Sportech Share Discussion Threads

[nick rubens] 15/6/2016 16:27

I take it SPO paid back the £93m to HMRC it got from them, and is now trying to get it back again?


"However, HMRC, which had paid the company GBP93 million, then successfully appealed with an upper tribunal in September 2014, and Sportech was required to repay the money to the taxman."

[trentendboy] 14/6/2016 18:39

Massive reversal though.80p recently and yet such good news.City does not like something about this.Really odd sctially

[nod] 13/6/2016 23:29

The Court of Appeal's decision was unanimous - three judges agreed on the decision in favour of SPO. If it had been 2-1 then the Supreme Court may be more inclined to hear the case. But 3-0 was a strong win for SPO, and nowhere near a score-draw.

[nod] 10/6/2016 13:59

Agreed.I can't see that the Supreme Court would make the Court of Appeal judges look incompetent unless there was either, new information not previously presented or there was clear evidence of a miscarriage of justice at the Court of Appeal.Neither seems likely to me.

[finkie] 10/6/2016 09:17

Agreed Nod the tactic before of buying in the uncertainty and waiting until the decision has paid off albeit it felt like a 70/30 chance in SPO favour before, it now feels like a 95/5 chance therefore the risk reward balance is with us i feel.

[nod] 10/6/2016 04:55

Having read the arguments presented by HMRC and the judge in court it seems obvious that STB is a game and there is no skill involved. Any possible element of skill is removed by not using the actual ball. It is pure luck whether winner Joe Doe picked the exact same spot as a football celebrity.However, the Act stated that any combination of chance and skill is treated as a game of chance.I would be surprised if the Supreme Court wants to spend time on this. The argument presented by the Upper Tribunal judge is nonsensical - that STB is not a game.The score is 4-1 to SPO if you count the refusals to appeal. The case looks weak for HMRC.

[nod] 09/6/2016 11:05

Yes, it's not taxable income.

[mark1000] 09/6/2016 10:03

Nod can I ask is this simple interest free of Corporation tax?

[nod] 07/6/2016 20:10

The amount claimed at each hearing includes interest at the prescribed compound rate (simple interest). SPO can't claim opportunity loss.

[finkie] 07/6/2016 12:51

would sportech get substantial interest as this ongoing red tape caused by HMRC is a huge distraction to management etc as well as the ability to use the £100m

[nod] 06/6/2016 19:58

"should expect to hear by the Autumn whether HMRC has been granted the right to appeal to the Supreme Court."If HMRC's appeal is granted then it should be heard in 2017.Fingers crossed the Supreme Court agrees with the decision of the Court if Appeal and it ends in August.

[finkie] 06/6/2016 12:07

HMRC will not let go of the bone and frustratingly this just continues to put on hold the final settlement autumn is now the date when this could be resolved.....FFS!!!!!!!!

[finkie] 25/5/2016 09:14

They arent going to pay 40p divi on a 47p vat win........OMG!

I would rather they strengthen balance sheet and look for value opportunities.

[mark1000] 25/5/2016 01:11

It would be good to see in black and white why the right to Appeal was refused does anyone know how we can get hold of it?
Does anybody know how much of the 97 Million goes to the Lawyers on the no win no fee contract? - also there is Corporation tax to consider would this be at todays rate or backdated for the CT rates at the time?
Presumably in a civil case like this we could look to recover legal fees though presumably not the profit share element of these fees?
Finally can one claim compound interest in a case like this which has dragged for many many years and again there would be tax consequences although I seem to recall ( probably wrongly ) that the simple interest which makes up a big share of the 97M is tax free.

[nod] 24/5/2016 22:04

Yes, nearly there.Last July the Supreme Court ruled in favour of HMRC on the Rank VAT claim in which Rank had a few wins, including the EU court, but lost in the end. The monetary amount involved was between £1 billion and £2 billion across all the suppliers of gaming machines.In that case, the Court of Appeal had also found in favour of HMRC but for different reasons than the Supreme Court. It's not over until the fat lady sings.

[trentendboy] 24/5/2016 15:25

Should be worth a quid once all the uncertainty has gone.Nearly there.Great result. Debt free and good positions in the US plus the cash cow.Looking good imo but holding on for more

[yesrupnel] 24/5/2016 13:59

40p divi would be very good on a share worth 80p.

[jumbone] 24/5/2016 13:45

£ 97 Mill is 47 p per share may be some 40p+ If there is no other investment

[yesrupnel] 24/5/2016 13:42

How big do you think the divi will be per share?

[oohrogerpalmer] 24/5/2016 13:24

Should declare a divi but back dated ie- those on the register 1st Feb.
That way those that supported the share price when it was at a low point would get the reward!!

[yesrupnel] 24/5/2016 13:15

We now need to turn our attention to what SPO will do with the money.

Obviously they have to wait until 17 June or earlier before they can commit the money - but any views?

If its a special divi -how much per share?

If its further investment - where - US is the obvious (but these investments don't seem to be spectacular investments).

Sell off the Pools as already stated and that could be happening soon. What to do with that money - again a divi (how much per share) or further investment - but in what?

[yesrupnel] 24/5/2016 13:11

My view is that's it now. The Supreme Court are not interested in small financial cases hat do not have fundamental impacts on British law.

And although its a lot of money for SPO and HMRC its not a great deal of money in the big scheme of things.

[finkie] 24/5/2016 13:10

Great news HMRC STOP P*SSING MY MONEY UP THE WALL CHASING SOMETHING THAT IS LOST ACCEPT DEFEAT AND GO AND CHASE NAUGHTY COMPANIES..........youve wasted enough already eeejits.