICTA 1988), and the remaining part of the period was covered by the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003).

The critical issue of the case relates to emoluments. Emoluments, as defined by Section 131 of ICTA 1988, include “all salaries, fees, wages, perquisites, and profits whatsoever”. Under ICTA 1988, these were taxed on a receipts basis, meaning they were calculated based on the amount received by the taxpayer in question. Section 202 of ICTA 1988 is the critical section, which states income tax was chargeable under Schedule E on “the full amount of the emoluments received in the year in respect of the office or employment concerned”. Section 202B of ICTA 1988 defined when they were to be treated to be received, either at the time of payment or when the person becomes entitled to payment. Section 7, Section 9 and Section 62 of ITEPA 2003 set out an almost identical concept of emoluments and when any tax becomes due in respect of them.

Employers, who pay emoluments which are assessable to tax, are required to deduct income tax from their payments to their employees under the “pay as you earn” (“PAYE”) regime. The employer must then pay to HMRC the amount of tax which it was liable to deduct and, if HMRC suspects that an employer has not paid to it the correct amount of tax, it may determine the amount due and service notice on the employer. At the Inner House hearing in November 2015, Lord Drummond Young opined that:

[T]he central concept in the tax regime governing employment income is the payment of emoluments or earnings derived from employment, and an employer who pays emoluments or earnings to or on account of an employee is obliged to deduct tax in accordance with the PAYE Regulations.

Interpretation of the legislative code for income tax has developed over time to reflect ever-changing government policy in this area; almost every Budget seems to affect the taxation of income in some way, whether it is a mere tinkering with the rates, the adjustment of bands, or the closure of loopholes in the code.

This has meant that the law has resembled more of a patchwork quilt rather than one perfect, elegant garment. As a result, it has fallen on the judiciary to provide some clarity. Traditionally, thanks to cases such as Hochstrasser v Mayes [1960] AC 376 and Laidler v Perry [1966], a literalist approach to statutory interpretation was taken: focus was placed solely on the words of the statute, thereby avoiding interpretative gloss being added by the judiciary.

However, a new principle was established in the leading case of W T Ramsay Ltd v Inland Revenue Comrs [1982] and confirmed in Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson [2005].  In W T Ramsey, the House of Lords outlined the modern approach to statutory construction, which involves havingregard to what the purpose of a particular provision is, and to interpret its language in a way which gives effect to that purpose as far as possible.

Defending this shift in approach, Lord Nicholls argued in Mawson that the purposive approach was more appropriate for determining the nature of the transaction which would be likely to apply and whether that transaction matched that statutory description. After all, tax is imposed by reference to real-world economic activity, and some go to great intellectual lengths to legally avoid their liabilities by inserting elements which are designed to bring a transaction outside the scope of the legislation, but in practice bring little or no commercial value. Therefore, Lord Nicholls argued, the correct judicial response is to apply the purposive approach to assess whether a transaction would be of the type that the legislation was designed to catch. This change in interpretative approach would later prove important to the Supreme Court’s decision in this case.

Did Rangers Break the Law?

The issue at the heart of RFC 2012 Plc v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] is whether the recipient employees were receiving remuneration that amounted to taxable emoluments under Section 19 of ICTA 1988 and Section 9(2) and Section 62 of ITEPA 2003. Case law such as Hochstrasser v Mayes [1960] AC 376 – which decided that payments are assessable if they are paid in return for acting as, or being, an employee – seems to support the fact that the remuneration did amount to taxable emoluments.

Indeed, the way the EBTs were structured and the existence of the side-letters, was proof enough for both the Court of Session and the Supreme Court to decide that the payments received by players and staff were undoubtedly emoluments, and thus should be liable to income tax.

This conclusion accorded well with the statutory language. Section 13 of ITEPA 2003 defines the taxable person as the person who is liable for any tax on salary or wages. It is therefore the employee, whose work and remuneration creates the liability, who is taxed, and not the recipient of the earnings. Crucially, neither ICTA 1988 nor ITEPA 2003 specify who the recipient of the funds must be. Therefore, implicitly, the legislation does not necessitate that an employee receives the money; it is possible for any third party to do so, like the trustee of the relevant EBT in this case.

Rangers sought to counter this conclusion by pointing out that the payments did not  arise from the normal contractual employee-employer relationship, but were made purely at the employer's discretion. This, they argued, engaged the ratio of the decision in Sempra Metals v Revenue and Customs [2008], where it was held that payments to a trust not placed unreservedly at the disposal of the employee in question were not considered taxable.

However, Lord Hodge disagreed: he felt that, when interpreting the terms of contractual payments outlined in the side letters, it was necessary to look purposively at the composite effect of the scheme as it was intended to operate. And, because the EBT scheme was intended to allow each player unimpeded access to the funds paid into the trust in his name, he concluded that the decision in Sempra Metals did not apply.

There were questions also raised about whether certain payments made by Rangers, either as bonuses or other one-off payments, to third parties were taxable. For example, in 2001, Rangers paid £30,000 to Graeme Souness, who had left the club back in 1991 and thus had no direct employment relationship with it.

Lord Hodge held that such payments were taxable: he noted that even if a payment is a discretionary one, or one which relies on a contingency to be triggered, neither f alters their underlying nature; they are provided in return for the employee’s efforts. Furthermore, citing the Privy Council’s decision in Hadlee v Comr of Inland Revenue [1993] AC 524 – in which a taxpayer was attempting to escape tax by using a trust to appoint income for the benefit of a third party – Lord Hodge confirmed that income tax was a tax on income which was the product of the taxpayer's efforts, meaning it was not possible  to escape liability by assigning a share to a third party.  

Lord Hodge also dismissed, referring to the decision in Inland Revenue Comrs v Scottish Provident Institution [2004], the argument that, because there was a risk that Rangers’ EBT scheme may not work as intended, this altered the nature of the payment. Ultimately, he concluded, the payments received by the players and staff were undoubtedly emoluments, and thus should be liable to income tax.

Conclusion – B-Y-E to E-B-Ts?

Rangers’ self-inflicted financial Armageddon rocked Scottish football to its core. For Scottish football, its effects could be equated to a downfall of Barcelona or Real Madrid in Spain, or Manchester United in England.

However, for many, it was not so much Rangers’ liquidation that stuck in the craw; rather, it was how they got to that point. The financial chicanery used was, to many people’s eyes, plain and simple cheating. The use of EBTs allowed the club to redirect money, which should have gone to the taxman, to fund transfer fees and salaries of players like Tore Andre Flo, Frank de Boer and Mikel Arteta, players that the club may never have been able to attract without the additional cash accrued through aggressive tax savings.

Therefore, the Supreme Court’s decision in RFC 2012 Plc v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] has opened up old wounds; many of Rangers’ rivals will cast their mind back to the Nimmo Smith Commission’s refusal to strip the club of titles won during the EBTs’ operation. However, while theremay be strong arguments for doing so – the precedent of Juventus in Italy has shown it to be possible – it may, in practice, achieve very little, punishing only  an institution which effectively no longer exists. It should also be mentioned that Celtic – Rangers’ major rivals – also used similar EBT schemes, though only in isolated cases and not nearly to the degree employed by Rangers.

Football is a pastime that stirs the passions of fans like no other sport, such that  clubs are no ordinary institutions. They are part of their fans, anextension of their hopes, dreams, and beliefs. Footballers and football clubs are therefore rarely  held up to the same moral code as normal employees and companies; investors rarely react with similar passion when the CEO of a company either makes a brilliant strategic move or decides to defect to a rival for a higher offer.

This underlying passion for football explains much about the reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling in RFC 2012 Plc v Advocate General for Scotland [2017]. If a normal corporate entity had used the same aggressive tax avoidance tactics as Rangers, then this decision would likely be confined to the footnotes of Law Reports. However, the fact they were utilised by a major football club to gain what is perceived by many as an unfair advantage will taint the use of EBTs for a long while to come. For football clubs at least, this looks like the final whistle on the use of EBTs.

For the latest articles straight to your inbox, you can subscribe for free. Alternatively, follow @KeepCalmTalkLaw on Twitter or Like us on Facebook.

Tagged: Banking & Finance, Company Law, Employment Law, Sport Law, Supreme Court, Trusts

Comment / Show Comments (0)

You May Also Be Interested In...

Vicarious Liability: Re-Examining the "Akin to Employment" Test

16th Jun 2020 by Peter Lennon

TPO in Football: What is "Third Party Ownership"?

10th Mar 2020 by Mark O'Neill

Routier v HMRC: Redefining 'Charitable Purposes' For Inheritance Tax

4th Feb 2020 by Liza Hartley

Banco Nazionale v Playboy: Raising the Stakes on Negligent Misstatements

24th Aug 2018 by Jamil Mustafa

Armes v Nottinghamshire CC: Vicarious Liability Spirals out of Control

21st Aug 2018 by James Smith

Discrimination in the Women's Football World Cup

5th Feb 2015 by Manprabh Basi

Section Pick May

Coronavirus and Contracts: Is Frustration in Play?

Editors' Pick Image

View More


Keep Calm Talk Law: Moving Forward

3rd Sep 2019

Changing of the Guard: Moving Keep Calm Talk Law Forward

12th Aug 2018

An Anniversary or Two: Four Years of Keep Calm Talk Law

11th Nov 2017

Rising from the Ashes: The Return of Keep Calm Talk Law

18th Nov 2016

Two Years On, Keep Calm Talk Law’s Legacy is Expanding

11th Nov 2015


Javascript must be enabled for the Twitter plugin to function. Click below to visit us on Twitter.

Free Email Subscription

Subscribe to Keep Calm Talk Law for email updates, and/or weekly roundups. You can tailor your subscription on activation. Both fields are required.

Your occupation / Career stage is used to tailor your subscription and for readership monitoring.

Uncheck this box if you do not want to receive our monthly newsletter.

By clicking the Subscribe button, you agree to our privacy policy and terms of service. Please ensure you read these in full.

Free Subscription