Paquis
-
Posts
213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paquis
-
-
SIR DAVID MURRAY TAKES LEGAL ACTION OVER TAX LEAKS(Issued on behalf of Levy & McRae Solicitors and Notaries Public
Professor Peter Watson of Levy & McRae has confirmed that he has been instructed by Sir David Murray to submit a complaint to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service regarding the publication of information relating to his tax affairs. Professor Watson said: "Sir David regards such information as private and confidential and the publication of such information as unlawful. He has asked that this matter is investigated and that anyone found guilty of breaching the law is the subject of prosecution."
Squeaky bum time at HMRC, for certain 'journalists' and bloggers
0 -
Yes I am sure you're both of equal intellect ...
At least we have an intellect.
0 -
And as I mentioned in another thread Rangers admitted that the majority of the EBTs were taxable and as a result these EBts were not taken I to consideration in the case they were only judged on about 20 of them ,it's like going to court for 50 cases of theft and saying yeah wellill admit 30 of these were theft but no that other 20 ,then not being found guilty on the 20 and going ...woohoo I won not guilty!!
You really need to stop making stuff up. There were 111 trusts of which 108 were actively used. 81 were for Rangers players and 27 for Murray Group employees (FTTT decision, para 96).
The rest of your post is fiction and not very good fiction either.
0 -
Why grasp at straws when there are so many undeniable facts to make sweet love to?
I would leave your socks out of this
0 -
It appears we won UEFA championship
According to Dr Heidi Poon CA, CTA, PhD
So far on according to some on P & B her findings have been the most relevant
Wellshe states this on page 102 para 121 of her dissenting opinions
121. The occasion of Rangers winning the UEFA championship led to six sub-trusts
being created for Mr Warwick, Mr Camden, Mr Islington, Mr Kensington,
Mr Balham
edit Paquis beat me to it
Great minds think alike
0 -
More selective reporting from the Ch4 bloke, i love he selects some parts, igonores others and then mixes it all together to meet his agenda. I actually had to check to see if that wasn't a spoof posted by bhairn, probably the worst case of cherry picking ever seen on the internet
John Cravens Newsround has more credibility than Ch4 news.
It really isn't very good.
And I simply do not believe that HMRC have told him anything beyond that they are considering an appeal. With a possible police investigation into leaks, they are not going to be telling anyone anything right now. Neither do I believe he has spoken to any 'experts'. Otherwise he would have known that a majority decision is not sufficient cause for an appeal.
Finally, he makes an error of fact right at the end:
"Meanwhile the wider case for legislation on these loans looks even more overwhelming as the rest of us fork out more tax in return for spending cuts."
Did nobody tell him that this already happened in the 2011 budget
What a clown
0 -
So you never read the blog and believe the pish that Charles Green putting up fantasy goals for you fans and trusting SDM in his bullish victory?
If you are referring to Thomson's blog then, yes, I read it. Frankly, I don't think it is very good.
0 -
I have removed most of the quote to save space on the board.
Oor Alex is a master at cherry picking the bits he likes. And just about all of it comes from the dissenting opinion. Funny how that happens
The dissenting opinion certainly provides some essential information that none of us knew. For example on page 102 para 121.
121. The occasion of Rangers winning the UEFA championship led to six sub-trusts being created for Mr Warwick, Mr Camden, Mr Islington, Mr Kensington, Mr Balham,
Far be it for me to doubt the eminent Dr. Poon on statements of fact. However, this little faux-pas might lead to the rest of her narrative being treated with less credibility than it might otherwise deserve. How many other 'facts' has she also got wrong?
On the question of the appeal, that can only be on a point of law. The fact that this was a majority decision and not a unanimous one is not a point of law.
Finally, HMRC have 56 days to appeal. Appeals are usually heard within 12 to 24 months and the decision takes another 6 to 9 months. So we could easily be looking three years down the road. By that time the old club will be dead and buried so no money there. It also begs the question as to what the SFA/SPL will do. They have clearly been waiting for the FTTT verdict. If it is appealed will they also wait for that?
0 -
Looking forward to the latest saga on Panorama tonight
http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b01p1zyg
In a statement, HM Revenue and Customs, which regulates the 2,467 registered trust or company service providers in the UK.
But it did confirm that it has never prosecuted a single corporate service provider for breaching money laundering regulations. HMRC said tackling tax evasion is a priority.
Go get 'em Hector
I wonder if the BBC will also be highlighting their own efforts at tax avoidance in the program
0 -
Yes, one can recognise the usual p&b orc style of spelling, punctuation and grammar, right enough...
It is, however, normal practice for us to complete a sentence with a single full stop rather than three.
0 -
Come tae f**k!
How many times do we have to try and discuss the fact that these are seperate cases? The BTC is actually distinct from the SPL investigation. The SPL investigation can consider the employee evidence that the FTT (majority) decided it couldn't.
Again, they don't pronounce on the SFA's laws, only tax laws. The evidential requirements are different...
Well, if this business ends up in the Court of Session, I know which perspective will carry the most weight.
0 -
I think the problem you have is you keep equating the findings in relation to the tax liability to the SPL enquiry. The FTT could only consider evidence within certain parameters, and on a technicality (so far) felt they had to reach the decision they did (but not unanimously).
Again, you have recognised that EBTs are tax avoidance schemes. Look at the evidence of the recipients - they pretty much state, under oath, these payments were contractual. The SPL only require to come to a verdict on the balance of probability, rather than beyond reasonable doubt or within the peculiar requirements of such as a tax Tribunal.
The evidence of the employees hangs Rangers. The EBTs were agreed terms of contract of employment.
That is not what the Tribunal found.
0 -
Green is wrong on this,no question. The SPL titles,Scottish Cups and League cups were awarded to the club for wining the relevant bodies competitions,if there is found to be cheating then those same bodies retain the right to strip a club of those awards. Although i did read that the SFL had no interest in pursuing any such removal/stripping of the League cup. Whether the SPL win their case though is another thing altogether.
The SFA/SPL have two problems.
The first is proving that the EBTs and side letters represent dual contracts in the sense of their own rules and regulations. The second is proving that they were not disclosed.
The majority verdict suggests that the EBTs were loans. In paragraph 208, they specifically state that they regard the side letter's obligation does not amount to an emolument. There is nothing in the SFA/SPL regulations that require disclosure of loans. There are also a couple of sections in the dissenting opinion that suggests that disclosure did happen although what was disclosed was rather vague. Given that EBTs had been around for over 10 years before the SFA/SPL discovered they had a problem with them suggests that the vagueness of disclosure was not an impediment.
There are some exceptions where the Murray Group admits a tax liability. Not all of these concern footballers although a few do. The first is termination payments. However, given the Juninho precedent, it will be difficult for the SFA/SPL to argue that these should be sanctioned. The second concerns guaranteed bonuses and involves just 5 players. Obviously we do not know which players. However, it is not clear that these bonuses were hidden from the SFA/SPL given the points raised in the dissenting opinion and neither is it clear that these bonuses were the subject of a second contract.
0 -
God knows there's been some blindingly ridiculous pish posted on this thread, but Paquis, I think you've just provided my favourite here.
Why do otherwise relatively sane Rangers fans feel the need to go bonkers periodically?
You chaps really seem to have some difficulty when it comes to reading comprehension.
I was summarising my understanding of Green's position. Personally, I disagree with him. My own view is that the verdict of the FTT will make it very hard for the SPL to prove that the EBTs and associated side-letters were dual contracts in the sense of the SFA/SPL regulations. Unless HMRC appeal and unless that appeal succeeds, I don't see the SPL or SFA being successful.
0 -
WOW
this thread is hoaching with Ragers fans since the midweek decision I still can't believe they still wear the blue tinted glasses and spout out proudly "they were legal" SO FCUK ! we all ! ALL know that the dead club had a strict budget but decided to abuse ! ABUSE a tax avoidance scam in order to gain an unfair advantage over the competition.
And I do mean unfair and not on a level par with the competition because all the other clubs did not abuse the EBT's,this gave the dead club an unfair advantage in fielding a better quality of player than they otherwise would have had to have fielded.
The dead club did not die a dignified death and neither is it innocent of basically cheating the competition in order to win titles and cups by financial doping.
I couldn't care a fucking iota if Rangers fans reply and say "they wur legal and a tribunal ruled so" I know and you know the dead club is guilty of bringing the game into disrepute and abusing a tax avoidance system to pay better quality players more wages to bribe them to Ibrox.
Karma is a bitch and Rangers football club PLC est 1872 got it's just deserts by being liquidated meaning it got killed off and resigned into the history books.
The BDO and SPL investigations may probably keep this thread alive as more shit comes out of Ibrox over the coming months further incriminating the old dead Rangers 1872.
RANGERS 1872 ! THEY DEAD
RANGERS 2012 ? they should be a lot off fun with the Cheese miester at the helm :lol: What a load of bollox
0 -
I know this will sound emotive, and for that i'm sorry, but i don't know how else to put it:
Receiving stolen property is a crime - even if you buy it from a mate in the pub.
Now, the trophies may not have been 'stolen' but if it is proved (and I have no idea if it will be) that they were won by breaking the rules, they will be stripped - no matter who 'owns' them.
They were awarded to a club and can be taken away *if* it is proved that they were wrongly awarded.
That is a point of view. Charles Green and his lawyers will disagree with you.
Remains to be seen if Green changes tack or if the SPL choose to back off. Otherwise, chances are that this will end up in the Court of Session and I don't think that serves anyone's interests.
0 -
All this "leaked information" they had, how come none of these bloggers knew it would go in rangers favour then ?
And how come so many (sevco fans) on here claim they knew it would ?, Makes you wonder who actually had the "leaked info".
Because the 'leaked' information would appear to have come from HMRC. When your information is coming from just one of the parties then it is going to tend towards their version of reality.
0 -
serious question. Could you point to one that dissects the FTTT decision and talks about potential ramifications with regards to the SPL inquiry?
Serious answer .... I am not aware of any detailed analysis from a Rangers point of view (other than my own) but I haven't looked either. The blogs that I read take the view that the FTT verdict stands on its own and does not need to be dissected.
The ramifications with regard to the SPL inquiry has been looked at by a number of non-Rangers sources. The most interesting one that I have found is that of STV.
But there is a twist to all this. The position of Charles Green is that the 'new' Rangers are not members of the SPL and are not subject to their jurisdiction. He also maintains that he 'owns' the titles and that the SPL cannot take away his property. His position was never based on the FTT outcome. I am told that Green's lawyers feel that he has a very strong position in law.
While the FTT verdict seriously weakens the SPL view that EBTs and their associated side-letters constituted a second or dual contract will anyone actually get into that argument with them? In the event that Rangers choose to ignore the inquiry (as intimated by Green a while ago) will the 'independent commission' (no laughing at the back) test the strength of the SPL's argument?
Then there is the question of the SPL's resolve. No doubt that their position has been weakened by the FTT verdict. There has also been a noticeable change in media attitudes towards Rangers. A general feeling of enough is enough. The SPL might feel that there is nothing to gain either from negative publicity or being dragged through the courts by Green. In that event, look for a 'not proven' verdict in January with the hope that it will all go away quietly.
0 -
And it was all going so well.
I'd still like to know why no ibrox minded bloggers are examining the situation to the same degree as McConville, Broganlogantrevino,RTC etc.
It would be nice to have an intelligent, alternative view.
I read the most recent Broganlogantrevino effort at length and made a fairly long critique last night. It suffers from the same problem as many on this board. It starts off with an opinion and then cherry picks from the FTT judgement to try to find facts to support the prejudged opinion. McConville seems to suffer from the same problem. RTC has tried to do a vanishing act. Fortunately, and despite their best efforts, the content has been preserved for posterity.
There are plenty of Rangers blogs around. While they don't have the benefit of leaked information from HMRC or other journalistic support, there are some pretty interesting discussions with regard to what is going on at Rangers.
0 -
None of you boys make a game today ?
They are only interested in Rangers
0 -
Why? Because you won that one that should be the end of it ?...Fuckin priceless !!
You really should get yourself a life. This obsessing is bad for you.
0 -
A moent approach might have been to live within your means, that way your club wouldn't have died and you wouldn't now be forced to follow a brand new club - set up with the sole intention to repay Ticketus - in the 3rd Division.
Ah yes, living within our means .... like Hearts, like Dunfermline, like Dundee (twice in admin), like Motherwell, like Celtic (net loss after taxation of £28.537 million between 2000 and 2010). So Scottish football has a structural problem .... your point?
The rest of your post is just the usual bollox.
-1 -
Oh dear ... there you go again. Clutching at the dissenting opinion like a drowning man clutching at a straw.
The past is what it is. There are many things that I would have done differently had I been in charge. But I wasn't.
The FTT decision should be the end of this whole saga and should allow us to all move on. Unfortunately it does not seem likely. There are too many agendas, too much hate, too much bile. Already people like yourself are trying to cherry pick in the judgement to support a conclusion that you made months ago.
It doesn't work and no amount of cherry picking is going to make it work. You don't like Rangers. Okay we get it. But Rangers are here whether you like it or not and we are not going to go away. Get over it.
0 -
Y'see, what they (rangers/sevco fans) wanted from the start, was for everyone to shut the f**k up & not say a word about anything, that way the SPL/SFA would've just shoehorned sevco into the SPL with just their 10 point administration penalty to show for it all.
They're just pissed off cos nobody's playing the way they expected us all to play.
Looking back, shutting the f**k up and waiting for the Tribunal to rule might have been a more prudent approach than prejudging everything and spouting a load of bollox.
0
this thread is hoaching with Ragers fans since the midweek decision 
RANGERS 2012 ? they should be a lot off fun with the Cheese miester at the helm
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
Nope .... definitely not a 'good guy'. But where his interests and ours coincide ...............