Simple Question: Do you think the payments were loans or wages?

[Bearwithme]

Even the taxman's lawyer told the tribunal he accepted that the loans weren't a sham.

[Monkey Tennis]

Even the taxman's lawyer told the tribunal he accepted that the loans weren't a sham.

What do you think though? The question is simple. I know that in legal terms they could be considered and classed as loans, but be honest. Do you believe that the people who received the loans felt that there was a need for repayment? If they did, Billy Dodds clearly forgot about it subsequently.

[Bearwithme]

There was a repayment set-up. Perhaps the best way to think of it is that they were loans that were used to reduce people's tax liabilities. That doesn't mean they weren't loans.

[Monkey Tennis]

There was a repayment set-up.

What were the terms?

Are you referring to this 'taken from the estate on death' thing?

Is that known to be the case, or is it supposition? I'm not being facetious by the way - I'm genuinely asking.

[bennett]

What were the terms?

Are you referring to this 'taken from the estate on death' thing?

Is that known to be the case, or is it supposition? I'm not being facetious by the way - I'm genuinely asking.

Do you have any current loans/mortages/HP's etc?

Would you be willing to tell the entire forum the terms of these loans?

[Monkey Tennis]

Do you have any current loans/mortages/HP's etc?

Would you be willing to tell the entire forum the terms of these loans?

The answers to your questions are of coure:

Yes

and

No.

The relvance of my answers however, totally escapes me.

[THE KING]

1353851437[/url]' post='6840600']

Do you have any current loans/mortages/HP's etc?

Would you be willing to tell the entire forum the terms of these loans?

Yes ,,you need to pay them back.

[Bobby_F]

I'll accept moral criticism of Rangers from fans' of clubs who have never used any sort of tax avoidance scheme. Or fans' whom criticise Rangers, but are equally scathing of their own clubs methods.

The moral argument with EBT's is a valid one, I can't really argue with it. However, it is easy to judge pre-financial crisis actions, with post-financial crisis attitudes. This new found financial morality is something that has only been largely prevalent since the banking crisis.

As for EBT's Of course these were part of a package offered to players, and a method thought up by clever people who earn a lot more than me, as a way of reducing tax liability, maximise resources, and make signing for/remaining at a club as attractive a prospect as possible for a player. Morally dubious, but when implemented correctly, completely legal. However the structure of the EBT scheme means that in order to be legal, they can not officially be part of a contract. If Rangers disclosed these schemes to the SPL as part of contracted salaries, EBT's would by default be being implemented illegally. Whilst they aren't technically a wage/contract, it would be naive, at best, to say they are not designed to remunerate individuals in a way that reduces the tax burden.

Plenty of other clubs in the UK, and indeed Scotland, have used tax avoidance schemes and clever accounting to minimize their tax liability, indeed many have used these to make comparable tax savings to the EBT scheme, just HMRC haven't, to date, wanted to look into Scheme X/Y/Z, and probably never will. Why is it only EBT's, and in particular Rangers use of EBT's that seem to fall foul of the moral argument?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and what not. All I ask is that every club is morally judged evenly on the subject of tax avoidance. If you think any club with significant wage outgoings are paying playing staff entirely through PAYE, and not utilising methods of maximising their resources, then you're naive in the extreme. Football is far to competitive and cut throat for the money men to care about financial moral values.

Leaving the loans/wages thing aside. does this not confirm that from an SPL perspective Rangers are 100% guilty of not declaring the full finanicial package to scores of players over a decade?

If what you're saying is correct you can either prevail with HMRC or with the SPL.

Which you'd prefer is down to whether you want the club you used to support be remembered as tax cheats with their titles intact, or sporting cheats with a number of titles removed.

Simples.

[THE KING]

1353848145[/url]' post='6840468']

There was a repayment set-up. Perhaps the best way to think of it is that they were loans that were used to reduce people's tax liabilities. That doesn't mean they weren't loans.

It seems to be overlooked by the media and everyone else that Murray admitted to hmrc that over half the EBTs (30) were taxable

And as a result of this admission they were not considered in the tax case ,, which means they were payments not loans = cheats titles etc

[weirdcal]

In my opinion I think these were part of the renuneration package and therefore wages

Legal experts say otherwise 2:1

[bennett]

The answers to your questions are of coure:

Yes

and

No.

The relvance of my answers however, totally escapes me.

You're not willing to everyone the terms of your loans, yet you expect others to make the terms of their loans public

[Monkey Tennis]

You're not willing to everyone the terms of your loans, yet you expect others to make the terms of their loans public

You have a point, but we don't need to know all the details of who got what - even though we've already been told. Clarity is however needed on how the loans were offered and accepted.

Of course, Billy Dodds has already helped us there.

[hellbhoy]

Only Ragers fans will defend their corrupt dead club to the hilt

They know & I know and everybody else knows that they used a dodgy method to increase their restricted wage budget to bring in players they wouldn't have been able to afford otherwise,to create an unfair advantage over the opposition that the opposition didn't use to be more competitive to win tainted titles and cups.

They eventually got what they deserved IMO when the cheating fuckers got liquidated and nothing will save the club from extinction except pay the debt that Whyte created and Green will not pay the debt to revive the old club from death as it means forking out tens of millions to be the same club Rangers fans always followed but now follow follow the Clone Rangers and that is far more profitable for Ticketus & co.

[silverrigger]

LOAN

Definition

An arrangement by which a lender gives money or property to a borrower and the borrower agrees to return the property or repay the money, usually with interest, by a given time.

WAGE

Definition

Monetary remuneration for work or services.

My question is: where is the money from the repayment of these loans?

[Monkey Tennis]

Bump.

I reckon they were wages myself.

[Monkey Tennis]

What part of discretionary loan do you not understand lol

Rangers took advantage of a legal scheme to avoid paying tax, this is not Rangers fault why are you blaming them? you cannot apportion blame when no law has been broken

These were loans, not wages the tribunal proved this fact, this case should never have been brought in the 1st place and I am starting to warm to the idea that anybody and everybody involved in this should have action brought against them

This is far from over

I feel the need to highlight the wise final words of Tedi's post above.

[Monkey Tennis]

Heads should roll at HMRC over this.

This one's funny too.

[Guest Flash]

As I posted on the big thread, they were loans.

It is the payments into the EBTs which are now regarded as earnings. What happened after that was broadly irrelevant.

The individuals were able to direct their earnings into the trust. If the trustees of the sub-trusts subsequently decided not to make the loans, that didn't mean that the individuals had not received remuneration in the first place. So the money coming out of the EBTs was still regarded as a loan. The PAYE was due on the payments in, not the loans out.

[Monkey Tennis]

As I posted on the big thread, they were loans.

It is the payments into the EBTs which are now regarded as earnings. What happened after that was broadly irrelevant.

The individuals were able to direct their earnings into the trust. If the trustees of the sub-trusts subsequently decided not to make the loans, that didn't mean that the individuals had not received remuneration in the first place. So the money coming out of the EBTs was still regarded as a loan. The PAYE was due on the payments in, not the loans out.

I saw that other post, but it's not especially relevant to this thread.

This thread concerned whether the payments represented loans in any real sense that most would recognise. The answer to that was clearly no, as repayment was not required.

Any Rangers fans arguing otherwise however, were entirely reliant on the verdict that appeared to say the scheme was operated acceptably.

That refuge they sought, has now been smashed up.

[Guest Flash]

I saw that other post, but it's not especially relevant to this thread.

This thread concerned whether the payments represented loans in any real sense that most would recognise. The answer to that was clearly no, as repayment was not required.

Any Rangers fans arguing otherwise however, were entirely reliant on the verdict that appeared to say the scheme was operated acceptably.

That refuge they sought, has now been smashed up.

The prevous verdicts were based on the payments out of the EBTs being loans. That hasn't changed and that argument still succeeds.