Thomson Is Hurting

[Smile 26,600]

You have to feel sorry for Bigots like him they are blinded by hate same as the taxcase clowns.

Its sad that hate is all these idiots have.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,137]

Can this idiot count?

HMRC may therefore appeal or may not. It could take a couple of months for them to decide.

= 61 days

Then ........

HMRC told me this morning they have 56 days to appeal

Considering the judgement was dlivered 3 weeks ago = 21days that should leave them 35 days to make an appeal

An appeal that will gain them no money

Not only can this fud of a journalist not write he can't count

[Bertent 2,081]

Perhaps he needs to use more lubricant

[loyalfollower 1,543]

Many are of the opinion the FTTT ruling means there is no case to answer with reagrds the SPL, including McCoist, just saying IMO it only takes one of the 5 cases we lost for the SPL to find us guilty doesn't it!

the 5 cases that went against us could be director payments, therefore nit within SPL jurisdiction

[WVB 2,560]

Here is the impartial reporter, with Green Brigade leader Phil Deegan.

All very cosy.

[Teamgers 1,214]

I must admit im not 100% clear on all of this either, ok i totally understand the FTTT result, but what if HMRC do appeal and win! what then, an appeal from old co Rangers? to appeal HMRC's Appeal? Or if HMRC do appeal and win is that one all and we have a final judgement to see who is the overall winner? a bit like extra time in a match i suppose.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,137]

Many are of the opinion the FTTT ruling means there is no case to answer with reagrds the SPL, including McCoist, just saying IMO it only takes one of the 5 cases we lost for the SPL to find us guilty doesn't it!

Guilty of what?

Taking a loan?

SPL are investigating contracts not loans, even if some are due to pay tax the loans weren't illegal

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

This guy is obsessed. I wonder if this no mark pays the exact amount of tax?

[Dutchy 1,200]

Can this idiot count?

HMRC may therefore appeal or may not. It could take a couple of months for them to decide.

= 61 days

Then ........

HMRC told me this morning they have 56 days to appeal

Considering the judgement was dlivered 3 weeks ago = 21days that should leave them 35 days to make an appeal

An appeal that will gain them no money

Not only can this fud of a journalist not write he can't count

I think his prime motive is to keep a sense of injustice going.

We're bad, we're really bad people, and all that shit. Most respectable people accept the decisions of the court, but some don't that's why there's an appeal process.

So if he and his cohorts failed to influence the first decision, let's try and influence the possibility of an appeal, even though it would gain the taxman no financial benefit.

What is wrong with the law is the government, in the shape of HMRC seek to make law up by the theory of precedent, just to get at others.

I could try to research just who used EBT's in the first instance, but I can't be arsed. This is a bitter no mark journo that can't accept he's useless prick. That's his probelm, not mine.

[WVB 2,560]

This prick is trying his best to keep it in the public eye, hoping public opinion will put pressure on HMRC to appeal. He must hate us very much.

He does.

His Green Brigade chums have indoctrinated him,by massaging his ego and telling him what a great guy he is.

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

What a wanker

[Dutchy 1,200]

I must admit im not 100% clear on all of this either, ok i totally understand the FTTT result, but what if HMRC do appeal and win! what then, an appeal from old co Rangers? to appeal HMRC's Appeal? Or if HMRC do appeal and win is that one all and we have a final judgement to see who is the overall winner? a bit like extra time in a match i suppose.

You forget penalties! After the first 5, it goes to sudden death and this could go on for a long, long time, until someone misses.

Oh how exciting football is?

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

He and the Dick Emery lookalike cosgrove are neck and neck in the backtracking stakes. I expect that speccy cunt gordon and a few others to make a bid from the outside .

And where is that little rat cunt fae dundee the carrot headed extra from the bash street kids spence...........that is one bastard that should be looked at re comments.

[Fools Gold 488]

I firmly believe that Mr Thomson has to let go; a slippery hand won't hold the fish.

Whether it's a 2:1 decision or 3:0, we WON the tax case.

He should be climbing off his soapbox and try to retain any microscopic dignity he once had.

He's also missed an extremely valid issue, and I'm surprised that he, along with any other others of his ilk have not considered.

Have a read at the link Mr Thomson, along with RTC and any others. I appreciate it's a long-winded read, occasionally pedantic, and infused with technical jargon that may need a few lawyers to help with, but it's important to sit and think about. I would have posted it here, but it's way too long and detailed to post here:

http://www.google.co...e5IM2pWkj7ArFpw

[elephants stoned 2,994]

What a wanker

Two wankers in that video, mckenzies a scumbag as well.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,137]

the 5 cases that went against us could be director payments, therefore nit within SPL jurisdiction

This is very true wasn't Bain shown to have asked for a payment/loan via the trust, Murray was another, not footballers so not relevant

[chris182 6,289]

If Thomson's agenda was really to do with his anger at the injustice of tax avoidance he would be targeting every large scale corporation that rips the pish out of us through large scale avoidance.

I don't like it, I don't like that we were involved in it if I'm totally honest, but I'm not going to listen to some jumped up little twat claiming his problem with Rangers is down to tax avoidance.

I have no problem with someone having the courage of their convictions and saying "I don't like you, I'm going to attempt to take you down a peg or two" but to hide behind some bullshit cloak of supposed nobility. Sickening.

Exactly

[Big Al 55 9,248]

the 5 cases that went against us could be director payments, therefore nit within SPL jurisdiction

I hope so

[gogzy 31,195]

I bet his bosses at CH4 don't ever try to avoid any tax.

I also bet he wouldnt dream of using an ISA

such a beacon of morality.

HMRC have the option to appeal and tax experts I’ve spoken to all say what is obvious: the highly unusual split decision per se provides potential for appeal. HMRC note the rare split opinion in their statement above – that’s no accident.

No, it doesn't. It can only be appealed on a point of law, and just because it was a split decision, does not mean there are still points of law to argue.

[Faircity 186]

...Thompson is yet another Rangers hater and should be treated with the scorn he deserves..

[Blue Nosed Babe 20,591]

Some of the comments under the blog are better than the blog itself....THIS is they type of chancer, Traynor was getting laid into this morning.

[JCDBigBear 10,824]

A smart chap by the name of Charles Lewis responded to Thomson with this:

Those of us who have actually read the Tribunal’s judgement will be less than impressed by your comments above. Cherry picking from the dissenting opinion to support an opinion that you have already formed is not just sloppy journalism but suggests a willingness to deceive the reader. I was not aware that this was consistent with normal journalistic ethics.

Being a clever chap myself, I can also cherry pick from both the majority verdict and the dissenting opinion to show that contractual remuneration was disclosed to the SFA. And, further to your comment about ‘loans’, you may be interested to discover that counsel for HMRC accepted that they were loans and that they were not ‘shams’ (paragraph 188). It will be a little difficult for HMRC to go back and say “we didn’t really mean that’.

Not that it matters. Any appeal can only be on a point of law and the fact that it was a majority verdict and not a unanimous one is not a point of law. If, indeed, there is an appeal it will probably be on the application of Ramsay and not on any of the points you make above.

I am sure that Lord Nimmo-Smith will read the dissenting opinion. He will also read the majority decision. As the good Lord is most learned,I am sure that he will take into account when deliberating on this matter that it could all end up in the Court of Session. And that court will be most conscious of duly established decisions in law which are directly relevant to the case.

[dougie76 15,359]

I dont think may feel its a formality. Look at John terry - by law found innocent of racism, the EFL found him guilty.

If fear the same type of situation here.

Don't think the spl would go ahead with it unless the think we are guilty, what sort of punishment can they hit us with? as taken away titles is a no starter, wouldn't put it passed the cunts to try though.

[Sea Bear 283]

A smart chap by the name of Charles Lewis responded to Thomson with this:

Those of us who have actually read the Tribunal’s judgement will be less than impressed by your comments above. Cherry picking from the dissenting opinion to support an opinion that you have already formed is not just sloppy journalism but suggests a willingness to deceive the reader. I was not aware that this was consistent with normal journalistic ethics.

Being a clever chap myself, I can also cherry pick from both the majority verdict and the dissenting opinion to show that contractual remuneration was disclosed to the SFA. And, further to your comment about ‘loans’, you may be interested to discover that counsel for HMRC accepted that they were loans and that they were not ‘shams’ (paragraph 188). It will be a little difficult for HMRC to go back and say “we didn’t really mean that’.

Not that it matters. Any appeal can only be on a point of law and the fact that it was a majority verdict and not a unanimous one is not a point of law. If, indeed, there is an appeal it will probably be on the application of Ramsay and not on any of the points you make above.

I am sure that Lord Nimmo-Smith will read the dissenting opinion. He will also read the majority decision. As the good Lord is most learned,I am sure that he will take into account when deliberating on this matter that it could all end up in the Court of Session. And that court will be most conscious of duly established decisions in law which are directly relevant to the case.

Now that is a reply..

[TheLawMan 6,240]

This is very true wasn't Bain shown to have asked for a payment/loan via the trust, Murray was another, not footballers so not relevant

It was definitely 5 players. It says so later on in the report.

That doesnt mean however automatically that its an SPL issue.