bombaybadboy08 15,660 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 As every other club who they have tried this on, have done.Let's hope so,the position of strength we will be in is quite scary but I'm firmly in the Whyte camp,only an idiot would take over team in Scotland(albeit the most successful one)with a huge bill hovering over it.I'm confident anyway. nemisis 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemisis 358 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Our bus done that one time too after an OF game Went through Royston Got to a set of traffic lights and the bus stoppedA wee pensioner woman was walking home from the shop with her trolley and stopped in front of the bus She got out a tin of beans and fucked it right off the front window She was about 70 odd !Scum from the cradle to the grave. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 HMRC has never won one of these cases, apart from the normal anti Rangers bias, I cannot understand why anyone thinks our case will be any different.What I don't get is...This (the ebt) was ok'd at the time, lawyers, accountants and such like organised this and said it "was" legal. Tax avoidance schemes are not illegal, so how can hmrc retrospectively send us a massive bill (so to spk) just because they realised they should've have closed this loop hole b4 the companies exploited it. Surely hmrc can't win this case purely on the basis that it wasnt illegal at the time. Is it like saying I was driving at 35mph in a 40mph zone, the police clocked me on their speed camera doing 35mph. Next month they changed the speed limit in that street to 30mph, can they then send me my £60 fine and my 3points retrospectively. It seems to me to be the same thing. How can u charge someone retrospectively for somethng that was legal at the time of saidretrospective offence ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 I read all about this 6 months ago. Essentially there is an enormous hole in the Public purse and the government decided they were going to put a purge on bringing in as much income from unpaid taxes as possible.With EBT's the plan was to get all open enquiries closed and money in as soon as possible. Essentially, they dont want to continue to use public money when the hole is big on expensive litigation so reaching a conclusion is the best way to go about it.However, before anyone gets excited, in all communications and ive seen a few, it was made crystal clear that HMRC were going to do it on a case by case basis and would look at the facts of each case before settling. It was never an exercise to say ABC owes us £10m so we will take £1m . DEF owes us £20m so we will take £2m.The Arsenal reference i would say is ludicrous but I will happily read any sources on it and do a bit of digging.Of course, the final danger in all of this, that HMRC DONT warn you about is that by offering a settlement or coming forward, you are in effect ADMITTING you done wrong. If they then dont accept your settlement proposal, expect the big bomb. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombaybadboy08 15,660 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Our bus done that one time too after an OF game Went through Royston Got to a set of traffic lights and the bus stoppedA wee pensioner woman was walking home from the shop with her trolley and stopped in front of the bus She got out a tin of beans and fucked it right off the front window She was about 70 odd ! :lol:Haha a picture of her angry mush would have been great! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 What I don't get is...This (the ebt) was ok'd at the time, lawyers, accountants and such like organised this and said it "was" legal. Tax avoidance schemes are not illegal, so how can hmrc retrospectively send us a massive bill (so to spk) just because they realised they should've have closed this loop hole b4 the companies exploited it. Surely hmrc can't win this case purely on the basis that it wasnt illegal at the time. Is it like saying I was driving at 35mph in a 40mph zone, the police clocked me on their speed camera doing 35mph. Next month they changed the speed limit in that street to 30mph, can they then send me my £60 fine and my 3points retrospectively. It seems to me to be the same thing. How can u charge someone retrospectively for somethng that was legal at the time of saidretrospective offence ?Unfortunately, Tax advisors, lawyers and auditors get it wrong.It is HMRC's position that the advice Rangers got, or our interpretation of the advice was not correct. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 As every other club who they have tried this on, have done.Im not aware of any club who have went to court re EBT's and won im afraid. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemisis 358 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Unfortunately, Tax advisors, lawyers and auditors get it wrong.It is HMRC's position that the advice Rangers got, or our interpretation of the advice was not correct. Of course they take that position, they are trying to claw back money. But its not for them to decide. And as I will keep stating, they have n ot won one of these cases to date. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Unfortunately, Tax advisors, lawyers and auditors get it wrong.It is HMRC's position that the advice Rangers got, or our interpretation of the advice was not correct. So ebt's have always been illegal ?Cannae see it tbh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sicknote 26 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Read the link, not an amnesty, they still want their money, just offering to be a little less severe with penalties and pointing out the savings for both parties if they avoid litigation.We're denying any wrong-doing, so it doesn't apply to us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Of course they take that position, they are trying to claw back money. But its not for them to decide. And as I will keep stating, they have n ot won one of these cases to date.Who does make the final verdict?Is it special (impartial) tax judges? Jury of our peers?Who has the final say? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillete 1,338 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Unfortunately, Tax advisors, lawyers and auditors get it wrong.It is HMRC's position that the advice Rangers got, or our interpretation of the advice was not correct. So do you personally think we are ok ?Was it legal at the time and do you think what we done should be legal or illegal ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Of course they take that position, they are trying to claw back money. But its not for them to decide. And as I will keep stating, they have n ot won one of these cases to date.Yeah they have though.http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/business/markets-economy/aberdeen-asset-falls-foul-of-tax-tribunal-over-its-7m-scheme-tax-avoidance-scheme-falls-foul-of-the-tribunal-1.1083671February this year. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 So do you personally think we are ok ?Was it legal at the time and do you think what we done should be legal or illegal ?I personally dont no. But i believe its not cut and dry.You could operate an EBT scheme legally if you did everything by the letter of the law. I cannot for the life of me though see how a football team could work this way though because EBT's had to be 100% "non contractable" and I just dont see how players would sign for us on a "promise we will pay you but we arent writing it down" method. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895 Posted October 24, 2011 Author Share Posted October 24, 2011 :lol:Haha a picture of her angry mush would have been great! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillete 1,338 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Yeah they have though.http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/business/markets-economy/aberdeen-asset-falls-foul-of-tax-tribunal-over-its-7m-scheme-tax-avoidance-scheme-falls-foul-of-the-tribunal-1.1083671February this year.So really we are fucked then Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 So really we are fucked thenIt is legal pre 2003 as per one of the last sentences in the link Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Who does make the final verdict?Is it special (impartial) tax judges? Jury of our peers?Who has the final say?There are 3(??) independent judges at the First Tier Tribunal who decide(this is where we are at just now. Moving into week 5 of evidence)If we lose and decide to appeal, then we need to demonstrate on what grounds we are appealing and they have to be considered reasonable before it gets passed to an Upper Tribunal which again is specialist judges.No jury. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillete 1,338 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 It is legal pre 2003 as per one of the last sentences in the linkWhat time period did we use it ?If say we done it from 2001-2004 , would it just be 2003 & 2004 we can be liable for ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 So really we are fucked thenNot necessarily mate. The very fact we are moving into week 5 of evidence suggests to me that nobody has proven beyond doubt yet that what we did was right or wrong.The down side to that is that clearly we didnt have a strong enough argument to get it thrown out right away.Its still up in the air, but its my belief we will be hit with a bill, the size of which is unknown.And its fair to say that Mr Whytes position has changed considerably since May in my opinion, so dont know what to read into that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 There are 3(??) independent judges at the First Tier Tribunal who decide(this is where we are at just now. Moving into week 5 of evidence)If we lose and decide to appeal, then we need to demonstrate on what grounds we are appealing and they have to be considered reasonable before it gets passed to an Upper Tribunal which again is specialist judges.No jury. I hope this case will be heard somewhere obscure where no pre-prejudice could possibly be at work. Ie in Glasgow, it's sad to say but 3 Timmy judges could easily fuck us.R they tax/accountancy judges or just run of the mill judges? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 What time period did we use it ?If say we done it from 2001-2004 , would it just be 2003 & 2004 we can be liable for ?We are still doing it. 2001 - 2011Here are the amounts we put in.2001 £ 1.01m2002 £ 5.18m2003 £ 6.79m2004 £ 7.25m2005 £ 7.24m2006 £ 9.19m2007 £ 4.99m2008 £ 2.29m2009 £ 2.36m2010 £ 1.36m2011 ?? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemisis 358 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 It is my belief we will not be hit by any bill (see I even put a wee thumbs up to make my arguement stronger) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
markybear 136 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 Not necessarily mate. The very fact we are moving into week 5 of evidence suggests to me that nobody has proven beyond doubt yet that what we did was right or wrong.The down side to that is that clearly we didnt have a strong enough argument to get it thrown out right away.Its still up in the air, but its my belief we will be hit with a bill, the size of which is unknown.And its fair to say that Mr Whytes position has changed considerably since May in my opinion, so dont know what to read into that. I didn't think the case was due till November?How many wks will it run for?It's not really been publicised that's it's actually going on as we spk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gillete 1,338 Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 So if it can't be proved beyond doubt by either party , surely they can't rule either way ?Would the result be no verdict ? 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.