Bairnforever1992 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I have highlighted the part that is important I will ask for the 3rd time, what point of law are HMRC going to use to appeal They cannot appeal just because they feel it is immoral or because we are in a recession , the tribunal already ruled that the EBT`s were loans, it needs to be something that is already illegal, not something they want to make illegal, they do not make laws up just so they can find someone guilty, that is not how justice works, it needs to be something new, some point of law that exists but was not addressed by the tribunal That's the point of law they are going to look at is loans that are not being paid back. Appealing to the Upper Tribunal An appeal can only be made to the Upper Tribunal on a point of law, which includes an incorrect interpretation of the legislation or an argument that the First-tier Tribunal reached a decision that, on the evidence before it, no tribunal could reasonably have made. This means that there can be less work involved in preparing for an appeal to the Upper Tribunal than there was in preparing for the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal, for example, there are unlikely to be witnesses in an appeal to the Upper Tribunal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 You may well disagree but that makes you either 12 or ignorant. The Bunnet was generally applauded for saving his club from liquidation by Bears. He was generally derided by Ra Poops for his biscuit-tin mentality and that phrase still lives on. This is the big difference between us and them. We just do not have the same sense of schadenfreude. Can't help yourself but to belittle and dismiss an opinion that you don't hold yourself. Celtic didn't get liquidated and they didn't have a tax case hanging over them for what seemed like eternity. As you've also stated, there wasn't the social media around at that time to give a platform to those with the bit between their teeth and the avenues to share information. You'll also notice that I respectfully disagreed with your opinion. That's the difference between me and you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Anything else Tedi5stars? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 You may well disagree but that makes you either 12 or ignorant. The Bunnet was generally applauded for saving his club from liquidation by Bears. He was generally derided by Ra Poops for his biscuit-tin mentality and that phrase still lives on. This is the big difference between us and them. We just do not have the same sense of schadenfreude. :lol: You've been down south too long if you genuinely believe that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 You were funny the first few times you posted, but this was an extremely weak attempt at humor Is there anything else to you, do you feel like actually contributing or is that beyond your capacity? Yir Team is dead, what more is there to be said. Nothing to debate. Forget the monstrosity that is Newcunto F.C. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 (edited) That does not make any sense That's all i found, point of law is to make the company/club to repay the debt back, whether they find any new evidence to back up the Upper tribunal case to make the appeal to agree. Here's some examples on HMRC website. CH175230 - Special Reduction: First Tier Tribunal views on the meaning of 'special circumstances' in the context of penalty laws: Some FTT decision detailed extracts: For appeals and review team information It also mentions the point of law you keep asking about. Dina Foods Limited (TC 01546) - FA 2009 schedule 56 late payment penalty At paragraph 9 the FTT said: The Tribunal can only rely upon the "special circumstances" provision in para 9 to a different extent than that applied by HMRC if it thinks that HMRC's decision in that respect was flawed. Applying judicial review principles, the Tribunal must consider whether HMRC acted in a way that no reasonable body of commissioners could have acted, or whether they took into account some irrelevant matter or disregarded something to which they should have given weight. The Tribunal should also consider whether HMRC have erred on a point of law. I can go on forever but this is getting very tiring... Edited December 10, 2012 by Bairnforever1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I have highlighted the part that is important I will ask for the 3rd time, what point of law are HMRC going to use to appeal They cannot appeal just because they feel it is immoral or because we are in a recession , the tribunal already ruled that the EBT`s were loans, it needs to be something that is already illegal, not something they want to make illegal, they do not make laws up just so they can find someone guilty, that is not how justice works, it needs to be something new, some point of law that exists but was not addressed by the tribunal Are you saying that HMRC can't appeal or merely asking as to what point of law they will use as the basis of an appeal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 So, liquidation doesn't exist any more then? It's just a brilliant way to dodge debt? You get liquidated but you don't......... not really. Why not go for it every few years? Overspend, go into admin, get liquidated then carry on debt free. God love you people and your heightened sense of utter delusion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 'Sup troops? Just back from a cracking wee gig at the 02 Academy. Paul Heaton and Squeeze. Did Rangers die again when I was oot? Pub rock? Hoodathunkit. Anyway - RFC total attendance for six home league games: 287,997; SPL champions Celtic’s combined total for seven home league games is 273,745. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 So, liquidation doesn't exist any more then? It's just a brilliant way to dodge debt? You get liquidated but you don't......... not really. Why not go for it every few years? Overspend, go into admin, get liquidated then carry on debt free. God love you people and your heightened sense of utter delusion. It's the sheer mentality that makes me confused why they won't even debate on difference between legal and ilegal, as to think their club is innocent (which is not true). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Pub rock? Hoodathunkit. Anyway - RFC total attendance for six home league games: 287,997; SPL champions Celtic’s combined total for seven home league games is 273,745. I'm sure Celtic fans are devastated by that statistic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Pub rock? Hoodathunkit. Anyway - RFC total attendance for six home league games: 287,997; SPL champions Celtic’s combined total for seven home league games is 273,745. Celtic attendance for 3 home Champions League fixtures; Not a kick on the hole off of 180,000. Cool for cats 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Pub rock? Hoodathunkit. Anyway - RFC total attendance for six home league games: 287,997; SPL champions Celtic’s combined total for seven home league games is 273,745. And the monetary value comparison? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I'm sure Celtic fans are devastated by that statistic. Roon ye, V2, roon ye! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I have highlighted the part that is important I will ask for the 3rd time, what point of law are HMRC going to use They cannot appeal just because they feel it is immoral or because we are in a recession , the tribunal already ruled that the EBT`s were loans, it needs to be something that is already illegal, not something they want to make illegal, they do not make laws up just so they can find someone guilty, that is not how justice works, it needs to be something new, some point of law that exists but was not addressed by the tribunal You are correct that an appeal has to be based on a point of law but an appeal is only granted if HMRC can prove this point of law was ignored. The important part is the point of law which was broken has to be shown to a judge before an appeal can continue. You have asked 3 times what point of law are the HMRC going to use, only the HMRC knows that however if there is not one the appeal will not proceed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I hope Celtic spend £200 Million in the January transfer window and have a bash at winning the CL. We can just go into liquidation afterwards and come back exactly as we were minus the debt. That wouldn't be utterly fucking ridiculous. Nope. Not at all 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Roon ye, V2, roon ye! I'll take V2, will you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I'm sure Celtic fans are devastated by that statistic. Celtic attendance for 3 home Champions League fixtures; Not a kick on the hole off of 180,000. I'd have though you would be more concerned with the big HIVS ignoring matches against your SPL diddies and opting for something of interest. Can't say I blame them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 Hearts were liquidated, Middlesborough were liquidated, Fiorintina were liquidated All the companies running those clubs were wound up New companies now run those clubs All have history intact and are seen as the same clubs, their rivals do spend hours on forums posting shite trying to convince people otherwise, there is no BMALT or BFALT or BHALT threads with thousands of repetitive posts They did not need keep referring to the fact they had memberships transferred (not granted) nor did they have a law lord (not nimmo) admit that a football club was operated by a company That COMPANY presently OPERATES Rangers Football CLUB (to whom i shall refer to as "rangers"). Rangers ARE members of the Scottish Football Association ("the SFA") What has that got to do with the post you replied to? Got that link to the Hearts liquidation? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 I'll take V2, will you? What happened to your club never happened to ours. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.