Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[thelegendthatis]

The great Rangers tax avoidance scheme

More widely the club liquidators BDO will be exploring these lengthy, detailed and obviously highly critical judgements in forensic detail as they go about seeking potential sources of capital for creditors from the carcass of the dead old company.

BDO can look at directors' duties and decide whether or not the directors were negligent in their handling of company funds, making gratuitous alienations and so on, with company funds. They are not bound by any HMRC concession that these EBT Loans were not sham trusts or sham loans - even were HMRC to concede this, and (subject to appeal) it is far from clear that they do.

The bits about BDO is where I get excited. These guys won't be firing blanks. It is essential that when the hand over the evidence to the authorities they will have the will to follow up properly.

That is why the P&B idiots like myself must keep telling the story and not be sidetracked either by the Sevconians on here, or 'friends of David Murray' protesting he was some sort of innocent fall guy. Aye right.

Years of fun awaits.

[Paquis]

Looking forward to the latest saga on Panorama tonight

http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b01p1zyg

In a statement, HM Revenue and Customs, which regulates the 2,467 registered trust or company service providers in the UK.

But it did confirm that it has never prosecuted a single corporate service provider for breaching money laundering regulations. HMRC said tackling tax evasion is a priority.

Go get 'em Hector

I wonder if the BBC will also be highlighting their own efforts at tax avoidance in the program

[Paquis]

The great Rangers tax avoidance scheme

I have removed most of the quote to save space on the board.

Oor Alex is a master at cherry picking the bits he likes. And just about all of it comes from the dissenting opinion. Funny how that happens

The dissenting opinion certainly provides some essential information that none of us knew. For example on page 102 para 121.

121. The occasion of Rangers winning the UEFA championship led to six sub-trusts being created for Mr Warwick, Mr Camden, Mr Islington, Mr Kensington, Mr Balham,

Far be it for me to doubt the eminent Dr. Poon on statements of fact. However, this little faux-pas might lead to the rest of her narrative being treated with less credibility than it might otherwise deserve. How many other 'facts' has she also got wrong?

On the question of the appeal, that can only be on a point of law. The fact that this was a majority decision and not a unanimous one is not a point of law.

Finally, HMRC have 56 days to appeal. Appeals are usually heard within 12 to 24 months and the decision takes another 6 to 9 months. So we could easily be looking three years down the road. By that time the old club will be dead and buried so no money there. It also begs the question as to what the SFA/SPL will do. They have clearly been waiting for the FTTT verdict. If it is appealed will they also wait for that?

Edited November 26, 2012 by Paquis

[Bairnforever1992]

I have removed most of the quote to save space on the board.

Oor Alex is a master at cherry picking the bits he likes. And just about all of it comes from the dissenting opinion. Funny how that happens

The dissenting opinion certainly provides some essential information that none of us knew. For example on page 102 para 121.

121. The occasion of Rangers winning the UEFA championship led to six sub-trusts being created for Mr Warwick, Mr Camden, Mr Islington, Mr Kensington, Mr Balham,

Far be it for me to doubt the eminent Dr. Poon on statements of fact. However, this little faux-pas might lead to the rest of her narrative being treated with less credibility than it might otherwise deserve. How many other 'facts' has she also got wrong?

On the question of the appeal, that can only be on a point of law. The fact that this was a majority decision and not a unanimous one is not a point of law.

Finally, HMRC have 56 days to appeal. Appeals are usually heard within 12 to 24 months and the decision takes another 6 to 9 months. So we could easily be looking three years down the road. By that time the old club will be dead and buried so no money there. It also begs the question as to what the SFA/SPL will do. They have clearly been waiting for the FTTT verdict. If it is appealed will they also wait for that?

So you never read the blog and believe the pish that Charles Green putting up fantasy goals for you fans and trusting SDM in his bullish victory?

Edited November 26, 2012 by Bairnforever1992

[bennett]

More selective reporting from the Ch4 bloke, i love he selects some parts, igonores others and then mixes it all together to meet his agenda. I actually had to check to see if that wasn't a spoof posted by bhairn, probably the worst case of cherry picking ever seen on the internet

John Cravens Newsround has more credibility than Ch4 news.

[Paquis]

So you never read the blog and believe the pish that Charles Green putting up fantasy goals for you fans and trusting SDM in his bullish victory?

If you are referring to Thomson's blog then, yes, I read it. Frankly, I don't think it is very good.

[Paquis]

More selective reporting from the Ch4 bloke, i love he selects some parts, igonores others and then mixes it all together to meet his agenda. I actually had to check to see if that wasn't a spoof posted by bhairn, probably the worst case of cherry picking ever seen on the internet

John Cravens Newsround has more credibility than Ch4 news.

It really isn't very good.

And I simply do not believe that HMRC have told him anything beyond that they are considering an appeal. With a possible police investigation into leaks, they are not going to be telling anyone anything right now. Neither do I believe he has spoken to any 'experts'. Otherwise he would have known that a majority decision is not sufficient cause for an appeal.

Finally, he makes an error of fact right at the end:

"Meanwhile the wider case for legislation on these loans looks even more overwhelming as the rest of us fork out more tax in return for spending cuts."

Did nobody tell him that this already happened in the 2011 budget

What a clown

[Paquis]

It appears we won UEFA championship

According to Dr Heidi Poon CA, CTA, PhD

So far on according to some on P & B her findings have been the most relevant

Wellshe states this on page 102 para 121 of her dissenting opinions

121. The occasion of Rangers winning the UEFA championship led to six sub-trusts

being created for Mr Warwick, Mr Camden, Mr Islington, Mr Kensington,

Mr Balham

edit Paquis beat me to it

Great minds think alike

[Bairnforever1992]

Institutional investors in Newco rangers.

Crime links to bus tycoon are mere ‘gossip and conjecture’

Sandy Easdale, the convicted fraudster and one of Scotland’s biggest transport tycoons, has not been in trouble with the law for more than a decade.

[Shades75]

Is a typo in the text the best you can do?

Probably fair just to concentrate on the bottom line facts then.

Rangers weren't found innocent, but in fact guilty. Only not to the extent most had thought.

That's guilty. Not innocent. The opposite of.

HMRC served the tax demand. Rangers appealed. A diluted verdict was delivered. HMRC will probably appeal. Tables turned. This may take a while.

The great unlikeables should probably keep their powder dry for a while yet.

In the meantime you have your great adventure (which of course is where you actually (not really though)) want to be.

[bennett]

Institutional investors in Newco rangers.

Crime links to bus tycoon are mere 'gossip and conjecture'

Sandy Easdale, the convicted fraudster and one of Scotland's biggest transport tycoons, has not been in trouble with the law for more than a decade.

Pwopa nawty.

[Shades75]

Aye and you will continue to grasp at any straw you can get your grubby little mits on

Why grasp at straws when there are so many undeniable facts to make sweet love to?

[Paquis]

Why grasp at straws when there are so many undeniable facts to make sweet love to?

I would leave your socks out of this

[THE KING]

1353952977[/url]' post='6844180']

Is a typo in the text the best you can do?

Probably fair just to concentrate on the bottom line facts then.

Rangers weren't found innocent, but in fact guilty. Only not to the extent most had thought.

That's guilty. Not innocent. The opposite of.

HMRC served the tax demand. Rangers appealed. A diluted verdict was delivered. HMRC will probably appeal. Tables turned. This may take a while.

The great unlikeables should probably keep their powder dry for a while yet.

In the meantime you have your great adventure (which of course is where you actually (not really though)) want to be.

And as I mentioned in another thread Rangers admitted that the majority of the EBTs were taxable and as a result these EBts were not taken I to consideration in the case they were only judged on about 20 of them ,it's like going to court for 50 cases of theft and saying yeah wellill admit 30 of these were theft but no that other 20 ,then not being found guilty on the 20 and going ...woohoo I won not guilty!!

[Shades75]

Oh come on, the vast majority of stuff we were accused of has turned out to be total and utter bollox with the accusers like the RTC running for the hills

Not really.

Most of, from what I know of what you were legally and administratively accused of has been proven true. With some major outcomes still to be decided.

Only the intermediate verdict on how you are to be punished for tax evasion can give you solace.

That admits all the facts, aside from the taxability, to be true.

[bennett]

Two out of three judges ruled in our favour regarding the EBT's being loans.

Get over it, no matter how you lot try to spin it, the judges ruled in our favour.

Deal with it.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

And as I mentioned in another thread Rangers admitted that the majority of the EBTs were taxable and as a result these EBts were not taken I to consideration in the case they were only judged on about 20 of them ,it's like going to court for 50 cases of theft and saying yeah wellill admit 30 of these were theft but no that other 20 ,then not being found guilty on the 20 and going ...woohoo I won not guilty!!

And yet Bennett and the Horde talk about cherry-picking - then again, they are the experts.

[Paquis]

And as I mentioned in another thread Rangers admitted that the majority of the EBTs were taxable and as a result these EBts were not taken I to consideration in the case they were only judged on about 20 of them ,it's like going to court for 50 cases of theft and saying yeah wellill admit 30 of these were theft but no that other 20 ,then not being found guilty on the 20 and going ...woohoo I won not guilty!!

You really need to stop making stuff up. There were 111 trusts of which 108 were actively used. 81 were for Rangers players and 27 for Murray Group employees (FTTT decision, para 96).

The rest of your post is fiction and not very good fiction either.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

Two out of three judges ruled in our favour regarding the EBT's being loans.

Get over it, no matter how you lot try to spin it, the judges ruled in our favour.

Deal with it.

What you mean is "two out of three judges ruled in our favour regarding the EBTs being loans in the cases where we hadn't already admitted they weren't."

So why did rangers' representatives hold up their hands in the other cases?

On a totally unrelated point, have they paid that shredder company their £444 yet? Because it looks like the bargain of the fucking century from where I'm standing!

[Shades75]

Two out of three judges ruled in our favour regarding the EBT's being loans.

Get over it, no matter how you lot try to spin it, the judges ruled in our favour.

Deal with it.

"all" or "some" EBT's?

You (or someone - probably no-one) has been assessed as liable for tax due to the administration of EBT schemes.

Guilty.

If a man goes to court for murder but is found guilty of the reduced charge of manslaughter (in a plea bargain offered by his lawyers) can he claim a victory?

Deal with it.