Ken Fitlike Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 All we need now is for Ashley to let it be known that on the reviewing the EBT era events that it would be the proper thing to do to concede that these trophies should be declared void, clearing the way for a New Rangers fresh start and getting the rest of scottish football 'onside' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Ashley's 'weak' position. LOL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Frustration 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Dodd Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Frustration, he is thrashing around like an over grown child due the fact that he was not able to complete at Rangers what he managed to do at Newcastle, the latest development is of course is Resolution 11 at the forthcoming AGM, where shareholders will vote to exclude his voting rights based on the fact that he is a major shareholder at another club, this is to protect the club from breaching SFA rules on dual ownership. He will also realise that another resolution being put forward will allow 'loans' to be be swapped for equity which in effect dilutes his already weak position further. You're just at it. You are just at it? Aren't you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greyman Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Saw something somewhere that king wants to pass a resolution that means that shareholders involved with other football clubs can't vote. He's bound to have something trailing back to kaiser chiefs or something through one of his businesses 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mythstoliveby Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 The_Kincardigan will spend hours dancing round the definition of 'illegal / criminal' He is a self-confessed Pedant. So he spends ages playing with words and picking up people on their choice of words just so that he can sound like he's presenting a reasoned argument. He's not of course - he's just being like any (pedantic) lawyer - playing with words to try and convince (irrespective of what he knows to be the truth - again, just like any 'good' lawyer...). The tragic thing is that anyone with that level of intelligence does know in his head what it is right and wrong (otherwise he couldn't play his game) - so he can't ever escape. When he feels he's had some success it must be the same feeling as a lawyer 'celebrating' getting a murderer off when he knows fine well that the fella is guilty..... So why does he do it? The lawyer does it for money. The Kincardine does it because he has a blind-spot for his team. So you will never persuade him because it's impossible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 From a tax advise website HMRC managed claimed that Rangers, like other football clubs, were paying their players this way and so evading tax. They said this was income and income tax should have been paid on it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 The BBC... .2012: 18 January - A three-day first tier tax tribunal closes in Edinburgh, following earlier hearings to determine whether Rangers are guilty of tax evasion through EBTs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Those mental craicsters are planning another advert, only know one will touch it Who is it then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Fraud is a criminal offence which is why the chaps running the company are not protected against criminal charges, the situation with tax evasion is no different, companies do not make decisions, the individuals running them do. Recall a few months back the Klan were outraged anytime someone referred to Dave King as a criminal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyWellFan Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Kincardine used to be a top poster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Kincardine used to be a top poster He's, ELVIS....that fat Vegas years. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Tax justice crusader on why HMRC are right... http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/08/rangers-ebt-why-the-court-of-session-got-it-right/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FlWWh+%28Tax+Research+UK+2%29 ...Jolyon Maugham is two stages into a three part series on why he thinks that the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust case was wrongly decided by the Court of Session last week. Jolyons thesis appears to be threefold. The first is that trusts can be real things. The second is that the EBT in Rangers case was real. Third, as a result the employees of Rangers did not receive taxable income until such time as all the conditions attached to the arrangemts made via the Rangers EBT were released. I stress, I am summarising Jolyons argument, which he has himself said he has simplified, so there is risk in such a caricature, but I think it fair. I disagree with Jolyons conclusions and think the Court of Session got this case right, and in the process correctly overturned decisions by the First and Upper Tax Tribunals. In the process I am, I stress, using the logic of common sense that the CS referred to in its decision and I am not referring to the detail of the ruling. So, let me be clear. I am sure that what appeared to be valid trusts were created by the EBT arrangements. And I presume that they were properly managed. But that, in my opinion, is simply not the point. These trusts were not, as such shams: what they did was real. But the fact was that what they did had nothing to do with whe. there was a charge to income tax, or not. As Jolyon has noted, what the CS has decided was that the very first payment made by Rangers, when money was initially transferred into the EBT, was the point where the tax liability on the Rangers players was created. Jolyon does not agree with this, but I do. And the implication, with which I agree, was that the whole EBT structure can simply be ignored for tax purposes. My reasoning is simple. The Rangers players and managers all agreed to work for the club. They did not do so with gratuitous intent. Nor did they do so with any expectation that the sums they would be rewarded with would be discretionary. Footballers negotiate, as I understand it, very tight contractual terms where even the conditions for bonuses are agreed long in advance. Side letters to the EBTs were, of course, intended to provide comfort to those partaking that their dues would be paid. And that was because, in my opinion, the truth is that everyone working for Rangers knew three things. The first was that they would be paid. The second was they knew how much they would be paid. And the third was that however the EBT was structured these obligations would be honoured. Even if there was no hint in writing of these understandings I have no doubt at all that these very clear and deeply implicit understandings existed or not a single footballer would have played for Rangers; thats the way professional football is. So, in that case the EBTs are real, interesting and even unusual arrangements around the management of the relationship between Rangers and their managers and players but they are not to be seen as any arrangement relating to the settlement of the tax due on reward owing to the players and management for the services they undertook: that obligation to pay tax arose the moment Rangers paid the EBT precisely because they knew that they had to make such payment to secure the services of the players and managers, even if that fact was unrecorded in writing in that form. I argue that from the moment that the payment to the trust was made the players and managers could quite reasonably predict the inevitable outcome that they would benefit as a result. Even if the trustees of the EBT might decide how those players might benefit this was only the consequence of, again, an implicit (and I would argue contractual) consent by the player to permit them to do this, that consent being granted as a part of the agreement to play for the club way before the first payment implicitly on their behalf was made to the EBT. In that case the CSs argument that in effect the whole EBT arrangement can be set aside for tax purposes as a mere curiosity of the financial arrangements the club put in place to help their managers and players manage their personal affairs is right. The taxable event giving rise to the obligation to settle tax in the case of Rangers fulfilling its contractual obligation to its employees arose when it made the payment to the EBT because at that moment the consequence that the employee would have effective control of the funds was wholly predictable even if precisely how and when was subject to some discretionary management at what should have been the after tax level. In that case all of Jolyons discussion of trusts in this case is irrelevant in my opinion. Their tax consequence in this case was irrelevant except for the fact that it was claimed there was such consequence. Rangers were wrong to make that claim: it was untrue. Rangers had a contractual obligation to their employees that all parties knew existed. And as the CS said, in that case the common sense view much prevail that tax was due when the first payment that represented Rangers settlement of this obligation arose, which is when payment was made by them to the EBT. And because this was due in respect of what I think to be what was quite obviously an obligation to settle wages then PAYE had to apply at that time. So, the real question is, what is the liability of those who thought up this arrangement and said that it would work to Rangers, its fans and Scottish football? And what penalties should apply to them? Thats the really interesting question, because the social cost of their actions has been enormous and I think those who created them should be accountable for those consequences. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/08/rangers-ebt-why-the-court-of-session-got-it-right/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FlWWh+%28Tax+Research+UK+2%29#.dpuf Edited November 11, 2015 by THE KING 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HTG Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 £47.65 MILLION. Clubs get thrown out of competitions for playing a suspended player. And Rangers seriously want to dodge a bullet on illegal payments of £47.65 MILLION POUNDS. I'm sorry but "the success belongs to the club whilst the inconvenient shite doesn't" line is absolutely fucked. Either the club won all these trophies illegally or the trophies belong to the company that won them. In the case of the former the club has to pay the consequences of carrying an unbroken history or the trophy count stops in the cold dead hands of Oldco and Rangers 2012 starts from zero as the new entity it actually is. Cake cannot be had and eaten. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Dodd Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 K Dodd and tax :-D Aye. I pay mine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 MA absolutely putting the boot in to the orcs here. What a guy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Dodd Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossbill Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 THE KING, on 11 Nov 2015 - 10:44, said: Tax justice crusader on why HMRC are right... . . - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/08/rangers-ebt-why-the-court-of-session-got-it-right/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FlWWh+%28Tax+Research+UK+2%29#.dpuf It's great to see the justice system take a common sense approach to this, rather than pander to the weasely conniving of accountants threading their way through loopholes. All tax cheats should be treated with the same disdain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 EBT's are neither illegal nor criminal. Rangers' use of EBT's to evade tax is both illegal and criminal. It wasn't Rangers who avoided paying tax. It was the employees. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedafc Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 (edited) Having lost a 1st tier tax tribunal and then the decision being confirmed in an appeal to a 2nd tier tax tribunal it baffles me how HMRC won this time Edited November 11, 2015 by mikedafc 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.