Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Jacksgranda]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27356896

Three members of the band Take That may have to pay back millions of pounds in tax after a tribunal ruling.

Gary Barlow, Howard Donald and Mark Owen - along with manager Jonathan Wild - were among about 1,000 people who put money into schemes purportedly supporting the music industry.

But tribunal Judge Colin Bishopp ruled the partnerships had actually been set up for tax avoidance purposes.

Far be it from me to disagree with a judge, but I would suggest that this wasn't a tax avoidance scheme but a tax evasion scheme.

[cyderspaceman]

Far be it from me to disagree with a judge, but I would suggest that this wasn't a tax avoidance scheme but a tax evasion scheme.

Yes, that seems weird. Are they not "tax avoidance schemes" until a judge says " Naw, that's tax evasion. Pay up." ?

Also, if it is deliberate evasion from the outset ,there are criminal proceedings.

[Jacksgranda]

Yes, that seems weird. Are they not "tax avoidance schemes" until a judge says " Naw, that's tax evasion. Pay up." ?

Also, if it is deliberate evasion from the outset ,there are criminal proceedings.

"Tax avoidance is perfectly legal until I say it isn't!" is a bit "Through The Looking Glass" if you ask me.

[cyderspaceman]

As far as I am aware all evasion is classed as deliberate.

An ISA is a tax avoidance loophole that HMRC are fully aware of, the way I see EBT`s are that they were also a loophole that HMRC were not fully aware of and that they decided to close in 2010, they also decided to retrospectively send out tax bills for what they saw as money they were due but not deliberately evaded and certainly not criminal activity, Rangers appealed the majority while admitting some liability as did a fair few other companies who were sent similar bills and the rest is history.

Anyone using EBT`s after 2010 would imo be guilty of evading.

I do not really agree with retrospective tax bills for legal tax avoidance, regardless of the perceived morality, it is a bit like HMRC deciding tomorrow that they do not like ISA`s anymore and retrospectively sending out bills to millions of people.

ISAs are not a tax avoidance loophole. They were introduced by the government, not dreamt up by some highly paid financial bods. HMRC would be fully aware of them unlike the avoidance schemes or evasion tactics employed by some individuals and companies.

eta Yes, all evasion is deliberate. I was merely emphasising the point.

Edited May 15, 2015 by cyderspaceman

[cyderspaceman]

"Tax avoidance is perfectly legal until I say it isn't!" is a bit "Through The Looking Glass" if you ask me.

This is the point. They don't ask. They just go ahead using their interpretation of the rules.( Footballers break what seem s*****htforward rules but still argue with the referee.) Maybe the rules should be clearer and simpler but those in power benefit too much from them to go changing said rules.

eta WTF! "straight" has been censored I must have typed s t t a i g

Edited May 15, 2015 by cyderspaceman

[Herman Hessian]

s*****htforward

bigot !

heh...

[cyderspaceman]

I think a loophole is a fair description.

Call them Tax avoidance scheme if makes you feel easier, it does not bother me.

HMRC were aware of the EBT scheme just like they are aware of ISA`s, who invented either scheme is irrelevant, both were legal.

I don't think it's irrelevant. The authorities will investigate schemes dreamt up by others. They will not investigate whatever they set up themselves.

[THE KING]

Far be it from me to disagree with a judge, but I would suggest that this wasn't a tax avoidance scheme but a tax evasion scheme.

I'll stick with the judge thanks.

[madmitch]

The BBC explains the difference between avoidance and evasion in 90 secs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31324023

Using their definition The Rangers were evading tax.

Edited May 15, 2015 by madmitch

[THE KING]

Have the Rangers Tax experts contacted the EU commision yet to tell them that they cant do anything about Avoidance yet?

...

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3062128/Apple-warned-face-1-5bn-bill-guilty-tax-avoidance.html

..Apple warns it could face £1.5bn bill if found guilty of tax avoidance in EU

[Jacksgranda]

99% of tax avoidance schemes are for 1% of tax payers

[Jacksgranda]

ISAs are not a tax avoidance loophole. They were introduced by the government, not dreamt up by some highly paid financial bods. HMRC would be fully aware of them unlike the avoidance schemes or evasion tactics employed by some individuals and companies.

eta Yes, all evasion is deliberate. I was merely emphasising the point.

You don't pay tax on the interest, so it is a tax avoidance scheme.

[Monkey Tennis]

99% of tax avoidance schemes are for 1% of tax payers

Exactly, yet you claim that any focus on morality here, amounts to "claptrap".

It's a thoroughly bizarre stance.

[Monkey Tennis]

I do not really agree with retrospective tax bills for legal tax avoidance, regardless of the perceived morality, it is a bit like HMRC deciding tomorrow that they do not like ISA`s anymore and retrospectively sending out bills to millions of people.

Rubbish.

The parallel you're attempting to draw is utterly spurious, for the reasons outlined by cyderspaceman.

[p&b is a disgrace]

It's not the use of EBT's that HMRC are contesting. It's whether the Rangers operated the scheme in an effective manner.

[Jacksgranda]

Exactly, yet you claim that any focus on morality here, amounts to "claptrap". It's a thoroughly bizarre stance.

Really? If I could apply any of these schemes to my tax affairs I would. I leave my tax affairs in the hands of my accountant - I'm sure he applies a little artistic licence to reduce my tax liability, hence allowing me to avoid tax.

I have no problem with that.

If I earned thousands and thousands of pounds, I would be looking to pay as little tax as was (legally) possible. If I paid an accountant £1,500 a month, say, I'd be expecting him to reduce my tax bill by about £25,000 annually, minimum. (I don't even earn £25,000 p.a)

This last wee while the bulk of my income has been taxed at source - I'm quite happy with that, it saves me having to shovel 25% off to pay to the tax man twice a year, even if it means I'm probably paying more tax than I would if I were getting paid as a self employed "consultant".

99% of the laws are for 1% of the people, too.

[Monkey Tennis]

Really? If I could apply any of these schemes to my tax affairs I would. I leave my tax affairs in the hands of my accountant - I'm sure he applies a little artistic licence to reduce my tax liability, hence allowing me to avoid tax.

I have no problem with that.

If I earned thousands and thousands of pounds, I would be looking to pay as little tax as was (legally) possible. If I paid an accountant £1,500 a month, say, I'd be expecting him to reduce my tax bill by about £25,000 annually, minimum. (I don't even earn £25,000 p.a)

This last wee while the bulk of my income has been taxed at source - I'm quite happy with that, it saves me having to shovel 25% off to pay to the tax man twice a year, even if it means I'm probably paying more tax than I would if I were getting paid as a self employed "consultant".

Ok. Er, congratulations.

People who work hard at avoiding meeting their tax obligations are, in my view behaving in an immoral way.

When the people in question are rich anyway, the offence is greater.

[Jacksgranda]

Ok. Er, congratulations. People who work hard at avoiding meeting their tax obligations are, in my view behaving in an immoral way. When the people in question are rich anyway, the offence is greater.

So if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill, you would refuse it?

[Monkey Tennis]

So if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill, you would refuse it?

If I didn't, my behaviour would be immoral.

If I were very rich, my behaviour would be yet worse.

[hellbhoy]

Avoiding tax is perfectly legal - spare me any sanctimonious clap trap about morality.

Evasion is illegal. Perhaps HMRC are trying to prove that these EBTs were evasion rather than avoidance? I can't see that being an easy task.

Sanctimonious clap trap ?, morality ?, No none of those two things where in my post Grandpa, I was merely pointing out why the HMRC were pursuing the tax dodging cnuts.

Interesting point though why aren't the HMRC chasing them for complete tax evasion on the EBT scam itself. After all not a single penny from the scheme was ever paid in tax, but that all falls apart when it comes to Minty's defence, legally they were loans so to speak so can't be called tax evasion or avoidance.

Where the HMRC are chasing them down on is the abuse of the EBT scam they ran for over a decade. If they can proof MIH breached the rules & regulations of the EBT scheme by using the loans as wages then they will hammer Minty and the EBT recipients for tax avoidance because the recipients of the EBT scam did pay PAYE & NI through the club paying part or most of their wages at the time.