Tax avoidance/ evasion.

[Capital Blu 615]

21 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

They should be held to account because they believe quite clearly that players wages is a fundamental issue into wether a football team have won a competition fairly and the ability of the team is compromised if that said players are getting paid without paying their taxes. The argument they use on wether the players would of played for Rangers without EBT is comparable with the Celtic players. Would they have played for Celtic without being able to illegally reduce their taxes? 

I think you are missing Virtuoso's point entirely.

The money invested in the "film schemes" by CFC players and officials was from their "after tax earnings".  The money invested in EBTs by RFC on behalf of RFC players was pre tax.

The point that both schemes are equivalent can only really be argued on the assumption that Celtic actually advised their players that the "film schemes" were a good (and legal) means of claiming back tax on earnings.

There is ample evidence that the "film schemes" were widely used by high earning individuals across, Sport, TV, Politics etc.. Responsibility for existence of those schemes lies with the people who set them up (probably on the advice of a (now embarrassed) tax law expert), and not their employers.  I've no sympathy for any individual who has been caught up in this tax dodge.

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

12 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

They paid their taxes at source ffs.

Where did Celtic illegally reduce their taxes? Please, point me in the direction of this....

And if celtic paid the bulk of there wage into this film tax dodge before it was taxed at source. 

A tribunal would clear all this up, but unfortunately nobody seems bothered to actually find out. 

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

Get it intae yer heids fuck awe will happen to them ! 

[Virtuoso 27,180]

14 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

Well I'm sure a tribunal would find out if any of those players joined them because celtic were offering them assistance in set ting up these tax dodges. 

Employer offers future employee advice / guidance with regards to a scheme which is legal (at the time)...it's the employee who decides whether to join the scheme or not. If Celtic were behind the scheme or they were the only ones who used it, then I could see the issue - but every man and his dog were signing up to these.

Wee story in a similar vein. Many moons ago (mid-90's) there were a few 'financial' companies which sprang up, exploiting a loophole and offering to claim back taxes for offshore workers who had ever worked outside the 12 mile zone. 100's if not 1000's of people signed up and subsequently received rebates in the £000's (myself included). HMRC then decided they didn't agree with this and took court action to have said schemes deemed illegal and not acting within whatever stature. Moves were then made to start clawing back the rebates. You got the choice of settling for a one-off lump sum, usually around 2/3's of what you'd received or pay back the whole amount through monthly deductions from your salary.

Now, I know for a fact that HR mentioned these schemes to people at job interviews. Basically telling people that dependent on where you're working - you'll be able to claim your tax back.

During subsequent hearings and so on the company argued they only advised of such a scheme, the company providing the service argued they never forced anyone to sign up. The fact that HMRC had paid out the rebates amounting to hundreds of thousands if not millions was a moot point...the fact is, they wanted it back...and the employee was the one who paid it.

Not identical situations granted, but at the same time, very similar.

[Virtuoso 27,180]

3 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

And if celtic paid the bulk of there wage into this film tax dodge before it was taxed at source. 

A tribunal would clear all this up, but unfortunately nobody seems bothered to actually find out. 

They didn't though because that's not how a LLP works.

[Capital Blu 615]

5 minutes ago, Courtyard Bear said:

And if celtic paid the bulk of there wage into this film tax dodge before it was taxed at source. 

A tribunal would clear all this up, but unfortunately nobody seems bothered to actually find out. 

If that was the case then HMRC would be chasing Celtic for the unpaid tax, and not the film scheme operators and the individual investors.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

19 minutes ago, Capital Blu said:

I think you are missing Virtuoso's point entirely.

The money invested in the "film schemes" by CFC players and officials was from their "after tax earnings".  The money invested in EBTs by RFC on behalf of RFC players was pre tax.

The point that both schemes are equivalent can only really be argued on the assumption that Celtic actually advised their players that the "film schemes" were a good (and legal) means of claiming back tax on earnings.

There is ample evidence that the "film schemes" were widely used by high earning individuals across, Sport, TV, Politics etc.. Responsibility for existence of those schemes lies with the people who set them up (probably on the advice of a (now embarrassed) tax law expert), and not their employers.  I've no sympathy for any individual who has been caught up in this tax dodge.

I do understand that point, the issue I poorly tried to put forward was that Celtics rhetoric that Rangers cheated because they attracted players by reducing their tax liabilities whilst at the same time Celtic had players playing that also had schemes to reduce their liabilities is absurd.

Wether Celtic is responsible via HMRC law is unproven as yet but under their own absurd sporting integrity regulations they are guilty.

If in future the ex players prove it was part of negotiations then I hope they get fined  with the same vigour that Rangers were. Then that'll be when we might start to see comeuppance. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

27 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

They didn't though because that's not how a LLP works.

No prob mate, I trust your word. 

Would like to see a tribunal to look into all players and officials in the Scottish game and make sure everything was above board. 

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

 

 

51 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

 

Where did Celtic illegally reduce their taxes? Please, point me in the direction of this....

 

[Copland bear 7,966]

EBT's might be legal and this was clearly not..

All these greedy players on both sides get paid enough to pay taxes.

Some where earning a week what some  people earned in a year,

So I like CB believe the SFA should go through every clubs payment methods as what Celtic advised was cheating the tax man and cheating the rest of Scottish football .

[dummiesoot 16,005]

Our players had a choice to join our Ebt scheme or not. Some seem to believe all our players got it. 

Sellik are fucking complicit in this the press should be digging

 

[WATP-FOREVER 5,231]

4 hours ago, Capital Blu said:

I think you are missing Virtuoso's point entirely.

The money invested in the "film schemes" by CFC players and officials was from their "after tax earnings".  The money invested in EBTs by RFC on behalf of RFC players was pre tax.

The point that both schemes are equivalent can only really be argued on the assumption that Celtic actually advised their players that the "film schemes" were a good (and legal) means of claiming back tax on earnings.

There is ample evidence that the "film schemes" were widely used by high earning individuals across, Sport, TV, Politics etc.. Responsibility for existence of those schemes lies with the people who set them up (probably on the advice of a (now embarrassed) tax law expert), and not their employers.  I've no sympathy for any individual who has been caught up in this tax dodge.

Rangers EBT's - and even those EBT's that the timmigrant club used were structured by a "tax law expert". And a highly recognised "tax expert" at that. Hence the reason why we've won the case on all technicalities - only a fenian judge claimed it was clearly a method to avoid paying tax - but he could not and did not refer to any tax laws or clauses that we could be penalised on.

[Capital Blu 615]

37 minutes ago, WATP-FOREVER said:

Rangers EBT's - and even those EBT's that the timmigrant club used were structured by a "tax law expert". And a highly recognised "tax expert" at that. Hence the reason why we've won the case on all technicalities - only a fenian judge claimed it was clearly a method to avoid paying tax - but he could not and did not refer to any tax laws or clauses that we could be penalised on.

Let's try not to re-write history

I take it that you haven't read the full judgement.  If you did then you would have found that the three CoS judges found that the club was in breach of various sections of the Taxes Act 1988 and the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. They also found that the judges at the FTTT and UTTT made an error in Law, hence the appeal was allowed.

It is clear that Baxendale-Walker sold SDM a scheme that was to all intents and purposes legal. However SDM, under pressure from players agents, provided side letters (secondary contracts). It was those side-letters that ultimately proved to be the undoing of the Murray Group scheme. The blame for the situation the club found itself was squarely on the shoulders of SDM.

And yes the club was penalised, the multi-million tax assessments for the EBTs, the subsequent failure of a CVA,  and even by LNS who fined the club for non-disclosure of the secondary contracts.

[WATP-FOREVER 5,231]

20 minutes ago, Capital Blu said:

Let's try not to re-write history

I take it that you haven't read the full judgement.  If you did then you would have found that the three CoS judges found that the club was in breach of various sections of the Taxes Act 1988 and the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. They also found that the judges at the FTTT and UTTT made an error in Law, hence the appeal was allowed.

It is clear that Baxendale-Walker sold SDM a scheme that was to all intents and purposes legal. However SDM, under pressure from players agents, provided side letters (secondary contracts). It was those side-letters that ultimately proved to be the undoing of the Murray Group scheme. The blame for the situation the club found itself was squarely on the shoulders of SDM.

And yes the club was penalised, the multi-million tax assessments for the EBTs, the subsequent failure of a CVA,  and even by LNS who fined the club for non-disclosure of the secondary contracts.

SDM was under pressure from players agents - elaborate on that one please.

[saintbob1969 1,459]

The definition of inequality or a bigotry is when you only apply a set of rules or prejudices against one set of people. Anyone defending this from Celtic-land is therefore a prejudiced bigot. Of course nothing will come of it. But it's still an utter hypocrisy.

 

Tick Tock!

[WATP-FOREVER 5,231]

2 minutes ago, saintbob1969 said:

The definition of inequality or a bigotry is when you only apply a set of rules or prejudices against one set of people. Anyone defending this from Celtic-land is therefore a prejudiced bigot. Of course nothing will come of it. But it's still an utter hypocrisy.

 

Tick Tock!

 

Tax Evasion is Political; i.e snp are no interested, most especially if the timmigrants are guilty.

Tax Avoidance is Religious; i.e hmrc are compelled to enforce the full force of the law to destroy the guilty entity.

 

FTP - BJDIDK.

 

[Capital Blu 615]

53 minutes ago, WATP-FOREVER said:

SDM was under pressure from players agents - elaborate on that one please.

EBT's only work for payments that are "discretionary", i.e. non contractual.

When players agents negotiate contracts they do so to get the best deals  for the players (and themselves indirectly), detailing everything that the players will receive for weekly salary, appearance money, win bonuses, league or cup success etc.  There is no way that an agent would accept "discretionary" payments on the never-never, so they insisted on the side letters which detailed exactly what the players would receive and when.

The side letters were accepted as "contracts" in Scots Law, so the whole premise of the EBT was undone.

I might have a look for specific references to the above in the tribunal decisions later on (after the game).

[Rangersfansmediawatch 1,055]

4 hours ago, Capital Blu said:

Let's try not to re-write history

I take it that you haven't read the full judgement.  If you did then you would have found that the three CoS judges found that the club was in breach of various sections of the Taxes Act 1988 and the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. They also found that the judges at the FTTT and UTTT made an error in Law, hence the appeal was allowed.

It is clear that Baxendale-Walker sold SDM a scheme that was to all intents and purposes legal. However SDM, under pressure from players agents, provided side letters (secondary contracts). It was those side-letters that ultimately proved to be the undoing of the Murray Group scheme. The blame for the situation the club found itself was squarely on the shoulders of SDM.

And yes the club was penalised, the multi-million tax assessments for the EBTs, the subsequent failure of a CVA,  and even by LNS who fined the club for non-disclosure of the secondary contracts.

It was based on common sense... Common sense isn't the law and that's part of the reason it's been accepted to proceed to the supreme court in London.

Once the Supreme court finds in favour of the good guys,That will be it finished and the eastenders bubble completely burst.

[dummiesoot 16,005]

Anyone think there is a stench in a few recent posts?

[BlueThunder 8,453]

I certainly think some posters won't be here in a years time, give or take.

[bluenose1975 1,287]

Capital blu is deffo a bear, said nae cunt ever ???

[WATP-FOREVER 5,231]

5 hours ago, BlueThunder said:

I certainly think some posters won't be here in a years time, give or take.

 

4 hours ago, bluenose1975 said:

Capital blu is deffo a bear, said nae cunt ever ???

Wanhunnapersento - more like captain fucking brooon.

 

Called out and made an even bigger cunt of himsel.

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

12 hours ago, Capital Blu said:

EBT's only work for payments that are "discretionary", i.e. non contractual.

When players agents negotiate contracts they do so to get the best deals  for the players (and themselves indirectly), detailing everything that the players will receive for weekly salary, appearance money, win bonuses, league or cup success etc.  There is no way that an agent would accept "discretionary" payments on the never-never, so they insisted on the side letters which detailed exactly what the players would receive and when.

The side letters were accepted as "contracts" in Scots Law, so the whole premise of the EBT was undone.

I might have a look for specific references to the above in the tribunal decisions later on (after the game).

Absolute shite.

Don't give up the day job ffs!

[Blue Avenger 22,567]

19 hours ago, Capital Blu said:

I think you are missing Virtuoso's point entirely.

The money invested in the "film schemes" by CFC players and officials was from their "after tax earnings".  The money invested in EBTs by RFC on behalf of RFC players was pre tax.

The point that both schemes are equivalent can only really be argued on the assumption that Celtic actually advised their players that the "film schemes" were a good (and legal) means of claiming back tax on earnings.

There is ample evidence that the "film schemes" were widely used by high earning individuals across, Sport, TV, Politics etc.. Responsibility for existence of those schemes lies with the people who set them up (probably on the advice of a (now embarrassed) tax law expert), and not their employers.  I've no sympathy for any individual who has been caught up in this tax dodge.

If after tax earnings there is no story, so mer shite!