crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 At a loose end and thought i would have a dig about what tax professionals are saying about the sc decision. It is all now clear why we lost the case. We never. Just the evidence was ignored due to corruption of the legal system. The phrase that keep coming up is "purposive approach". Google that and irwinmitchell for a view on why we lost. Then jump onto this http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Purposive-approach.php So parliament is meant to produce the law. The judiciary is meant to apply them. The problem is they cant produce good laws. So they have given judges the ability to read the law as whatever the fuck they want. This begs the question how does the private citizen arrange their affairs to stay within the law AND reap the rewards legally available to them if not through reference to the written law? The answer is we cant. Democracy is dying. This came from EUSSR btw. Get a corrupt judge or two and you are fucked. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ritchieshearercaldow 22,123 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Need to put on your glasses or do a spell check m8 Other than that it's beyond my ken No Surrender, they can all fuck off. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris182 6,279 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 12 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said: At a lose end and thought i would have a dig about what tax professionals are saying about the sc decision. It is all clear why we lost the case. We never. Just the evidence was ignored due to corruption of the legal system. The phrase that keep coming up is "purposive approach". Google that and irwinmitchell for a view on why we lost. Then jump onto this http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Purposive-approach.php So pariliment is meant to produce the law. The judiciary is meant to apply them. The problem is they cant produce good laws. So they have given judges the ability to read the law as whatever the fuck they want. This begs the question how does the private citizen arrange theor affairs to stay withon the law AND reap the rewards legally available to them if not through referenc o the written law? The answer is we cant. Democracy is dying. This came from EUSSR btw. Get a corrupt judge or two and you are fucked. Interpretation is where lawyers make their coin. That's never going to change but yes, frustrating when on the wrong end. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, ritchieshearercaldow said: Need to put on your glasses or do a spell check m8 Other than that it's beyond my ken No Surrender, they can all fuck off. Sorry bud fixed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 18 minutes ago, chris182 said: Interpretation is where lawyers make their coin. That's never going to change but yes, frustrating when on the wrong end. Naw naw mate This runs much deeper than that. This is meant to be a democracy. Hayek warned about arbitrary government in "the road to serfdom" We are well on the road to that. They have essentially outsourced responsibility for coherent, clear and understandable lawmaking to the judiciary. Read the link to see the risks. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyserSoze 14,521 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 well my spine isn't chilling Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Avenger 22,567 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 42 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said: At a lose end and thought i would have a dig about what tax professionals are saying about the sc decision. It is all clear why we lost the case. We never. Just the evidence was ignored due to corruption of the legal system. The phrase that keep coming up is "purposive approach". Google that and irwinmitchell for a view on why we lost. Then jump onto this http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Purposive-approach.php So parliament is meant to produce the law. The judiciary is meant to apply them. The problem is they cant produce good laws. So they have given judges the ability to read the law as whatever the fuck they want. This begs the question how does the private citizen arrange their affairs to stay within the law AND reap the rewards legally available to them if not through reference to the written law? The answer is we cant. Democracy is dying. This came from EUSSR btw. Get a corrupt judge or two and you are fucked. That has always been the case with tax law here. It's an incoherent clusterfuck, but all so very suitable for both sides. Current tax law should be binned to start from scratch Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, KeyserSoze said: well my spine isn't chilling Well u obviously dont have brain then if u cannot see the issues with this. 1. Private citizen gets professional advice re the written laws in force. 2. Identifies that if the carry out their legal business in a certain manner and in a certain order there is no adverse impact re tax liability 3. Specialist tax judges in specialist tribunals agree. 4. Due to "purposive intention " another court then says "naw fuckit. We dont like the answer from the specialists regardless of whats in the written law and the fact that the evidence shows u complied with it". The judges could have made their call for any number of subjective reasons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the drummer 414 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 would all have been different if we had just paid our fucking taxes Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said: That has always been the case with tax law here. It's an incoherent clusterfuck, but all so very suitable for both sides. Current tax law should be binned to start from scratch The law being a clusterfuck is really not the issue mate. If we dont like it as drafted we kick the politicians out until we get what we want. That is democracy's safely value. The real issue is a law os drafted and then a judge subjectively over rules what is written because the legislature dont know their arse from their elbow. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 4 minutes ago, the drummer said: would all have been different if we had just paid our fucking taxes Ahem. WE DID pay our fucking taxes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misteral 2,932 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 The top of the judiciary often take a 'purposive approach' to Statutory Interpretation as it gives them an opportunity to be more subjective in their decision making than the Mischief Rule.does. These decisions in the SC are rarely challenged. Parliament fucks up legislation so much it's almost laughable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris182 6,279 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 1 hour ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said: Naw naw mate This runs much deeper than that. This is meant to be a democracy. Hayek warned about arbitrary government in "the road to serfdom" We are well on the road to that. They have essentially outsourced responsibility for coherent, clear and understandable lawmaking to the judiciary. Read the link to see the risks. I see what you're getting at. The whole thing that bugs me more than anything about this whole scenario is that HMRC have the power to go after any-one retrospectively regardless of the rules/laws at the time. I'm all for paying fair tax where due but come on to fuck. Moving the goal posts after god-knows how many years is not fair game. The responsibility is on HMRC close loop holes etc fair play but the retrospective action is just bullshit of the highest order. The incompetant arseholes in govt can make a shambles of the whole thing for years and then just playfully shrug their shoulders and pursue you afterwards. Just cannot get my head around it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plumbGER 24,518 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 35 minutes ago, the drummer said: would all have been different if we had just paid our fucking taxes Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 1 hour ago, chris182 said: I see what you're getting at. The whole thing that bugs me more than anything about this whole scenario is that the IR have the power to go after any-one retrospectively regardless of the rules/laws at the time. I'm all for paying fair tax where due but come on to fuck. Moving the goal posts after god-knows how many years is not fair game. The repsonsibikty is on the IR to close loop holes etc fair play but the retrospective action is just bullshit of the highest order. The incompetant arseholes in govt can make a shambles of the whole thing for years and then just playfully shrug their shoulders and pursue you afterwards. Just cannot get my head around it. Now u have it sussed mate. Between the electors and the elected, It used to be the relationship where we were the superior entity. They were OUR AGENTS doing our bidding. Occasionally they would fuck up but the law applied equally to everyone. Now the relationsip is one of manager and employee where politicians are the mamagers. Managers can come out with ridiculous shite and be discriminatory about it as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Misteral said: The top of the judiciary often take a 'purposive approach' to Statutory Interpretation as it gives them an opportunity to be more subjective in their decision making than the Mischief Rule.does. These decisions in the SC are rarely challenged. Parliament fucks up legislation so much it's almost laughable. Politicians fucking up is no excuse. The judges are not there to do the politicians jobs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewhitesettler 2,711 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 Ignorance of the law does not make you Innocent. We were given bad advice. We should be going after whoever gave us that advice, although I doubt we can, or if we can we'd lose that as well, knowing our luck. We need to pick our battle's carefully, and only do so when there is an extremely good chance we'll win. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jintybear 8,536 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 There was no way HMRC were losing this tax case. It was one of they cases that HAD to be won. Too much money at stake not to win. I'm not in any way saying the judges were corrupt but as others have said tax law is very complex and it's how a person interprets the way it is written. A different judge may have found it in our favour, and indeed two separate judges did. Personally I feel we should have won. When the EBTs were used they were perfectly legal. That's when the law becomes cloudy because too much was made of the fact that they're not legal now. I'm not a lawyer but if I was the legal representative in this case I would have stressing til I blue in the face that they were legal at the time of use (maybe they did BTW). A shit outcome for us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danger ranger 922 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Blue Avenger said: That has always been the case with tax law here. It's an incoherent clusterfuck, but all so very suitable for both sides. Current tax law should be binned to start from scratch There is no such thing as tax laws, because if there was, the big corporations would have to pay up and they don't, offshore accounts also prove that there is no tax laws. The only so called tax laws are for the public and they grab our money before you get paid or buy anything. As you say, they only target who they want and do deals with who they want, who controls those decisions, it ain't laws that's for sure. Just like the bank of England its owned and run by a list of names and has nothing whatsoever to do with England or Britain. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Thewhitesettler said: Ignorance of the law does not make you Innocent. We were given bad advice. We should be going after whoever gave us that advice, although I doubt we can, or if we can we'd lose that as well, knowing our luck. We need to pick our battle's carefully, and only do so when there is an extremely good chance we'll win. What a complete load of surrenderist pacifict pish. U still dont get it do u? U dont understand how this works. Ignorance of the law? What law? There is no law. There is a set of documents masquerading as law but they are not law. Sdm and rangers complied with those kiddy oan laws (remember ftt and utt?). That made no fucking difference because a judge applied whatever subjective shite he had in mind to say the law as written was not really what was meant as the law. So what law should we have complied with ? I challenge u. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McEwan's Lager 30,501 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 20 minutes ago, danger ranger said: There is no such thing as tax laws, because if there was, the big corporations would have to pay up and they don't, offshore accounts also prove that there is no tax laws. The only so called tax laws are for the public and they grab our money before you get paid or buy anything. As you say, they only target who they want and do deals with who they want, who controls those decisions, it ain't laws that's for sure. Just like the bank of England its owned and run by a list of names and has nothing whatsoever to do with England or Britain. What? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy bob swollenbaws 1,861 Posted July 9, 2017 Author Share Posted July 9, 2017 1 hour ago, jintybear said: There was no way HMRC were losing this tax case. It was one of they cases that HAD to be won. Too much money at stake not to win. I'm not in any way saying the judges were corrupt but as others have said tax law is very complex and it's how a person interprets the way it is written. A different judge may have found it in our favour, and indeed two separate judges did. Personally I feel we should have won. When the EBTs were used they were perfectly legal. That's when the law becomes cloudy because too much was made of the fact that they're not legal now. I'm not a lawyer but if I was the legal representative in this case I would have stressing til I blue in the face that they were legal at the time of use (maybe they did BTW). A shit outcome for us. It is clear now that CW was defo a lot fucking sharper and maybe a bit more straight up with us that we thought. When he said HMRC would keep appealing until they won i think we all took it that they would just keep appealing for as long as they could or they ran out of appeal routes. What he really meant by it was it was a fait acompli. They only had to appeal two or three times before they were guaranteed a win because of this rule. To all the sdm, cw,cg haters fuck it . They played a blinder and they did it for us. We have our club with its history intact. Would not have said this before today when i found this out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz52 11,837 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 JintyBear hits the nail on the head, HMRC needed a high profile win as they were beginning to look weak and have already wasted enough tax payers money chasing lawsuits that they didn't get anything out of, or not enough to satisfy the hoardes - the Harry Redknapp case hurt them big time, I still worked with HMRC up until 2015 and I'm still bound under a confidentiality agreement so I can never say too much of what I used to read on their intranet regarding these types of cases. IIRC they published something around 2012 or 2013 for internal eyes only that didn't name Rangers but they were the massive elephant in the room, saying that they're willing to put as much money as the public purse would allow into legal battles. In the release they made, they stated how disappointed they were that Harry Redknapp was cleared of everything and they would do everything possible to make sure something similar didn't happen again as these court battles cost millions of public funds. They were always going to get a win over Rangers. I believe they've contacted the thousands of UK businesses who operate/operated EBTs and have offered them settlement figures to avoid more court action. Someone mentioned we got a settlement figure offered to us in 2012 that we knocked back as well which makes it even tougher to swallow Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McEwan's Lager 30,501 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 1 hour ago, jintybear said: There was no way HMRC were losing this tax case. It was one of they cases that HAD to be won. Too much money at stake not to win. I'm not in any way saying the judges were corrupt but as others have said tax law is very complex and it's how a person interprets the way it is written. A different judge may have found it in our favour, and indeed two separate judges did. Personally I feel we should have won. When the EBTs were used they were perfectly legal. That's when the law becomes cloudy because too much was made of the fact that they're not legal now. I'm not a lawyer but if I was the legal representative in this case I would have stressing til I blue in the face that they were legal at the time of use (maybe they did BTW). A shit outcome for us. EBTs themselves were legal and of course the ones we set up were legal. However since they were introduced in the 80s there has been a simmering question as to what extent and what purpose can they be used for. I'd suggest that the way we used ours sailed too close to the wind in terms of it looking like it was part of the remuneration of the employee at a point that was probably too close to the company paying into the EBT on behalf of the employee. I'm sure if David Murray, Bert Konterman etc. cash was still sitting in the Bahamas, or the Caymans, or wherever it was held, waiting for them to retire i'm sure that there would have been no case to answer. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McEwan's Lager 30,501 Posted July 9, 2017 Share Posted July 9, 2017 9 minutes ago, Gaz52 said: JintyBear hits the nail on the head, HMRC needed a high profile win as they were beginning to look weak and have already wasted enough tax payers money chasing lawsuits that they didn't get anything out of, or not enough to satisfy the hoardes - the Harry Redknapp case hurt them big time, I still worked with HMRC up until 2015 and I'm still bound under a confidentiality agreement so I can never say too much of what I used to read on their intranet regarding these types of cases. IIRC they published something around 2012 or 2013 for internal eyes only that didn't name Rangers but they were the massive elephant in the room, saying that they're willing to put as much money as the public purse would allow into legal battles. In the release they made, they stated how disappointed they were that Harry Redknapp was cleared of everything and they would do everything possible to make sure something similar didn't happen again as these court battles cost millions of public funds. They were always going to get a win over Rangers. I believe they've contacted the thousands of UK businesses who operate/operated EBTs and have offered them settlement figures to avoid more court action. Someone mentioned we got a settlement figure offered to us in 2012 that we knocked back as well which makes it even tougher to swallow I think we offered to settle and it was rejected? I could be wrong though. Quote Link to post 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.