Am I clutching at staws here......

[Bigsasasfloppyhair 13,310]

This may have already been covered, so if so just delete the thread.

After the tax ruling this week, is there or should there not be an avenue to pursue the company or persons who gave the advice to Rangers and others to use the EBT Loophole?

I know this offers no benefit to us as a club, but to creditors, is this a means of getting money into the pot.

Surely if a  financial advisor etc. gives you advice to do something and it turns out to be bum advice there is a comeback and a level of accountability attached? 

One thing is for sure, there are people out there who were responsible for selling and promoting EBT's.

[Bad Robot 21,149]

1 minute ago, bigsasasfloopyhair said:

This may have already been covered, so if so just delete the thread.

After the tax ruling this week, is there or should there not be an avenue to pursue the company or persons who gave the advice to Rangers and others to use the EBT Loophole?

I know this offers no benefit to us as a club, but to creditors, is this a means of getting money into the pot.

Surely if a  financial advisor etc. gives you advice to do something and it turns out to be bum advice there is a comeback and a level of accountability attached? 

One thing is for sure, there are people out there who were responsible for selling and promoting EBT's.

I'm sure there are professional indemnity policies out there 

[big blue Fin 3,724]

You mean the beasts should be trying to strip that financial adviser of his titles?

[Bigsasasfloppyhair 13,310]

Just now, Bad Robot said:

I'm sure there are professional indemnity policies out there 

I hadn't thought of that mate.

Just got this thought going round about somebody or some organisation must have given the guidance and they must be partly accountable.

[Bad Robot 21,149]

9 minutes ago, bigsasasfloopyhair said:

I hadn't thought of that mate.

Just got this thought going round about somebody or some organisation must have given the guidance and they must be partly accountable.

Aye that Porn dude Baxendale I think his name was so maybe BDO can chase his company and others although it will probably depend on the finer details of contracts agreed at that time 

[Aubie92 1,074]

19 minutes ago, bigsasasfloopyhair said:

This may have already been covered, so if so just delete the thread.

After the tax ruling this week, is there or should there not be an avenue to pursue the company or persons who gave the advice to Rangers and others to use the EBT Loophole?

I know this offers no benefit to us as a club, but to creditors, is this a means of getting money into the pot.

Surely if a  financial advisor etc. gives you advice to do something and it turns out to be bum advice there is a comeback and a level of accountability attached? 

One thing is for sure, there are people out there who were responsible for selling and promoting EBT's.

I highly doubt that David Murray is going to be pursuing anyone over bad financial advice over EBTs, especially given the history of reckless spending and financial mismanagement of the companies he owned. The current Rangers board would have no reason to pursue anything, as it's an issue for the previous PLC that owned the club. 

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

I think so long as whatever advice (financial, legal, commercial) was given in good faith by competent advisers exercising all skill, care and expertise in what they had every reason to believe was compliance with the law at the time (including interpretation of already established precedents) then it seems to me it would be hard to go after advisers.    The advisers will have had professional indemnity insurance to protect against negligence etc so that will have kept them under commercial tension to provide the best advice they could in compliance with laws and statutes at the time and to the best of their ability.  

The Rangers directors at the time would presumably have looked and checked to see that the advice they had been given and which they had accepted and acted on was robust and if any claim for negligence could have been made it would have been done some time ago.  

I think the 'go after advisers' straw has gone in the wind some time ago if it was ever even a straw that could be clutched in the first case.

[Bigsasasfloppyhair 13,310]

1 minute ago, Aubie92 said:

I highly doubt that David Murray is going to be pursuing anyone over bad financial advice over EBTs, especially given the history of reckless spending and financial mismanagement of the companies he owned. The current Rangers board would have no reason to pursue anything, as it's an issue for the previous PLC that owned the club. 

When did I say anything about the club or Murray doing so?

I have asked about the possibility of the courts doing so in terms of getting more money back for creditors.

[Aubie92 1,074]

Just now, bigsasasfloopyhair said:

When did I say anything about the club or Murray doing so?

I have asked about the possibility of the courts doing so in terms of getting more money back for creditors.

Should have made my original post clearer.

In a word, no. HMRC would only be interested in financial advisors giving out blatantly false information to illegally avoid paying tax; they're only going to be interested in the money owed by the PLC and possibly the former players. The creditors wouldn't be able to pursue them either, as it'd first need to be proven that there was misconduct - so it'd ultimately be down to the PLC to pursue anything like that. 

And it'd be nigh-on impossible to prove, given the complexity of the issue, and the fact it was a legal loophole at the time. 

I think a more important question relates to the players: did HMRC pursue the players of the English clubs who settled the EBTs out of court and, if not, why are they supposedly considering pursuing Rangers' former players? (And the players wouldn't be able to pursue financial advisors over it, unless they could prove there was misconduct.)

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,137]

If I remember correctly the guy that advised us said it was the club's fault for not running the scheme in the correct way, if that's the case we weren't the only ones as I understand HMRC will be going after others now for doing the same thing.

[RedWhiteBlue1872 407]

Straws.... maybe

Staws..... I am still undecided.

[macranger 296]

5 hours ago, Reformation Bear said:

I think so long as whatever advice (financial, legal, commercial) was given in good faith by competent advisers exercising all skill, care and expertise in what they had every reason to believe was compliance with the law at the time (including interpretation of already established precedents) then it seems to me it would be hard to go after advisers.    The advisers will have had professional indemnity insurance to protect against negligence etc so that will have kept them under commercial tension to provide the best advice they could in compliance with laws and statutes at the time and to the best of their ability.  

The Rangers directors at the time would presumably have looked and checked to see that the advice they had been given and which they had accepted and acted on was robust and if any claim for negligence could have been made it would have been done some time ago.  

I think the 'go after advisers' straw has gone in the wind some time ago if it was ever even a straw that could be clutched in the first case.

I've always thought the same, why don't we go after the advisors. Even if it was done in good faith, so was selling endowments, PPI etc. I was given advice years ago when getting a mortgage & bought an endowment. We changed it after a few years, but still managed to get a claim for them misselling it years later, so I don't know why we aren't going after them.

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

26 minutes ago, macranger said:

I've always thought the same, why don't we go after the advisors. Even if it was done in good faith, so was selling endowments, PPI etc. I was given advice years ago when getting a mortgage & bought an endowment. We changed it after a few years, but still managed to get a claim for them misselling it years later, so I don't know why we aren't going after them.

I'm sure going after the advisers for negligence or failing to discharge their advisory duties will all reasonable skill, care, diligence and competence relative to the laws, statues and precedents at the time will have been considered.   The very fact that this matter has had to be taken to the highest court for resolution having been though a number of reviews and prior determinations indicates the subject was more than complex in terms of structuring a bespoke lawful tax efficient solution and in fact now sets a precedent for HMRC to pursue other potential targets.  I doubt if any claim for negligence made against the advisers would get anywhere.     My belief us it wasn't a standardised commercial off the shelf financial product the club was buying, it was a complex structured tax efficient commercial solution which they believed was within the permitted scope tax laws and statues applicable at the time.  

[macranger 296]

1 hour ago, Reformation Bear said:

I'm sure going after the advisers for negligence or failing to discharge their advisory duties will all reasonable skill, care, diligence and competence relative to the laws, statues and precedents at the time will have been considered.   The very fact that this matter has had to be taken to the highest court for resolution having been though a number of reviews and prior determinations indicates the subject was more than complex in terms of structuring a bespoke lawful tax efficient solution and in fact now sets a precedent for HMRC to pursue other potential targets.  I doubt if any claim for negligence made against the advisers would get anywhere.     My belief us it wasn't a standardised commercial off the shelf financial product the club was buying, it was a complex structured tax efficient commercial solution which they believed was within the permitted scope tax laws and statues applicable at the time.  

I wonder if this sets a pecedent in England though. I'm sure the premiership teams down south that had EBT's will argue its Scottish law, but as our case has been judged guilty, they'll sort out a deal before a judgement is finalised. 

[The Beast 9,211]

8 hours ago, bigsasasfloopyhair said:

This may have already been covered, so if so just delete the thread.

After the tax ruling this week, is there or should there not be an avenue to pursue the company or persons who gave the advice to Rangers and others to use the EBT Loophole?

I know this offers no benefit to us as a club, but to creditors, is this a means of getting money into the pot.

Surely if a  financial advisor etc. gives you advice to do something and it turns out to be bum advice there is a comeback and a level of accountability attached? 

One thing is for sure, there are people out there who were responsible for selling and promoting EBT's.

Why don't you tell us how good Josh Windass is and how he'll become a great player. I seem to remember you have form for that.

[Bigsasasfloppyhair 13,310]

1 minute ago, The Beast said:

Why don't you tell us how good Josh Windass is and how he'll become a great player. I seem to remember you have form for that.

In what way, shape or form does your idiotic comment have to do with me asking about who would give adviced the club on ebt's? 

What a complete fanny you are!!

✊️?????

[The Beast 9,211]

7 minutes ago, bigsasasfloopyhair said:

In what way, shape or form does your idiotic comment have to do with me asking about who would give adviced the club on ebt's? 

What a complete fanny you are!!

✊️?????

It shows your judgement as being terminally flawed. 

Is that enough for you sweetie?

[Bigsasasfloppyhair 13,310]

Just now, The Beast said:

It shows your judgement as being terminally flawed. 

Is that enough for you sweetie?

Again your points have no relevance or value to what you actually quoted. 

[The Beast 9,211]

Just now, bigsasasfloopyhair said:

Again your points have no relevance or value to what you actually quoted. 

Idiot says white is black.

All things that idiot says are suspect.

 

[Bigsasasfloppyhair 13,310]

3 minutes ago, The Beast said:

Idiot says white is black.

All things that idiot says are suspect.

 

And a beast is a beast ?

[The Beast 9,211]

3 minutes ago, bigsasasfloopyhair said:

And a beast is a beast ?

You are so funny. 

How did Josh get on the other night btw?

[BLUEDIGNITY 33,647]

As long as we get this in before the PPI deadline date we might be onto something . . . or not !

 

[WWTC 2,247]

Theres something i dont quite get about it all;

If you have a player, or players, using the ebt system, and a few months, or a year, or whatever pass before HMRC challenge you on it, and you then agree to pay it retrospectively, how is that any less of a "sporting advantage" than if you challenged it, fought it all the way, and then are eventually forced to pay it? 

If the company that formerly owned our football club was still in existence and in control of us, then they'd be facing a large bill right now. Theyd pay it off the same as the other team, it would just be delayed obviously. It just so happens that in this case, the company doesn't exist, and therefore doesnt have the opportunity to pay the bill. It will, however, be paid, or partially paid, from the pot of money left from the liquidation of the company. 

So, its ok to have had them, not fought it, and paid the tax due, but you're not allowed to challenge it, because if you do you've gained a sporting advantage? 

[cushynumber 25,178]

Phone Digby Brown.  Because if it matters to us,  it matters to them.

[Gaz52 11,837]

That's one of the points I keep trying to highlight, we're being accused of "systematic cheating" - but in reality everyone thought these EBTs were safe to use, it's took about 5 court trials to eventually prove that they were actually liable for tax.

We had paper trails, we done tax returns, we never tried to hide the fact we were using them because we didn't believe there was any wrong doing - so how the F can that be "systematic cheating"? 

If anything we were mislead, we didn't set out to intentionally use something that we knew would help gain an advantage over anyone, we used something we thought was safe to use.