Jump to content

Spine chilling if u have a brain....


Recommended Posts

At a loose end and thought i would have a dig about what tax professionals are saying about the sc decision. It is all now clear why we lost the case. We never. Just the evidence was ignored due to corruption of the legal system.

The phrase that keep coming up is "purposive approach". Google that and irwinmitchell for a view on why we lost. 

Then jump onto this

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Purposive-approach.php

So parliament is meant to produce the law. The judiciary is meant to apply them. The problem is they cant produce good laws. So they have given judges the ability to read the law as whatever the fuck they want. 

This begs the question how does the private citizen arrange their affairs to stay within the law AND reap the rewards legally available to them if not through reference to the written law? The answer is we cant. Democracy is dying. 

This came from EUSSR btw.

Get a corrupt judge or two and you are fucked.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

At a lose end and thought i would have a dig about what tax professionals are saying about the sc decision. It is all clear why we lost the case. We never. Just the evidence was ignored due to corruption of the legal system.

The phrase that keep coming up is "purposive approach". Google that and irwinmitchell for a view on why we lost. 

Then jump onto this

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Purposive-approach.php

So pariliment is meant to produce the law. The judiciary is meant to apply them. The problem is they cant produce good laws. So they have given judges the ability to read the law as whatever the fuck they want. 

This begs the question how does the private citizen arrange theor affairs to stay withon the law AND reap the rewards legally available to them if not through referenc o the written law? The answer is we cant. Democracy is dying. 

This came from EUSSR btw.

Get a corrupt judge or two and you are fucked.

 

 

 

 

Interpretation is where lawyers make their coin. That's never going to change but yes, frustrating when on the wrong end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, chris182 said:

Interpretation is where lawyers make their coin. That's never going to change but yes, frustrating when on the wrong end.

Naw naw mate 

This runs much deeper than that. This is meant to be a democracy. Hayek warned about arbitrary government in "the road to serfdom"

We are well on the road to that. They have essentially outsourced responsibility for coherent, clear and understandable lawmaking to the judiciary. 

 

Read the link to see the risks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

At a lose end and thought i would have a dig about what tax professionals are saying about the sc decision. It is all clear why we lost the case. We never. Just the evidence was ignored due to corruption of the legal system.

The phrase that keep coming up is "purposive approach". Google that and irwinmitchell for a view on why we lost. 

Then jump onto this

http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Purposive-approach.php

So parliament is meant to produce the law. The judiciary is meant to apply them. The problem is they cant produce good laws. So they have given judges the ability to read the law as whatever the fuck they want. 

This begs the question how does the private citizen arrange their affairs to stay within the law AND reap the rewards legally available to them if not through reference to the written law? The answer is we cant. Democracy is dying. 

This came from EUSSR btw.

Get a corrupt judge or two and you are fucked.

 

 

 

 

That has always been the case with tax law here. It's an incoherent clusterfuck, but all so very suitable for both sides. 

Current tax law should be binned to start from scratch

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KeyserSoze said:

well my spine isn't chilling 

:lol:

Well u obviously dont have  brain then if u cannot see the issues with this.

1. Private citizen gets professional advice re the written laws in force.

2. Identifies that if the carry out their legal business in a certain manner and in a certain order there is no adverse impact re tax liability

3. Specialist tax judges in specialist tribunals agree.

4. Due to "purposive intention " another court then says "naw fuckit. We dont like the answer from the specialists regardless of whats in the written law and the fact that the evidence shows u complied with it". 

The judges could have made their call for any number of subjective reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Blue Avenger said:

That has always been the case with tax law here. It's an incoherent clusterfuck, but all so very suitable for both sides. 

Current tax law should be binned to start from scratch

The law being a clusterfuck is really not the issue mate. If we dont like it as drafted we kick the politicians out until we get what we want. 

That is democracy's safely value.

The real issue is a law os drafted and then a judge subjectively over rules what is written because the legislature dont know their arse from their elbow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The top of the judiciary often take a 'purposive approach' to Statutory Interpretation as it gives them an opportunity to be more subjective in their decision making than the Mischief Rule.does. These decisions in the SC are rarely challenged. Parliament fucks up legislation so much it's almost laughable. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

Naw naw mate 

This runs much deeper than that. This is meant to be a democracy. Hayek warned about arbitrary government in "the road to serfdom"

We are well on the road to that. They have essentially outsourced responsibility for coherent, clear and understandable lawmaking to the judiciary. 

 

Read the link to see the risks.

I see what you're getting at. 

The whole thing that bugs me more than anything about this whole scenario is that HMRC have the power to go after any-one retrospectively regardless of the rules/laws at the time. I'm all for paying fair tax where due but come on to fuck. Moving the goal posts after god-knows how many years is not fair game. The responsibility is on HMRC close loop holes etc fair play but the retrospective action is just bullshit of the highest order. The incompetant arseholes in govt can make a shambles of the whole thing for years and then just playfully shrug their shoulders and pursue you afterwards.

Just cannot get my head around it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chris182 said:

I see what you're getting at. 

The whole thing that bugs me more than anything about this whole scenario is that the IR have the power to go after any-one retrospectively regardless of the rules/laws at the time. I'm all for paying fair tax where due but come on to fuck. Moving the goal posts after god-knows how many years is not fair game. The repsonsibikty is on the IR to close loop holes etc fair play but the retrospective action is just bullshit of the highest order. The incompetant arseholes in govt can make a shambles of the whole thing for years and then just playfully shrug their shoulders and pursue you afterwards.

Just cannot get my head around it.

Now u have it sussed mate. 

Between the electors and the elected, It used to be the relationship where we were the superior entity. They were OUR AGENTS doing our bidding. Occasionally they would fuck up but the law applied equally to everyone. 

Now the relationsip is one of manager and employee where politicians are the mamagers. Managers can come out with ridiculous shite and be discriminatory about it as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Misteral said:

The top of the judiciary often take a 'purposive approach' to Statutory Interpretation as it gives them an opportunity to be more subjective in their decision making than the Mischief Rule.does. These decisions in the SC are rarely challenged. Parliament fucks up legislation so much it's almost laughable. 

Politicians fucking up is no excuse. The judges are not there to do the politicians jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignorance of the law does not make you Innocent. 

We were given bad advice. We should be going after whoever gave us that advice, although I doubt we can, or if we can we'd lose that as well, knowing our luck.

We need to pick our battle's carefully, and only do so when there is an extremely good chance we'll win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no way HMRC were losing this tax case. It was one of they cases that HAD to be won. Too much money at stake not to win.

I'm not in any way saying the judges were corrupt but as others have said tax law is very complex and it's how a person interprets the way it is written. A different judge may have found it in our favour, and indeed two separate judges did.

Personally I feel we should have won. When the EBTs were used they were perfectly legal. That's when the law becomes cloudy because too much was made of the fact that they're not legal now.  I'm not a lawyer but if I was the legal representative in this case I would have stressing til I blue in the face that they were legal at the time of use (maybe they did BTW). A shit outcome for us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Blue Avenger said:

That has always been the case with tax law here. It's an incoherent clusterfuck, but all so very suitable for both sides. 

Current tax law should be binned to start from scratch

There is no such thing as tax laws, because if there was, the big corporations would have to pay up and they don't, offshore accounts also prove that there is no tax laws. The only so called tax laws are for the public and they grab our money before you get paid or buy anything.

As you say, they only target who they want and do deals with who they want, who controls those decisions, it ain't laws that's for sure.

Just like the bank of England its owned and run by a list of names and has nothing whatsoever to do with England or Britain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thewhitesettler said:

Ignorance of the law does not make you Innocent. 

We were given bad advice. We should be going after whoever gave us that advice, although I doubt we can, or if we can we'd lose that as well, knowing our luck.

We need to pick our battle's carefully, and only do so when there is an extremely good chance we'll win.

What a complete load of surrenderist pacifict pish. U still dont get it do u? U dont understand how this works. 

Ignorance of the law? What law? There is no law. There is a set of documents masquerading as law but they are not law. Sdm and rangers complied with those kiddy oan laws (remember ftt and utt?). That made no fucking difference because a judge applied whatever subjective shite he had in mind to say the law as written was not really what was meant as the law. 

So what law should we have complied with ? I challenge u.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, danger ranger said:

There is no such thing as tax laws, because if there was, the big corporations would have to pay up and they don't, offshore accounts also prove that there is no tax laws. The only so called tax laws are for the public and they grab our money before you get paid or buy anything.

As you say, they only target who they want and do deals with who they want, who controls those decisions, it ain't laws that's for sure.

Just like the bank of England its owned and run by a list of names and has nothing whatsoever to do with England or Britain.

What? :lol: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jintybear said:

There was no way HMRC were losing this tax case. It was one of they cases that HAD to be won. Too much money at stake not to win.

I'm not in any way saying the judges were corrupt but as others have said tax law is very complex and it's how a person interprets the way it is written. A different judge may have found it in our favour, and indeed two separate judges did.

Personally I feel we should have won. When the EBTs were used they were perfectly legal. That's when the law becomes cloudy because too much was made of the fact that they're not legal now.  I'm not a lawyer but if I was the legal representative in this case I would have stressing til I blue in the face that they were legal at the time of use (maybe they did BTW). A shit outcome for us.

It is clear now that CW was defo a lot fucking sharper and maybe a bit more straight up with us that we thought. When he said HMRC would keep appealing until they won i think we all took it that they would just keep appealing for as long as they could or they ran out of appeal routes. What he really meant by it was it was a fait acompli. They only had to appeal two or three times before they were guaranteed a win because of this rule. 

To all the sdm, cw,cg  haters fuck it . They played a blinder and they did it for us. We have our club with its history intact. Would not have said this before today when i found this out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JintyBear hits the nail on the head, HMRC needed a high profile win as they were beginning to look weak and have already wasted enough tax payers money chasing lawsuits that they didn't get anything out of, or not enough to satisfy the hoardes - the Harry Redknapp case hurt them big time, I still worked with HMRC up until 2015 and I'm still bound under a confidentiality agreement so I can never say too much of what I used to read on their intranet regarding these types of cases. 

IIRC they published something around 2012 or 2013 for internal eyes only that didn't name Rangers but they were the massive elephant in the room, saying that they're willing to put as much money as the public purse would allow into legal battles.

In the release they made, they stated how disappointed they were that Harry Redknapp was cleared of everything and they would do everything possible to make sure something similar didn't happen again as these court battles cost millions of public funds. 

They were always going to get a win over Rangers.

I believe they've contacted the thousands of UK businesses who operate/operated EBTs and have offered them settlement figures to avoid more court action. Someone mentioned we got a settlement figure offered to us in 2012 that we knocked back as well which makes it even tougher to swallow 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jintybear said:

There was no way HMRC were losing this tax case. It was one of they cases that HAD to be won. Too much money at stake not to win.

I'm not in any way saying the judges were corrupt but as others have said tax law is very complex and it's how a person interprets the way it is written. A different judge may have found it in our favour, and indeed two separate judges did.

Personally I feel we should have won. When the EBTs were used they were perfectly legal. That's when the law becomes cloudy because too much was made of the fact that they're not legal now.  I'm not a lawyer but if I was the legal representative in this case I would have stressing til I blue in the face that they were legal at the time of use (maybe they did BTW). A shit outcome for us.

EBTs themselves were legal and of course the ones we set up were legal.

However since they were introduced in the 80s there has been a simmering question as to what extent and what purpose can they be used for.

I'd suggest that the way we used ours sailed too close to the wind in terms of it looking like it was part of the remuneration of the employee at a point that was probably too close to the company paying into the EBT on behalf of the employee.

I'm sure if David Murray, Bert Konterman etc. cash was still sitting in the Bahamas, or the Caymans, or wherever it was held, waiting for them to retire i'm sure that there would have been no case to answer.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Gaz52 said:

JintyBear hits the nail on the head, HMRC needed a high profile win as they were beginning to look weak and have already wasted enough tax payers money chasing lawsuits that they didn't get anything out of, or not enough to satisfy the hoardes - the Harry Redknapp case hurt them big time, I still worked with HMRC up until 2015 and I'm still bound under a confidentiality agreement so I can never say too much of what I used to read on their intranet regarding these types of cases. 

IIRC they published something around 2012 or 2013 for internal eyes only that didn't name Rangers but they were the massive elephant in the room, saying that they're willing to put as much money as the public purse would allow into legal battles.

In the release they made, they stated how disappointed they were that Harry Redknapp was cleared of everything and they would do everything possible to make sure something similar didn't happen again as these court battles cost millions of public funds. 

They were always going to get a win over Rangers.

I believe they've contacted the thousands of UK businesses who operate/operated EBTs and have offered them settlement figures to avoid more court action. Someone mentioned we got a settlement figure offered to us in 2012 that we knocked back as well which makes it even tougher to swallow 

I think we offered to settle and it was rejected? I could be wrong though.

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.

 Share

  • Upcoming Events

    • 13 August 2022 14:00 Until 16:00
      0  
      Rangers v St. Johnstone
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
×
×
  • Create New...