HMRC urged to scrutinise tax implications of Man City case

The Treasury Committee has urged HMRC to scrutinise tax implications of the Manchester City verdict, following a report from Tax Policy Associates that claims City failed to pay £12m in unpaid tax due to a 'sham' contract with former manager Roberto Mancini.

City have repeatedly denied guilt and are expected to tell an appeal board that they have evidence showing the money directed to sponsors came from the Abu Dhabi government, rather than from ADUG.

The independent commission detailed how City had 'denied there had ever been any disguised funding scheme of the type alleged by the Premier League', but its case was that [it] had misunderstood how Abu Dhabi sponsorship agreements had been funded. . .

City's argument is likely to lead to renewed debate over the extent to which City's ownership is separate from the Abu Dhabi state, and over the ramifications of club ownership with state connections.

Mansour is a member of the ruling family of Abu Dhabi, and the brother of UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Since the takeover in 2008, City have insisted the club is a completely private enterprise, and not state-owned. However, some critics have questioned the distinction, with human rights campaigners claiming the ownership of City has been used to 'sportswash' the UAE.

City chairman Khaldoon Al Mubarak referred to 'irrefutable evidence' that he claimed supports the club's claims of innocence, but City have claimed the commission's decision contained 'clear material errors, of law, principle and fact, and is unsafe'.

The Premier League declined to comment when contacted by BBC Sport.

Additional reporting from James Landale, diplomatic correspondent for BBC News.

Man City not 'above the rules', says No 10 after backlash to Burnham remarks.

Criminal investigation? Relegation or expulsion? The key Man City questions

How does Cas work and why can't Man