Sportech Share Discussion Threads

[nod] 20/5/2016 11:50

Oops. I'll do that now :)

[mark1000] 20/5/2016 11:24

Nod - Did you mean to post on GAW?

[nod] 20/5/2016 11:12

Plenty of vert positive reviews on Total War : Warhammer. We get a few pennies from every sale.

[trentendboy] 17/5/2016 11:36

Very good trading update. Seems positive across the board.Should creep towards a quid. Still expecting corporate action here before long

[nod] 17/5/2016 09:46

Quite a positive statement. Now we have to wait for the Courts again.

[nod] 17/5/2016 02:41

On the ballFootball pools organiser Sportech (LSE: SPO) saw its share price soar last week after a landmark battle against the taxman.The Court of Appeal agreed with Sportech's assertion that its 'Spot The Ball' competition was a game of chance rather than skill, and should therefore be exempt from VAT. As a result the business is in line to receive £97m back from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.Sportech isn't quite out of the woods, however, and an appeal from authorities could see the seven-year case rumble on even longer.This may not be enough to deter some investors, however, as Sportech represents stellar value based on current forecasts.Indeed, City predictions of an 11% earnings rise in 2016 leaves Sportech dealing on a P/E rating of just 15.4 times. And the multiple moves to a lip-smacking 11.9 times for 2017 thanks to predictions of a 30% bottom-line advance.Royston Wild has no position in any shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.

[utterly pointless] 16/5/2016 14:20

FWIW, I agree entirely with Somerset Lad.

[mark1000] 16/5/2016 14:15

Somerset Lad

Many thanks for your post above.

[somerset lad] 16/5/2016 13:14

Thank you Utterly Pointless.

Mark1000, on timing, my view (DYOR as usual) is:

The Court of Appeal is likely to decide whether to grant permission to appeal (IMO it is almost certain to say no) within the next week. (It has probably given SPO a short deadline in which to comment on HMRC's application.)

Assuming that the Court of Appeal says no, HMRC can apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal. The deadline for this is 28 days from the date of the Court of Appeal's order allowing the appeal. IMO HMRC will very probably apply for permission given the sums of money at stake.

If HMRC applies for permission, the Supreme Court usually decides applications on paper. I'd expect them to take 3 or 4 months from the date of the application to decide. (You can see their decisions at hxxps://www.supremecourt.uk/news/permission-to-appeal.html.) IMO it is very likely that the Supreme Court will decline permission.

If HMRC obtains permission to appeal, the case will not be treated as urgent by the Supreme Court and so might take a further year or so to come to a hearing.

[utterly pointless] 16/5/2016 12:31

Hi @SomersetLad, I have made that donation.

[nod] 16/5/2016 11:25

Here is the timeline for the appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The UT refused permission way back in October 2014 and it was eventually decided by the Court of Appeal in May 2016 - around 17 months. It looks like the process is similar and allowing for resource constraints it could be 14 to 18 months if it goes to Court yet again. Otherwise perhaps 2 or 3 months.6 November 2014Sportech PLC ("Sportech")Update - VAT repayment claimSportech confirms that it intends to submit to the Court of Appeal an Application for Permission to Appeal, and Notice of Appeal, in relation to the VAT repayment claim on the "Spot the Ball" game. Sportech has until 2(nd) December 2014 to do so.This follows the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) to refuse the application for permission. In refusing such permission, the judge, who ruled against Sportech in relation to this matter in September, commented that the Court of Appeal should be invited to consider whether to hear the appeal.

[mark1000] 15/5/2016 17:11

Do any of the legal experts on this B/B know the maximum time periods we are now looking at to the conclusion of the case.
a) Assumption Court of Appeal allow the Appeal.
b) Assumption Appeal rejected by Court of Appeal allowed by Supreme Court.
c) Assumption Appeal rejected by Court of Appeal HMRC accept the verdict.
d) Assumption Appeal rejected by Court of Appeal and HMRC take it to the Supreme Court who refuse to rehear the case.

Presumably A+B = Re-run of Bleak House we are looking at years?
c = 4 weeks ???
d = 3 months ???

[nod] 14/5/2016 13:22

Thanks for that. It does work. I must have touched a link somewhere on the page.Here is the important bit:"On the claimants' appeal-Held, appeal allowed. In general, the question whether a competition was a "game" for the purposes of the Gaming Act 1968 was a question of fact and therefore an appellate court should leave it to the fact-finder to find its meaning in a particular context and not seek to arrive at the meaning itself by refined analytical tools. Further, the word "game" in the 1968 Act was to be given a wide meaning. There was no hard and fast rule or presumption about inter-player participation in a "game" for the purposes of section 52 of the 1968 Act. The First-tier Tribunal had not made an error of law in holding that "Spot the Ball" was a "game of chance" and its decision would be restored (paras 2, 22, 29, 39, 41, 48, 56,69, 70, 71, 79)."

[somerset lad] 14/5/2016 12:53

Nod, I think the link is correct (i.e. to the Court of Appeal's judgment) but if it's not working you can find it by searching for IFX or looking at recent Court of Appeal Civil judgments on hxxp://www.bailii.org/.

I thought the maximum success fee in England was a 100% uplift on the basic fees and you couldn't do a US-style percentage of damages recovered?

[nod] 14/5/2016 10:48

Somerset lad - the judgement link above is to the Upper Tribunal dated May 2014 - which found in favour of HMRC based on its decision that Spot the Ball is not a game. This erroneous decision was overruled by the Court of Appeal this month.

[nod] 14/5/2016 10:08

SPO did not enter this on a time basis, so it is more likely to be a fairly hefty percentage basis to make the risk worthwhile for Deloitte and the law firm. The costs are Deloitte tax gurus plus a Grade 1 QC and his team of solicitors. A huge loss to the legal team if not successful. I would not be surprised by 20% but would prefer 10%

[somerset lad] 14/5/2016 09:20

Utterly Pointless - thank you: Water Aid.

The judgment is at hxxp://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/436.html&query=(Ifx).

At a very rough guess I'd expect SPO's legal costs to be mid-single figure millions: there was very little evidence, but three hearings plus an uplift. HMRC will pay some of this.

[trentendboy] 14/5/2016 08:28

Some deranged posters on this board.In the real world the city seem happy so far. Should really a quid once all appeals have run out.Question is what is the non win no fee cut? 20 percent? That is a lot of cash M

[utterly pointless] 13/5/2016 19:37

Somerset lad. No, quite right. I didn't think it through. They were always going to apply to the Court of Appeal for permission - and they will get rejected and then they will apply to the Supreme Court and will get rejected again. They'll do this just to delay the fateful day.

Anyway. Name your charity and I'll make a donation.

[somerset lad] 13/5/2016 17:25

Utterly Pointless, I don't want to bet on whether HMRC will seek permission from the Supreme Court assuming that the Court of Appeal refuses permission. In one sense, the same logic applies: why not spend a relatively small sum seeking permission on the basis that if the Supreme Court gives permission then by definition they've got a realistic chance of winning. But it's possible (I don't know) that HMRC has a policy of being selective in what it takes for permission to the Supreme Court?

[stephen1946] 13/5/2016 16:34

Spo, is led by wallies, there is one person that can secure an irrefutable result here, ME.

Having contacted penrose directly i have not receieved an acknowledgement of any description, penrose and hemmings deserve exactly what they will finish up with here, NOTHING.

My skills are not free, but neither is this marathon, no win no fee lawyers are worth sweet f.a. go on penrose waste some more months, after all its not your money, rather like the hmrc scum, its not their money being thrown around its us, the tax payer.

[o1dsmokie] 13/5/2016 15:23

o1dsmokie
4 May'16 - 11:28 - 2017 of 2051 0 0 edit

Another appeal soon?

Utterly Pointless
4 May'16 - 11:33 - 2018 of 2051 0 0

there won't be another appeal. I'll give you odds of 8/1 for as much as you like.
--------------------

You owe mt £8 grand.

[utterly pointless] 13/5/2016 15:16

Somerset lad - don't suppose you want to go double or quits? Stupid bet on my part; they will try to appeal (and probably also to the SC) simply to delay coughing up the money. I am still as sure as can be they won't get permission.