D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Ours was very well run and administered from our legal representatives point of view, you have to take into consideration what HMRC's legal advisors were telling them, people conveniently forget the role lawyers played in this whole saga, who incidentally get paid win lose or draw.But should that poor legal advice not be looked at seeing as the taxpayer paid for it ?Furthermore is it in the interests of the tax payer that legal advice which was proven to be wrong at tribunal, is now being acted upon again in the shape of an appeal ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 By the way, for the record I'm totally for an inquiry into the whole sorry saga, I believe certain departments and agencies have acted irresponsibly in the past and continue to do so today, Bu I point blank refuse to believe it is as a result of a direct and malicious campaign against Rangers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 But should that poor legal advice not be looked at seeing as the taxpayer paid for it ?Furthermore is it in the interests of the tax payer that legal advice which was proven to be wrong at tribunal, is now being acted upon again in the shape of an appeal ?Absolutely it should be mate, see my above post. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The New Era 339 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 If the pursual of VAT debt was not controlled by Foyle House, Duncreggan Road, Londonderry, I would feel a lot easier about this. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 If the pursual of VAT debt was not controlled by Foyle House, Duncreggan Road, Londonderry, I would feel a lot easier about this.It wasn't VAT we were being chased for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Artagnan 13,319 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Absolutely it should be mate, see my above post.Yeah Id typed it before that post appeared.I'm agreeing with you on this - notwithstanding allegations about "HMRC having it in for us" - I think there is a considerable case for an enquiry in terms of their negligence (leaks especially) without us adding conspiracy theories to the mix. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Yeah Id typed it before that post appeared.I'm agreeing with you on this - notwithstanding allegations about "HMRC having it in for us" - I think there is a considerable case for an enquiry in terms of their negligence (leaks especially) without us adding conspiracy theories to the mix.Absolutely, whining about conspiracy theories and deliberate campaigns just reduces the credibility of any cause for redress we may have, we would do well to highlight the irregularities that took place in a more sensible manner maybe then we will get some answers, maybe even someone held accountable for the vast waste of public funds. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The New Era 339 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 We were being chased for VAT and PAYE unless I've got my time zones mixed up.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9848687/HMRCs-tax-battle-with-Rangers-poised-to-run-and-run.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 We were being chased for VAT and PAYE unless I've got my time zones mixed up.http://www.telegraph...un-and-run.htmlNo your time zones are correct it's your tax cases that are wrong,The original post was about this period yes, but it's changed into a debate about whether or not HMRC had an agenda against Rangers regards the big tax case which didn't involve VAT.The VAT was from the Whyte era and nothing to do with the EBT investigation.The VAT was due, no questions, regardless of the address of the office, Whyte just point blank didn't pay it so no conspiracy there. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Whatever is said is HMRC should have got their facts straight in 2003.They issues a bill for tax that as it stands they were not entitled to.This and this alone left the club vulnerable to the shysters takeover They do have a right to go after tax that is over due,,, they do not have the right to chase monies not owing.They got this (as it stands) wrong big style and perhaps it was just down to incompetence but its one fek of an error. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Whatever is said isHMRC should have got their facts straight in 2003. By what means Clairvoyance?They issues a bill for tax that as it stands they were not entitled to. They issued a bill they believed we owed, as is their right, we contested it.This and this alone left the club vulnerable to the shysters takeover No Murrays collapsing steel empire and the global debt crisis coupled with the potential tax liability left us at Whytes mercy.They do have a right to go after tax that is over due,,, they do not have the right to chase monies not owing. They have a right to take legal action to ascertain if monies are owed or not, do you expect them to not pursue it just because we said it was legal?They got this (as it stands) wrong big style and perhaps it was just down to incompetence but its one fek of an error. Completely agreeIt went soemthing likeHMRC: Hey Rangers you owe us a gazillion poundsRFC: No we don'tHMRC: Well we think you do and we want this amountRFC: We will give you this amount insteadHMRC: No we want it all, we belive it is due, because of x,y and z reasons and we will take legal action to recover itRFC: See you in courtmany months laterRFC: na nana na na !!Your suggesting it should have went likeHMRC: Hey Rangers you owe us a gazillion pounds.RFC: No we don't.HMRC: Right sorry.thats mental. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Whatever is said isHMRC should have got their facts straight in 2003. By what means Clairvoyance?No by going in and discussing it with the club taking. It was on the accounts signed off.They issues a bill for tax that as it stands they were not entitled to. They issued a bill they believed we owed, as is their right, we contested it. Not if they had their fact straight it wasnt see the point above.This and this alone left the club vulnerable to the shysters takeover No Murrays collapsing steel empire and the global debt crisis coupled with the potential tax liability left us at Whytes mercy. Well chick that in as well but without the incorrect tax bill we would have had better and more legitimate offers. IMO.They do have a right to go after tax that is over due,,, they do not have the right to chase monies not owing.They have a right to take legal action to ascertain if monies are owed or not, do you expect them to not pursue it just because we said it was legal? No I expect experts in tax law to understand....well tax law.... is that so hard to understand.They got this (as it stands) wrong big style and perhaps it was just down to incompetence but its one fek of an error. Completely agree Good man. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Whatever is said isHMRC should have got their facts straight in 2003. By what means Clairvoyance?No by going in and discussing it with the club taking. It was on the accounts signed off.They issues a bill for tax that as it stands they were not entitled to. They issued a bill they believed we owed, as is their right, we contested it. Not if they had their fact straight it wasnt see the point above.This and this alone left the club vulnerable to the shysters takeover No Murrays collapsing steel empire and the global debt crisis coupled with the potential tax liability left us at Whytes mercy. Well chick that in as well but without the incorrect tax bill we would have had better and more legitimate offers. IMO.They do have a right to go after tax that is over due,,, they do not have the right to chase monies not owing.They have a right to take legal action to ascertain if monies are owed or not, do you expect them to not pursue it just because we said it was legal? No I expect experts in tax law to understand....well tax law.... is that so hard to understand.They got this (as it stands) wrong big style and perhaps it was just down to incompetence but its one fek of an error. Completely agree Good man.Mate,Your forgetting the very fabric of EBT's were to take advantage of loopholes in tax law, grey areas that would be very difficult if not impossible to unravel, if it was as simple as going in and asking the club about it fuck sake they would have done that, yes tax law is very complicated, VERY hence why people make millions inventing ways to avoid it.You seem hell bent on believeing HMRC are run by the vatican and had one purpose in life and that was to destroy Rangers, despite whatever reasoned debate is put in front of you, I'm leaving this thread it's run it's course. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 It went soemthing likeHMRC: Hey Rangers you owe us a gazillion pounds... ooops sorry wve checked and we dont.RFC: No we don't... see told youHMRC: Well we think you do and we want this amount oops sorry we checked and you are correctRFC: We will give you this amount instead as this is the TRUE amount owingHMRC: No we want it all, we belive it is due, because of x,y and z reasons and we will take legal action to recover it.. ooops weve check and you are correctRFC: See you in court good news no need.many months laterRFC: na nana na na !!Your suggesting it should have went likeHMRC: Hey Rangers you owe us a gazillion pounds. RFC: No we don't.HMRC: Right sorry.thats mental.Well it would be mental if that was what I have said.But what I have said is they should know the rules.If you want a ruling on tax go to a tax expert....Is that to much to ask? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Your forgetting the very fabric of EBT's were to take advantage of loopholes in tax law, grey areas that would be very difficult if not impossible to unravel, if it was as simple as going in and asking the club about it fuck sake they would have done that, yes tax law is very complicated, VERY hence why people make millions inventing ways to avoid it.Well what I expect is that those in charge of collecting it, understand it.2 Lawyers did...Is it to much to ask.Lots of things in life are compleHeart surgery for instance..... who would you rather do that a competent surgeon or some guy who hasnt checked what is involved.How about Law in Philly .... I would get a Philly lawyer.You seem hell bent on believeing HMRC are run by the vatican and had one purpose in life and that was to destroy Rangers, despite whatever reasoned debate is put in fornt of you, I'm leaving this thread it's run it's course.As you have not read or understood a word Ive said then that seems to be for the best. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Well it would be mental if that was what I have said.But what I have said is they should know the rules.If you want a ruling on tax go to a tax expert....Is that to much to ask?They did check, they went to court, thats how you check the legality of a disputed claim when there are two conflicting opinions. Your whole argument is based on they should have checked, checked with who? Themselves? the guys who set up the scheme? or go to court and ask for an independent verdict on it?Of course they go to court and ask for an independent verdict, thats what the tax case was all about, HMRC checking. Whatever happened between them beginning the check and it ending was not under their control.Is that so hard to understand?I really need to go now this is getting tiresome. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Your forgetting the very fabric of EBT's were to take advantage of loopholes in tax law, grey areas that would be very difficult if not impossible to unravel, if it was as simple as going in and asking the club about it fuck sake they would have done that, yes tax law is very complicated, VERY hence why people make millions inventing ways to avoid it.Well what I expect is that those in charge of collecting it, understand it.2 Lawyers did...Is it to much to ask.Lots of things in life are compleHeart surgery for instance..... who would you rather do that a competent surgeon or some guy who hasnt checked what is involved.How about Law in Philly .... I would get a Philly lawyer.You seem hell bent on believeing HMRC are run by the vatican and had one purpose in life and that was to destroy Rangers, despite whatever reasoned debate is put in fornt of you, I'm leaving this thread it's run it's course.As you have not read or understood a word Ive said then that seems to be for the best.I've checked and you are bonkers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,006 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Why should there be penalties and interested be added prior to finding guilt? Fair enough they chase money they believe to be theirs. What is fundamentally flawed in all of hmrc dealings is they think they can close loopholes and retrospectively chase money. They should not be able to add penalties and interest until guilt is decided. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I've checked and you are bonkers.naw just dont accept a level of incompetence that puts a business on the lineothers make excuses for them...Its pure complicated so it is.... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitre_mouldmaster 21,509 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 naw just dont accept a level of incompetence that puts a business on the lineothers make excuses for them...Its pure complicated so it is.... So if the HMRC win the appeal you will then fully back them? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 So if the HMRC win the appeal you will then fully back them?There is no point, he's too far gone.They should have just checked, and that would have been it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_1974 204 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Why should there be penalties and interested be added prior to finding guilt? Fair enough they chase money they believe to be theirs. What is fundamentally flawed in all of hmrc dealings is they think they can close loopholes and retrospectively chase money. They should not be able to add penalties and interest until guilt is decided. This. If they reduce the speed limit on a road they would not retrospectively charge people who drove on the road prior to the change. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 So if the HMRC win the appeal you will then fully back them?Mitre good to hear from you....Only in part would be the answer..when the EBTs first appeared on our accounts this should have been settled.They make the complaint in 2003 and we freeze the use until settled.Its not rocket science ............and if it was I would employ a rocket scientist.....they can do complex stuff, unlike HMRC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 There is no point, he's too far gone.They should have just checked, and that would have been it.DONT BE SUCH A CHEEKY FUCKER Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 DONT BE SUCH A CHEEKY FUCKERI'm no, You should have checked before you started moothing away in caps. 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.