Time For The Board To Take On The Enemy

[thehost 11,061]

The irony of you posting this has made my day.

the irony of you using taiglike (incorrect) language, showing the club in a completely inaccurate way hasn't made my day

[Creampuff 22,628]

the irony of you using taiglike (incorrect) language, showing the club in a completely inaccurate way hasn't made my day

Where's the irony in that?

[MayboleLoyal_atb 3,703]

Hit the wrong button :lol:

[Gillete 1,338]

What I want to know is. . .

when this is finally all over (tax case & Court cases)

What will all these Celtic supporting and rangers hating people do with their time ?

I mean , some of them literally trawl through social media every single day hoping to find something to feed the rangers hating habit.

I think it's an unhealthy addiction.

If they devoted as much time and effort to supporting the club they claim to support, scottish football would get on better than the fractured relationship it has

[cushynumber 25,178]

In the way we administered them? It could certainly be argued.

No it cant. In fact nobody is arguing this other than you.

"The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall" - Dennis Healey, former UK Chancellor

"There are many common features shared by tax avoidance schemes and behaviour that may offend against a criminal provision. Although any case would be highly fact specific, behaviour by a taxpayer involving deceit may have the requisite mental element to constitute a crime."

We can categorically say that no deceit was involved with Rangers - we declared them year upon year. This is the reason why there is no suggestion of criminality from any party other than Rangers haters.

[Creampuff 22,628]

No it cant. In fact nobody is arguing this other than you.

"The difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion is the thickness of a prison wall" - Dennis Healey, former UK Chancellor

"There are many common features shared by tax avoidance schemes and behaviour that may offend against a criminal provision. Although any case would be highly fact specific, behaviour by a taxpayer involving deceit may have the requisite mental element to constitute a crime."

We can categorically say that no deceit was involved with Rangers - we declared them year upon year. This is the reason why there is no suggestion of criminality from any party other than Rangers haters.

Well then you can clearly see how this could be argued. If those running the club were aware that they were not operating the schemes correctly, then there would be deceit, wouldn't there?

The Healey quote also shouldn't be read to say that there are huge differences between avoidance and evasion. That's not entirely accurate of the point he was making. It's also worth noting that the tax system now is different on an almost incomprehensible level compared to when he said that. Tax avoidance and tax evasion have become intrinsically interlinked. It's not always just a case of ticking a box on which it is.

Also, not to be pernickety, but Elliffe's paper on avoidance/evasion is technically about NZ tax issues, and the point you're trying to make about tax evasion and tax avoidance being black and white is essentially the exact opposite of the point that he's making.

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,137]

In the way we administered them? It could certainly be argued.

So now you believe the board acted criminally and illegally ?

If you operate something that is legal but you do it in an incorrect way (according to HMRC but not according to others) then how can you possibly accuse the board of acting illegally or criminally, for it to be a crime you have to know that the law was been broken.

The whole case is about tax revenue not whether something was legal,illegal or criminal.

The last judgement was to find out if the payments were classed as work related payments or loans, nothing to do with legality.

If the payments were made in brown paper bags, that would be illegal.

[Creampuff 22,628]

So now you believe the board acted criminally and illegally ?

If you operate something that is legal but you do it in an incorrect way (according to HMRC but not according to others) then how can you possibly accuse the board of acting illegally or criminally, for it to be a crime you have to know that the law was been broken.

The whole case is about tax revenue not whether something was legal,illegal or criminal.

The last judgement was to find out if the payments were classed as work related payments or loans, nothing to do with legality.

If the payments were made in brown paper bags, that would be illegal.

I believe the law was probably broken, yes.

[RFC Eagle 4,888]

I believe the law was probably broken, yes.

You mean a 'law' that wasn't in place at the time. HMRC have been retrospectively applying a 'law' that wasnt in place when EBTs were introduced.

How do you come to the conclusion that any deceit was involved when the club highlighted the use of EBTs in the annual accounts?

The 'disguised remuneration' rules weren't in place until April 2011. So you can withdraw your ridiculous use of the word 'illegal' as you seem clueless as to the context of the case.

[cushynumber 25,178]

I believe the law was probably broken, yes.

honestly, I really cant believe you are saying that - not because its a Rangers forum, but because it flies in the face of everything this case is actually about. This case has nothing to do with criminality.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you dug yourself a hole on a public forum and in order to save face decided to back it up, which made you dig a bigger hole for yourself.

There is no lower you can go, so you can put down the shovel.

[cushynumber 25,178]

Well then you can clearly see how this could be argued. If those running the club were aware that they were not operating the schemes correctly, then there would be deceit, wouldn't there?

The Healey quote also shouldn't be read to say that there are huge differences between avoidance and evasion. That's not entirely accurate of the point he was making. It's also worth noting that the tax system now is different on an almost incomprehensible level compared to when he said that. Tax avoidance and tax evasion have become intrinsically interlinked. It's not always just a case of ticking a box on which it is.

Also, not to be pernickety, but Elliffe's paper on avoidance/evasion is technically about NZ tax issues, and the point you're trying to make about tax evasion and tax avoidance being black and white is essentially the exact opposite of the point that he's making.

I am not making the points you think I am - I am aware of the points he is making re the thin line. I honestly dont know where you are coming from.

[Creampuff 22,628]

honestly, I really cant believe you are saying that - not because its a Rangers forum, but because it flies in the face of everything this case is actually about. This case has nothing to do with criminality.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you dug yourself a hole on a public forum and in order to save face decided to back it up, which made you dig a bigger hole for yourself.

There is no lower you can go, so you can put down the shovel.

I never said the case was about criminality, I said that I feel the law was probably broken.

It's a complex legal issue, the fact that so many tax/legal minds all have different interpretations of what actually happened probably places it in a lovely grey area in between "they broke the law" and "they were fully compliant".

For the sake of not continuing a discussion I sense everyone is bored of, I'll agree to disagree

[cushynumber 25,178]

I never said the case was about criminality, I said that I feel the law was probably broken.

It's a complex legal issue, the fact that so many tax/legal minds all have different interpretations of what actually happened probably places it in a lovely grey area in between "they broke the law" and "they were fully compliant".

For the sake of not continuing a discussion I sense everyone is bored of, I'll agree to disagree

[eskbankloyal 19,446]

Compton

Regardless of the last judgement from the CoS and regardless of the decision from the Supreme Court, Rangers' use of EBT's was not & will never be declared illegal.

Because, it is a tax avoidance scheme. This cannot be illegal by definition.

What can happen is you are liable to pay more tax than you currently have - which as per the CoS decision is the case. Not illegal. Just like we haven't 'broken' any tax laws which is another misconception around tax.

[thehost 11,061]

I never said the case was about criminality, I said that I feel the law was probably broken.

It's a complex legal issue, the fact that so many tax/legal minds all have different interpretations of what actually happened probably places it in a lovely grey area in between "they broke the law" and "they were fully compliant".

For the sake of not continuing a discussion I sense everyone is bored of, I'll agree to disagree

you can do what you want but it is entirely misguided to tag the word illegal onto the correct, or indeed incorrect, utilisation of EBT's

there is absolutely no ambiguity on this issue

[K.A.I 36,183]

I believe the law was probably broken, yes.

To think your a mod ffs

What chance we got

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,137]

To think your a mod ffs

What chance we got

Aye they'll be copying and pasting his comments on kerryfail.....I despair

[K.A.I 36,183]

Aye they'll be copying and pasting his comments on kerryfail.....I despair

Some people don't think mate

[lutonblue 1,974]

Compton , You not replying to RFC Eagles post ?

[Getstiffed 8,863]

Down's-syndrome is a terrible affliction

[ger4life_1872 29,529]

You mean a 'law' that wasn't in place at the time. HMRC have been retrospectively applying a 'law' that wasnt in place when EBTs were introduced.

How do you come to the conclusion that any deceit was involved when the club highlighted the use of EBTs in the annual accounts?

The 'disguised remuneration' rules weren't in place until April 2011. So you can withdraw your ridiculous use of the word 'illegal' as you seem clueless as to the context of the case.

are you not gonna reply compton?

[K.A.I 36,183]

Yes please reply then go back and retract your post Compton - Eagle has you banged to rights there

[Creampuff 22,628]

I've said my piece, and stated my agreement to disagree. Why you lot are keen for this to continue is beyond me.