st1965 14 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Alnic u r defending HMRC pure and simple. HMRC were appalling in their handling of this as they have been on numerous occasions recently (commons select committees etc etc). They r a poor organisation who DID contribute to the downfall of the holding company. Tell me why they took so long re the appeal knowing full well the press coverage and high profile of the case? Irrespective of what happened when whyte came in, the use of ebt's were legal and they retrospectively went after rangers when there were 2500 other companies also using them,including J p Morgan. Then they decided 10 years AFTER there introduction that they were no longer legal. incredible. Rangers did NOTHING wrong with the use of ebt's as this was legal. I'm sure u will know this but in this period and, still to this day, HRMC employ staff to advise in the use of tax avoidance schemes to companies and individuals. Surely, in these 10 years, they knew numerous companies used these and this was ok, or, r they saying the were never asked or weren't aware? I would very much doubt it! Probably more a case of their widening use was the main driver behind their decision. The stalled on the appeal pure and simple and, as tax payers, we need to know why?This ultimately led to the "elephant in the room" which snowballed to an absolute disaster for not only rangers but the whole of Scottish football. IMO, they have got this badly wrong and instead of going "after the men responsible" they have simply tried to defend themselves from the flak by pursuing rangers again through another appeal. If they lose this one, ironically, they will have cost the taxpayer approximately £15m which, as u know,was the amount whyte owed plus the small tax case. Therefore, they will achieve absolutely nothing with the exception of people losing their jobs and taking rangers, the club, to near extinction. Hopefully mate u dont work for them but, if u do, the very bedt of british to u!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Alnic u r defending HMRC pure and simple. HMRC were appalling in their handling of this as they have been on numerous occasions recently (commons select committees etc etc). They r a poor organisation who DID contribute to the downfall of the holding company. Tell me why they took so long re the appeal knowing full well the press coverage and high profile of the case? Irrespective of what happened when whyte came in, the use of ebt's were legal and they retrospectively went after rangers when there were 2500 other companies also using them,including J p Morgan. Then they decided 10 years AFTER there introduction that they were no longer legal. incredible. Rangers did NOTHING wrong with the use of ebt's as this was legal. I'm sure u will know this but in this period and, still to this day, HRMC employ staff to advise in the use of tax avoidance schemes to companies and individuals. Surely, in these 10 years, they knew numerous companies used these and this was ok, or, r they saying the were never asked or weren't aware? I would very much doubt it! Probably more a case of their widening use was the main driver behind their decision. The stalled on the appeal pure and simple and, as tax payers, we need to know why?This ultimately led to the "elephant in the room" which snowballed to an absolute disaster for not only rangers but the whole of Scottish football. IMO, they have got this badly wrong and instead of going "after the men responsible" they have simply tried to defend themselves from the flak by pursuing rangers again through another appeal. If they lose this one, ironically, they will have cost the taxpayer approximately £15m which, as u know,was the amount whyte owed plus the small tax case. Therefore, they will achieve absolutely nothing with the exception of people losing their jobs and taking rangers, the club, to near extinction. Hopefully mate u dont work for them but, if u do, the very bedt of british to u!!!It's all the taxmans fault...gotcha, how very short sighted of me, won't happen again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,006 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 It us clearly not hmrc's fault. The point is that they spend £5m in a court case that was at best 50/50 for them. With the fact they kept leaking info which made us toxic with only a cunt willing to buy us.They appear to be happy to gain no money and lose further tax due to people losing their jobs and subsequently claiming benefits.They did add penalties and interest prior to us going into admin. D&p embelished the liability somewhat but hmrc were claiming around £70m prior to admin or was that just paper talk? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
st1965 14 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Alnic - not sure what ur last post was but can u not see that HMRC have to date got this wrong! I totally get ur argument re why they did it but, it looks like they thought it was an open and shut case and lost and are now hiding behind the 2nd appeal instead of pursuing whyte. The holding company was effectively liquidated for less than what Kilmarnock currently owe their creditors but I don't see the being liquidated and, the last time I looked, their footfall is ever so slightly less than ours. My argument is that HMRC should have moved quicker with the initial appeal and this would therefore have not allowed whyte to get a look in!! So IMO HMRC were the problem plain and simple and if the HMRC disagree, why don't they explain their actions? Oh yes, I forgot they are going for a 2nd appeal!!!! Also, any truth in the rumour they will drop the rangers case if they successfully pursue JP Morgan??? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and True 311 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 have you been up aw night googling stuff and emailing folk because some cunt disagreed with ye on a fitba forum? :lol: :lol: Ya mental obsessed bastard!PS. I stand by my point, you were saying they should have checked before they issued the bill or while it was being issued, I'm saying they didn't have anyone to check with, and only way to find out the truth re a disputed claim was to take it to court which they did, hence the tax case, the tax case was them checking. hindsight is a wonderful thing and perhaps if they knew then what they knew now they wouldnt have issued the bill, but they didn't and thats the point I'm making. You also conveniently seem to forget that HMRC have the taken up the right of appeal and may yet prove that the EBT scheme was illegal, there are obviously a lot of powerful folk who think it was, otherwise they wouldn't be wasting their time and money 'checking' if a now defunct company broke the rules, the reason? there are other culprits out there who have used/are using similar schemes and they want the right to go after them with a precedent behind them.You seem to have either fundamentally misunderstood what I'm saying, or you choose to ignore it beacuse you think I'm having a pop at you.How many reverse gears do you have.You seem to have either fundamentally misunderstood what I'm saying, or you choose to ignore it beacuse you think I'm having a pop at you. FFS you have been insulting my opinion from the start and have a wee look at your opening gambit...geeze.You were wrong you said they checked via the courts so you are either a liar or have a very short memory..Ill go with the former.Remember you said they checked prior to issuing the bill...I have shown you they did not.And if you have read what was said and not simply used your imagination you will see that on every occasion I have stated 'as it stands' in regards to the current status.Hey we can all be wrong from time to time.....today its your turn... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stfu 596 Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Alnic - not sure what ur last post was but can u not see that HMRC have to date got this wrong! I totally get ur argument re why they did it but, it looks like they thought it was an open and shut case and lost and are now hiding behind the 2nd appeal instead of pursuing whyte. The holding company was effectively liquidated for less than what Kilmarnock currently owe their creditors but I don't see the being liquidated and, the last time I looked, their footfall is ever so slightly less than ours. My argument is that HMRC should have moved quicker with the initial appeal and this would therefore have not allowed whyte to get a look in!! So IMO HMRC were the problem plain and simple and if the HMRC disagree, why don't they explain their actions? Oh yes, I forgot they are going for a 2nd appeal!!!! Also, any truth in the rumour they will drop the rangers case if they successfully pursue JP Morgan???1st tier tribunal is not HMRC.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-tier_Tribunal 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.