Jump to content

Sporting Advantage


BryceRFC1

Recommended Posts

Can't see them being stripped as no one will gain anything, all it would result in is pissed off Rangers fans which isn't in the SFA interest. If the period in question was more recent then I feel it would have been more likely. 

 

Either way I personally don't give a fuck if they are stripped. End of the day our players finished ahead of everyone else those seasons. Some meaningless records might be altered but at the end of the day even if they are as far as I'm concerned we won those titles fairly and I won't be changing that opinion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

I'm just going to put this out here and take the flak that will inevitably come my way.

This thread has some of the most illogical thinking I've read in a while and I think we are in danger of misleading ourselves:

HMRC have always said the EBTs were illegal (or used language such as "we think this tax scam does not work"). HMRC are the tax authority, we disputed it and lost. The tax schemes were illegal hence the decision. If they were legal we would have won.

They were not legal at the time. We gave players side letters. It was simply a redirection of earings. The club deliberatley mislead/denied/forgot to decalre the side letters and tax issues to the authorites (HMRC and SFA).

SDM has admitted under oath that we used the schemes to attract players we couldn't have otherwise have afforded. He said this on the stand at the FTT and again at the CW trial. Other witnesses admitted the same. DK also admitted that we used schemes to attract players and said we "probably" gained a sporting advantage. His latest statement is counter to his previous now deflects the blame/advantage on to Murray group rather than Rangers. Admirable but wrong (see last sentence).

In order to demonstrate that a sporting advantage was not gained we would have to show that every one of the players on EBTs would have signed for us anyway. Maybe DK is going to pull that rabbit out of the hat one day. Until that day comes we cannot assume that the players would have signed a contract if they were going to get 40% less pay.

Schemes used by cellic players/sugar puff teeth etc: As far as I am aware the individuals paid tax on their earnings from cellic and so after this were free to use their money as they see fit and take the associated risks - if this results in schemes that are deemed tax evasion then great but cellic are in the clear because PAYE and NIC were paid at source, or at least there is no evidence to the contrary.

The issue of other players, Ronaldo Messi etc: Unless I'm mistaken, this is to do with their image rights and them scamming tax authorities (rather than their clubs redirecting their earnings and scamming the tax authorities).

Re Athletico Madrid not paying tax: The point here is that they are paying it back - 120 million Euros at 4.5% to be paid by 2020.

We are not and will not pay the tax back.

If we simply accepted HMRCs position at the first time of asking then the liability, penalities and interest would have been a lot less and we could have started payting of off over a number of years like (like Athletico).

But we didn't.

SDM decided to fight this all the way and we are where we are as a consequence of this.

The advantage to Rangers was saving about £2 million a year in wages because the alternative was the prospect of paying about £2 million a year more on wages and correctly deducting tax.

 

 

Come back when you are better educated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

However bad your week is, it can always be worse. 

Imagine supporting a team that allowed the systematic abuse of young boys. Added to that the immoral abuse of power to receive cheap loans to allow them to continue playing football. 

Theres a far bigger story here and the horrible bastards will get what's coming. 

Also try getting your information from more reliable sources. 

https://amp.ft.com/content/2dccf1fe-04a1-11e6-96e5-f85cb08b0730

"But the proposed legislation — which was initiated before the furore over the Panama Papers — criminalises the “failure to prevent” the facilitation of evasion for the first time and puts obligations on corporates to monitor their employees, agents and subsidiaries."

That's great but what has the link (which wont open as I do not subscribe to the FT), and the fact of the reprehensible rhat cover-up got to do with my points?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TrueBluez1972 said:

That's great but what has the link (which wont open as I do not subscribe to the FT), and the fact of the reprehensible rhat cover-up got to do with my points?

I was merely highlighting that however bad your week is it could be a lot worse. 

Supporting a team that allowed the systemic abuse of young boys can only mean a fucking fundamentally atrocious week, every week. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

I was merely highlighting that however bad your week is it could be a lot worse. 

Supporting a team that allowed the systemic abuse of young boys can only mean a fucking fundamentally atrocious week, every week. 

True!

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

I'm just going to put this out here and take the flak that will inevitably come my way.

This thread has some of the most illogical thinking I've read in a while and I think we are in danger of misleading ourselves:

HMRC have always said the EBTs were illegal (or used language such as "we think this tax scam does not work"). HMRC are the tax authority, we disputed it and lost. The tax schemes were illegal hence the decision. If they were legal we would have won.

They were not legal at the time. We gave players side letters. It was simply a redirection of earings. The club deliberatley mislead/denied/forgot to decalre the side letters and tax issues to the authorites (HMRC and SFA).

 

1 hour ago, Virtuoso said:

Provide me with a link to this (not the daily record or 'phil four names' but a link from hmrc)

I'll forward it to my accountant asa as he'll have lots to answer for.

 

1 hour ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

Thanks Virtuoso, I didn't expect that....it really adds something to the debate when you simply shut up shop and claim the other is a fenian...have you got anything sensible to say?

Aye, loads - but first:

I'm still waiting for that link where HMRC state that EBT's were illegal...

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 06/07/2017 at 5:54 PM, ianferguson said:

That's why Liewell didn't actually say the words "title stripping" , he wants to appease the fans but needs this to go away. This will hurt the tims big time because the amount of ex celt*c players who used this tax avoidance scheme either  proves the club were involved or is a amazing coincidence, and Liewell being a senior figure makes it toxic for Pacific shelf.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.  Liewell has to appease his fans and was careful to say it wasn't for Celtic to do anything about it but others.  I suspect it's the last we hear from Celtic on this matter.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

Phil Four Names and John James.

A fucking rabid bheast. It's ripping out of him.

He is but the poor cunt has had the worst week of his life.

Atleast this one can acknowledge that the crime of abusing young boys is fundamentally more immoral than not paying a tax bill. 

The poor cunt has a lot of bad weeks to come if he continues to support the scum bastards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 06/07/2017 at 11:15 PM, Blue Avenger said:

A different product, but all part of the "tax planning" avoidance industry. I'm sure HMRC went after a few in the music industry fairly recently for using that product and got their money 

A bit of a red herring unless Celtic themselves used the corporate version of the film partnership tax planning.

The OP background relates to individuals investing money from their own resources (including post tax salary) which doesn't involve the employer. 

Most big accounting firms used to promote this type of tax planning. Some of them actually worked for a period of time as long as they weren't completely artificial!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we didn't use EBT's, we'd have used another scheme offering similar savings.

Rangers are far from unique in utilising a tax avoidance scheme. I'd guess every major British club has, certainly to some extent. The morality of it all is a seperate argument, but thats the facts of the matter.

Celtic clearly have too with LLP's, difference being the liability exists with the individual and not the club. However, from a moral point it's pretty much the same thing, and surely weakens any moral argument from that side of the city.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Complete and utter bollocks. That's the thing about this forum. When someone says something against the grain they're automatically a bheast and their point of view shouted down. Rather than deal with the actual issues being raised it's nothing but ad hominem attacks and proper debate is stifled. Pathetic and childish. But you will not bully me.

I read lots of forums and blogs like anyone else whose interested in what has been going on. John James and PMG clearly have an insidious agendas - the latter is hugely sectarian in nature. But it is apparent the PMG has sourced a high level leak within the club. Possibly Murray or one of his PAs - so what he posts cannot always be completely dismissed. JJ I really dont know what to make of 3/4 the stuff he posts and he's as arrogant as fuck. Personally I've found the most balanced pieces which appear to be evidence driven (rather than agenda driven) are the The Rangers Tax Blog and the Offshore Game reports. However I read the ACTUAL judgements/documents too rather than relying on others to give me their personal interpretation. This is my personal opinion and I am entitled to it.

Virtuoso: You think I am a bheast. Great. In my personal opinion I think you're a complete halfwit most of the time. But I love my club and am no fenian and I am 95% sure you are the same.

You ask me to give you evidence. But you'll only accept evidence if its from a source that you agree with first....pathetic.  In any event I clearly qualified the sentence re illegal with “(or used language such as "we think this tax scam does not work")” Did you not read that bit?

But you only read what you want to and go knock yourself out with semantics. The bottom line is that no-one in their right minds (either personal or corporate) would believe that they could be paid earnings and not pay tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BF1 said:

 

 

Either way I personally don't give a fuck if they are stripped. End of the day our players finished ahead of everyone else those seasons. Some meaningless records might be altered but at the end of the day even if they are as far as I'm concerned we won those titles fairly and I won't be changing that opinion. 

Back in 2012, I would probably agreed with this to some extent.  However, we are now five years on and the obsessed are still chasing retribution on this issue.  They are relentless in trying to damage, even destroy our club.  Be in no doubt, if they were successful in stripping our titles, it will not be the end of the matter.  They will want more of our blood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ibroxholm said:

Back in 2012, I would probably agreed with this to some extent.  However, we are now five years on and the obsessed are still chasing retribution on this issue.  They are relentless in trying to damage, even destroy our club.  Be in no doubt, if they were successful in stripping our titles, it will not be the end of the matter.  They will want more of our blood.

I fully agree. I think the approach the unwashed are taking is disgusting. End of the day though it comes with the rivalry. I have no doubt that if the roles were reversed there would be people in our support being very vocal like them.

Either way what they have done in the past to us has made Scottish football even weaker. Their obsession to destroy us when all it would do is make the Scottish game even shitter is typical taig pish. At least our top flight is swings and roundabouts, we'll be back on top where we belong soon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of Celtic players, managers, chairmen, and directors who have been involved in tax avoidance schemes over the years, in one form or another, will be vast.  Where is the moral outrage amongst Celtic fans towards individuals such as Neil Lennon, Chris Sutton, John Hartson, Peter Lawell, or Dermot Deamond?  There is none.  

Five years ago Celtic fans said 'but what about the Schools and the Hospitals?'.  Now the narrative has changed to 'tax avoidance is fine as long as it's individuals doing it and not Rangers who are benefitting'.

There were many Rangers players who benefitted from an EBT.  During those years our players weren't the only ones in Scottish football benefitting from these types avoidance.  There would've been a similar number of Celtic players and staff involved in similar schemes.  They're certainly not whiter than white.

Also, Celtic fielded Juninho who was was in receipt of an EBT.  Paying back the tax after the fact doesn't mean they get to take the high horse and claim they never gained a sporting advantage.  Would they have been able to sign Juninho if not for an EBT?  What advantage did they gain from the use of that player?  Juninho's involvement could've helped them earn a Euro spot, or win a cup game, thus "cheating" someone else, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

HMRC have always said the EBTs were illegal (or used language such as "we think this tax scam does not work"). HMRC are the tax authority, we disputed it and lost. The tax schemes were illegal hence the decision. If they were legal we would have won.

Your at it pal!!! 

Wrong!!!

Show me where HMRC have stated EBT's are/were illegal? 

They have said they want to close them down as they should be classed/ taxed appropriately. 

Only point that we "lost" on was it has now been ruled tax should have paid at source.

15 hours ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

They were not legal at the time. We gave players side letters. It was simply a redirection of earings. The club deliberatley mislead/denied/forgot to decalre the side letters and tax issues to the authorites (HMRC and SFA).

Yes they were!! Your right It was a redirection of earnings hence why it was a tax reducing scheme. The club had all EBT's in its audited accounts so all payments were there to be seen/nothing hidden. Yes side letters weren't disclosed to SFA (I'm not sure about HMRC) but as LNS said it wasn't any sporting advantage as all EBT's were shown in the accounts. So the SFA decided to hand down a fine of £250k to oldco, which newco paid when they didn't have to!!

 

15 hours ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

SDM has admitted under oath that we used the schemes to attract players we couldn't have otherwise have afforded. He said this on the stand at the FTT and again at the CW trial. Other witnesses admitted the same. DK also admitted that we used schemes to attract players and said we "probably" gained a sporting advantage. His latest statement is counter to his previous now deflects the blame/advantage on to Murray group rather than Rangers. Admirable but wrong (see last sentence).

Wrong!!!! 

Murray stated we "may" not have afforded them. Not a definite we couldn't afford them. Massive difference. We "may" win the league this year (ftr I don't think we will) but we can't win the Europa league...... see the difference?? 

I reckon kings words from 2012 were used to hurt/damage Murray tbh more than the club. I take them as tongue in cheek. Probably doesnt mean definetly!!

14 hours ago, coopsleftboot said:

In order to demonstrate that a sporting advantage was not gained we would have to show that every one of the players on EBTs would have signed for us anyway. Maybe DK is going to pull that rabbit out of the hat one day. Until that day comes we cannot assume that the players would have signed a contract if they were going to get 40% less pay.

Eh no I don't think so pal!!! 

In order for your kind to demonstrate that a sporting advantage did exist you need to prove that these players would not have signed for us anyway. Innocent until proven guilty???

Dave king doesn't need to pull any rabbits out of anything, he's too busy putting tims and unsavory ex board members in their place??

Its safe to assume any football player will sign for the club that they have chosen for a 40 tax rate, if that is infact the going rate for their earnings. Just like your job, when you sign up for whatever your being paid for you accept your tax rate don't you? You don't go yeah nah thanks for offering me the job but the tax rate is too high I'm going next door. Everyone and their dog knows top players are paid high wages and tax avoidance is available to them in various avenues. 

15 hours ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

Re Athletico Madrid not paying tax: The point here is that they are paying it back - 120 million Euros at 4.5% to be paid by 2020.

We are not and will not pay the tax back.

Wrong!!! 

The oldco creditors pot will pay £x millions to HMRC. It might not be the original estimate amount but a payment will be made regardless. TAX PAID

15 hours ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

The advantage to Rangers was saving about £2 million a year in wages because the alternative was the prospect of paying about £2 million a year more on wages and correctly deducting tax.

Wrong!!

Rangers wouldn't have saved anything.As dave king has said infact this scheme actually cost Rangers money to use and run.

When you pay a player £1.2 million per year nett, you are still paying him £1.2 a year nett. When the tax portion comes off as in paye it is then gross (what he receives as cash). But if your paying into an EBT for the player his nett amont is paid in. The whole wage your paying him

With the EBT in place it was a scheme through trust funds to allow the player to use/keep 100% of his earnings. 

So show me where Rangers saved £2 million per annum from this? The player is the beneficiary of the tax reduction not the club. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

Complete and utter bollocks. That's the thing about this forum. When someone says something against the grain they're automatically a bheast and their point of view shouted down. Rather than deal with the actual issues being raised it's nothing but ad hominem attacks and proper debate is stifled. Pathetic and childish. But you will not bully me.

I read lots of forums and blogs like anyone else whose interested in what has been going on. John James and PMG clearly have an insidious agendas - the latter is hugely sectarian in nature. But it is apparent the PMG has sourced a high level leak within the club. Possibly Murray or one of his PAs - so what he posts cannot always be completely dismissed. JJ I really dont know what to make of 3/4 the stuff he posts and he's as arrogant as fuck. Personally I've found the most balanced pieces which appear to be evidence driven (rather than agenda driven) are the The Rangers Tax Blog and the Offshore Game reports. However I read the ACTUAL judgements/documents too rather than relying on others to give me their personal interpretation. This is my personal opinion and I am entitled to it.

Virtuoso: You think I am a bheast. Great. In my personal opinion I think you're a complete halfwit most of the time. But I love my club and am no fenian and I am 95% sure you are the same.

You ask me to give you evidence. But you'll only accept evidence if its from a source that you agree with first....pathetic.  In any event I clearly qualified the sentence re illegal with “(or used language such as "we think this tax scam does not work")” Did you not read that bit?

But you only read what you want to and go knock yourself out with semantics. The bottom line is that no-one in their right minds (either personal or corporate) would believe that they could be paid earnings and not pay tax.

absolutely reeking ya gobshite away and educate yourself at no point was ebt's illegal tax avoidance is not illegal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

Complete and utter bollocks. That's the thing about this forum. When someone says something against the grain they're automatically a bheast and their point of view shouted down. Rather than deal with the actual issues being raised it's nothing but ad hominem attacks and proper debate is stifled. Pathetic and childish. But you will not bully me.

I read lots of forums and blogs like anyone else whose interested in what has been going on. John James and PMG clearly have an insidious agendas - the latter is hugely sectarian in nature. But it is apparent the PMG has sourced a high level leak within the club. Possibly Murray or one of his PAs - so what he posts cannot always be completely dismissed. JJ I really dont know what to make of 3/4 the stuff he posts and he's as arrogant as fuck. Personally I've found the most balanced pieces which appear to be evidence driven (rather than agenda driven) are the The Rangers Tax Blog and the Offshore Game reports. However I read the ACTUAL judgements/documents too rather than relying on others to give me their personal interpretation. This is my personal opinion and I am entitled to it.

Virtuoso: You think I am a bheast. Great. In my personal opinion I think you're a complete halfwit most of the time. But I love my club and am no fenian and I am 95% sure you are the same.

You ask me to give you evidence. But you'll only accept evidence if its from a source that you agree with first....pathetic.  In any event I clearly qualified the sentence re illegal with “(or used language such as "we think this tax scam does not work")” Did you not read that bit?

But you only read what you want to and go knock yourself out with semantics. The bottom line is that no-one in their right minds (either personal or corporate) would believe that they could be paid earnings and not pay tax.

It wasn't illegal, it was deemed liable for taxation, if an individual underpaid income tax then they are not a criminal - unless they don't pay it back and HMRC go through the courts to try and reclaim it but the actual underpaying of tax in itself isn't  criminal act - hence why HMRC said from day one it wasnt looking for criminal charges against Rangers. 

You use a lot of language similar to what I read on certain types of blogs and websites. 

The A.Madrid example that you use about them paying tax back, surely by the same logic then Rangers or "sevco" as your lot know us can come to an agreement with HMRC to start to pay this money back. HMRC are currently offering the thousands of UK businesses that operate/operated EBTs a settlement figure, so I'm sure something could be agreed by both parties, and that then puts to bed the case for taking titles off the club for unpaid taxes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13139728.MP_inquiry_call_over_Co_op_loans_to_Celtic/

Now this mp's political party has found itself with a bigger voice, it would be great if Mr Campbell was to again mention this scandal. 

If ever there was a case of a club spending out with its means then its this, having to secure illegal loans to maintain its existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gaz52 said:

It wasn't illegal, it was deemed liable for taxation, if an individual underpaid income tax then they are not a criminal - unless they don't pay it back and HMRC go through the courts to try and reclaim it but the actual underpaying of tax in itself isn't  criminal act - hence why HMRC said from day one it wasnt looking for criminal charges against Rangers. 

You use a lot of language similar to what I read on certain types of blogs and websites. 

The A.Madrid example that you use about them paying tax back, surely by the same logic then Rangers or "sevco" as your lot know us can come to an agreement with HMRC to start to pay this money back. HMRC are currently offering the thousands of UK businesses that operate/operated EBTs a settlement figure, so I'm sure something could be agreed by both parties, and that then puts to bed the case for taking titles off the club for unpaid taxes?

We are in danger of getting into semantics, i.e. lawful, unlawful, legal, illegal, avoidance, evasion. HMRC stated in a letter that there was a delibertae failure or fraudulent behavoiur by the company back in 2011. HMRC are not the law. They will try to correctly apply the law. The courts decide ultimately. The courts have not made a decision that side letters and tax avoidance/evasion is illegal but it is clear that we did not correctly apply the law. Common sense would prevail and has (unfortunately with the judgement). HMRC were seeking the tax for years. All this is in: http://www.theoffshoregame.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Doing-SFA-Annexes.pdf and many other sources.

My points raised was because posters are either deliberately misinforming themselves, there is obfuscation, delfection, ad hominem, appeal to emotion arguments, and just plain stupidity. An information bubble has developed. Personally I've come to a conclusion that you and others will not agree with. Fine. But this is all SDMs doing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

Complete and utter bollocks. That's the thing about this forum. When someone says something against the grain they're automatically a bheast and their point of view shouted down. Rather than deal with the actual issues being raised it's nothing but ad hominem attacks and proper debate is stifled. Pathetic and childish. But you will not bully me.

I read lots of forums and blogs like anyone else whose interested in what has been going on. John James and PMG clearly have an insidious agendas - the latter is hugely sectarian in nature. But it is apparent the PMG has sourced a high level leak within the club. Possibly Murray or one of his PAs - so what he posts cannot always be completely dismissed. JJ I really dont know what to make of 3/4 the stuff he posts and he's as arrogant as fuck. Personally I've found the most balanced pieces which appear to be evidence driven (rather than agenda driven) are the The Rangers Tax Blog and the Offshore Game reports. However I read the ACTUAL judgements/documents too rather than relying on others to give me their personal interpretation. This is my personal opinion and I am entitled to it.

Virtuoso: You think I am a bheast. Great. In my personal opinion I think you're a complete halfwit most of the time. But I love my club and am no fenian and I am 95% sure you are the same.

You ask me to give you evidence. But you'll only accept evidence if its from a source that you agree with first....pathetic.  In any event I clearly qualified the sentence re illegal with “(or used language such as "we think this tax scam does not work")” Did you not read that bit?

But you only read what you want to and go knock yourself out with semantics. The bottom line is that no-one in their right minds (either personal or corporate) would believe that they could be paid earnings and not pay tax.

Hahaha :lol:

The Rangers Tax Case blog (run by a bheast and contributed to by Ill Phil and JJ). The Offshore Game, their articles on us completely debunked on here by the LawMan and in VB articles....but hey, just you rely on them as your source of info :rofl:

At least I'm a halfwit as a supposed to a fuckwit :sarcasm:

I asked for the evidence that you clearly stated HMRC claimed in a letter that EBT's were illegal - you have failed to provide such evidence. You must be the only one who has ever seen this letter as no one else seems to (maybe it was on one of the aforementioned blogs you speak highly of :sarcasm: )

As for your last sentence, this is why tax avoidance schemes are legal - to reduce or minimise tax payments :happy::happy:

Fuckwit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

We are in danger of getting into semantics, i.e. lawful, unlawful, legal, illegal, avoidance, evasion. HMRC stated in a letter that there was a delibertae failure or fraudulent behavoiur by the company back in 2011. HMRC are not the law. They will try to correctly apply the law. The courts decide ultimately. The courts have not made a decision that side letters and tax avoidance/evasion is illegal but it is clear that we did not correctly apply the law. Common sense would prevail and has (unfortunately with the judgement). HMRC were seeking the tax for years. All this is in: http://www.theoffshoregame.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Doing-SFA-Annexes.pdf and many other sources.

My points raised was because posters are either deliberately misinforming themselves, there is obfuscation, delfection, ad hominem, appeal to emotion arguments, and just plain stupidity. An information bubble has developed. Personally I've come to a conclusion that you and others will not agree with. Fine. But this is all SDMs doing.

 

Holy shit!!!

Since when was the difference between 

lawful, unlawful, legal, illegal, avoidance, evasion. 

Just semantics apart from in the minds of paedophiles and obsessed taigs?

U really think these are irrelevent?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Virtuoso said:

Hahaha :lol:

The Rangers Tax Case blog (run by a bheast and contributed to by Ill Phil and JJ). The Offshore Game, their articles on us completely debunked on here by the LawMan and in VB articles....but hey, just you rely on them as your source of info :rofl:

At least I'm a halfwit as a supposed to a fuckwit :sarcasm:

I asked for the evidence that you clearly stated HMRC claimed in a letter that EBT's were illegal - you have failed to provide such evidence. You must be the only one who has ever seen this letter as no one else seems to (maybe it was on one of the aforementioned blogs you speak highly of :sarcasm: )

As for your last sentence, this is why tax avoidance schemes are legal - to reduce or minimise tax payments :happy::happy:

Fuckwit.

Re your penultimate sentence: The issue is that the tax avoidance scheme that we used was not legal (as shown by the verdict). If they were not "legal" as you put it what were they?

You will no doubt say that the judgement merely shows that tax was due. HMRC were chasing payments for years. SDM decided to fight it and through the liquidators ultimately lost. 

Unfortunately the company currently operating the club is not paying back this debt. The company paying it back via the creditors pot does not own and operate a team that plays football....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

Re your penultimate sentence: The issue is that the tax avoidance scheme that we used was not legal (as shown by the verdict). If they were not "legal" as you put it what were they?

You will no doubt say that the judgement merely shows that tax was due. HMRC were chasing payments for years. SDM decided to fight it and through the liquidators ultimately lost. 

Unfortunately the company currently operating the club is not paying back this debt. The company paying it back via the creditors pot does not own and operate a team that plays football....

They weren't deemed illegal, they were deemed to have been used in such a way that tax should have been paid (i.e, they were mismanaged). EBT's continue to be used to this day, there's nothing illegal in them ffs. If they were illegal, SDM and the Murray group would find themselves up on charges of tax evasion (there is no criminal enquiry here and believe me, if HMRC thought there was cause for one, there would be one).

We we declaring them in our end of year results ffs!!! That's not what you do when evading tax, avoiding yes - evading no. Big difference between them.

Next up, SDM didn't choose to fight it - he offered to settle and it was rejected.

Now, that letter you were referring to where HMRC deemed EBT's illegal :happy:

And your assertion that people 'aren't in their right minds (either personal or corporate) if they believe that they could be paid earnings and not pay tax' :happy:

Proof of the first and why you think the second? This should be good....

ps: I see you completely omit my points regarding your chosen points of info (rangers tax case and the offshore blog) :sarcasm:

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

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...