Quote ="faxcar"For example both the winding up petitions company numbers show they haven't been served against the club in it's current form but against the club under a different name under different ownership that was registered as being dormant a decade ago.
This raises a number of issues which in this current context involves tax liabilities.
1.) Any company from the date it is registered as being dormant ceases trading and has no tax liabilities after that date unless it starts trading again under that name, which hasn't happened in this case.
However the owners / directors / those who were responsible for that company are still accountable for any tax liabilities from any tax year periods when they were trading before registering as being dormant.
2.) This raises the question of whether the club in it's current form under a different name with different ownership can be held accountable for the liabilities from the previous now dormant company as if inheriting their debt.
Two things are being challenged and debated, not only the amount but if the club in it's current form are even responsible for it in the first place.
No wonder we don't understand the legal position or can predict the outcome but that's why the club have engaged a legal team of experts to handle it and for me as frustrating as it is to see it drag on and on and on what will be will be and leave it to them.'"
The problem is in understanding the set up. The WUP was issued against the company set up when Stephen Pearson saved the club in the early 2000's. Wasnt the club run as some form of member ownership scheme at the time?
The 'trading company' was set up a few years later, when Howard Posner became involved and the club became a more traditionally owned company (shareholders) rather than members.
Then the PK2022 (or whatever it is called) was the company used as a takeover vehicle when the consortium took over a couple of years ago. This company owns the other two existing companies and has common directors.
I can only assume the original (Halifax RLFC) company holds the membership with the RFL which is why it has never been liquidated.
New owners of an existing company are still liable for any historical liabilities hence my other post questioning the due diligence. For quite a few years, the dormant company has shown a negative balance sheet of the £133k. What this is, who knows? But there is obviously a reason this company wasnt liquidated when the trading company was formed and a reason why HMRC are persuing it.
