Sportech Share Discussion Threads

[carcosa] 11/12/2016 07:18

"The FTT’s decision that the ‘character’ of the VAT repayments in question was in principle that of trading receipts is understandable up to a point. However, as shown above, it is necessary to examine the precise nature of the VAT repayments in question before concluding whether or not they are taxable as trading receipts or otherwise."

Much much more info here:

[nod] 11/12/2016 02:20

Peel Hunt sets price target of 140p

[nod] 10/12/2016 10:06

I don't know how it works in the UK but where I am the tax man adds a pitiful amount of interest on money held but does not deduct tax from it. Maybe they have already taken the tax out of what they return.

[somerset lad] 10/12/2016 09:05

I'm not an expert either, but I thought you paid tax on the interest - does anyone know?

And if we ever receive compound interest, I think there's legislation levying tax at 45% on restitutionary awards but, as always, DYOR.

[nod] 09/12/2016 22:04

I'm not a tax expert, but I don't believe you pay tax on tax refunds and you don't pay tax on Court settlements or awards.

[nod] 09/12/2016 22:00

Pools is a cash cow, which is why there have been two formal offers over the past 18 months with other parties in the wings. All buyers are trying to get it below valuation knowing that SPO wants to sell it. But SPO is not desperate to sell, so will wait for the right price, which is obviously over 90 million.When terminating the Contagious Gaming offer in Nov 2015, SPO stated: "The Board has recently received more than one preliminary proposal in respect of The Football Pools and will be reviewing the terms of these proposals in due course. A further announcement will be made if appropriate."

[russman] 09/12/2016 12:01

My valuation of the Pools business is lower than yours.

[finkie] 09/12/2016 11:25

good research chaps may sell half now thin market so actually tricky getting any away...

[somerset lad] 09/12/2016 10:45

As a wild guess: there have been three hearings plus the application for permission to the Supreme Court; they've been fairly short hearings on two narrow points (definition of a game; what is a game of chance); there's not been much evidence. Say £3m costs plus a 100% uplift for success = £6m. HMRC will pay part of this, but not all (say half), leaving SPO with total legal costs of £3m. DYOR.

[nod] 09/12/2016 10:08

We don't know yet what percentage of the award will go to the firm that took on the claim. It's a big name firm ... I posted it on here around six months ago ... can't recall who.

[finkie] 09/12/2016 09:23

Price at time of writing slightly disappointing and was at the races yesterday so didn't have chance to act on the spike yesterday now a fairy miserable 83p to sell was hoping for more buying today on back of court decision and sell at 90p!

[finkie] 09/12/2016 04:54

Well done everyone good work!

[nod] 09/12/2016 01:40

I don't know that SPO has never mentioned its claim for compound interest - I seem to recall it did but that was over seven years ago. Other companies would have used its 2009 claim and Littlewoods Court successes over the years to ramp up their share price. But not Sportech.

[nod] 09/12/2016 01:28

The Tax JournalDate: 1 June 2015Author(s): Michael Conlon QCSPEED READThe Littlewoods litigation continues the victorious advance of claimants seeking redress for the payment of undue VAT. In rejecting HMRC's ingenious arguments, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that even a substantial payment of statutory interest may not always provide a substantive safeguard for a claimant's EU law rights. Such rights must be asserted not by way of VATA 1994 but by a claim for restitution at common law. HMRC was not to be regarded as an involuntary recipient of VAT overpayments and, on the facts, was liable to restore the objectively-calculated benefit of the time value of the claimant's money without any subjective devaluation of the claim. But, the battle continues...

[nod] 09/12/2016 01:21

My understanding is that Littlewoods has been winning its claim in each court and HMRC has appealed each time. But I haven't looked up the case. Last stop for HMRC is once again the Supreme Court. I would be surprised if the Supreme Court overruled the previous Courts. That's a bigger decision for the Supreme Court as it sets the rule for all future claims and possibly some recent claims, such Sportech."In that case, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court's decision that the taxpayer was entitled to interest on a compound basis on the overpayment of VAT."Logically it makes sense that HMRC should not be allowed to keep the compound interest earned. It then has an incentive to keep claims alive for as long as possible while at the same time earning interest. Not just Court claims but all claims.

[somerset lad] 08/12/2016 21:40

I've held for a long time (since the directors were buying at 40p) in the expectation that SPO would finally prevail...

There has been periodic talk on this board about compound interest, and it's good that SPO has made a claim; but I think it's strange the company hadn't announced this earlier given the sums in issue. Is there anyone out there with any expertise in the Littlewoods appeal that they can share?

DYOR, but it seems that SPO can recover its success fee from HMRC, so long as the arrangement was entered before 1.4.13, as I imagine it was: see hxxp://hsfnotes.com/litigation/jackson-reforms/conditional-fee-agreements-cfas-after-the-event-ate-insurance/.

[nod] 08/12/2016 20:15

Sportech is on a "no win, no fee" deal with the outfit funding the claim. It has not been released afaik what percentage rake the funding company is on. It will be high, so SPO will not keep all of the repayment, but it helps that HMRC pays some of the SPO costs."The Supreme Court ordered that HMRC pay costs, to be assessed."

[nod] 08/12/2016 17:25

I am pleased that it has finally ended. Success is even more pleasing."Following the Court of Appeal's unanimous judgment in favour of Sportech in relation to its GBP97m VAT repayment claim on the "Spot the Ball" game, Sportech is pleased to announce that the Supreme Court has refused Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ("HMRC") permission to appeal. This now, for Sportech, successfully brings this matter to a close.Sportech, which received GBP93 million from HMRC on 29 June 2016, expects to receive the balance of approximately GBP4 million shortly. The Supreme Court ordered that HMRC pay costs, to be assessed.Ian Penrose, Chief Executive Officer, said "We are delighted that after nearly eight years, this case is now over and the Supreme Court has upheld the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal".Compound InterestIn 2009, Sportech submitted an additional claim that could entitle it to receive compound interest, rather than simple interest, on the amount of overpaid VAT. Whilst the quantum of the claim is not yet known precisely, it could more than double the total sum receivable to date.This claim is on hold pending the outcome of Littlewoods Retail Ltd and others v HMRC, which is scheduled to be heard in the Supreme Court in July 2017. In that case, the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court's decision that the taxpayer was entitled to interest on a compound basis on the overpayment of VAT.

[danboris2] 08/12/2016 16:25

Should get to £1 now in fairly short order IMO

[yamaha865] 08/12/2016 15:58

The compound interest point is interesting- FWIW I'm not sure the Littlewoods case will necessarily be applicable for all claims of compound interest. Would be a nice bonus though- the compound interest amount would I expect be about 3 times the amount of principle and simple interest!

[miti 1000] 08/12/2016 15:52

Won the VAT case...confirmed

[trentendboy] 07/12/2016 08:17

Well, Europe no doubt keeping them busy.They might want to kick the government in another way and SPO gives them a chance

[trentendboy] 07/12/2016 08:16

Interesting.