Jump to content

Tax Case


Recommended Posts

A childish insult that really merits no futher response, but I will. I repeat; my points are pertinent, and I'm not a 'timmy'. I was in conversation (business) with Messrs McCoist and Whyte at the Hilton on the 9th of December, where Mr Whyte tripped over a small table whilst posing for photographs with supporters who were at adjoining tables. I'm certain both gentlemen will be amused at your accusation against me...

"would you like ice with that sir?." is not a conversation

:P

Link to post
Share on other sites

HMRC wish for the full amount liable, that much is not in question. We are contesting the liability; HMRC regard us as being fully responsible for the liability. I'm afraid that both parties cannot be held responsible for non-payment of liabilities, but may reach agreement on a reduced sum. My original post states that this way forward is now in question, due to the adverse comments the Commons Committee made these last two days; vilifying HMRC for such practices in the near past. That is where we are...

Now I know you are talking absolute nonesense. I'm sorry, but it is not as simple and as straightforward as you are making out. I will also repeat to you that the Commons Committee made comments that question the role of HMRC and its relationship with LARGE corporations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I should have told him to stay on the ground whilst I got out my mobile and taken some pics!! It'll be easy to verify, should you disbelieve me; call the Hilton...

So thats a no to pics then.

You meet McCoist your a Rangers supporter and you dont think "hey i will get a pic with my hero".

Dubious i must say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unlikely that any commons committee talk would influence a case that is so far advanced.

Apart from the fact they are talking about deals in hundreds of millions, the Rangers tax case is almost at an end.

At the end of the day, HMRC are limited by being obliged to recoup the most money possible for the least expense. They are bound to settle if (and I say if) it looks the best deal.

If it looks like they wouldn't get much more at the tribunal, or Rangers would go bust giving them nothing, clearly they must accept the deal.

That's why an agreed settlement was always the most likely outcome, since either side would have won by now if it was an open and shut case.

Similarly Rangers can't afford to keep the case going as it is preventing them from trading properly and limiting borrowing powers. Despite knowing they had a good case, it may be in Rangers interests not to gamble and settle it to get rid.

This rumour may be pish, but ultimately I reckon we'll settle it anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't take my original post as anything other than passing on what I heard on the radio, that was all I was doing.

Personally, I don't believe any of it until I hear something from a more official from the club

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 28 April 2024 11:30 Until 13:30
      0  
      St Mirren v Rangers
      The SMiSA Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Main Event and Sky Sports Football
×
×
  • Create New...