Paquis
-
Posts
213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paquis
-
-
Also reading that HMRC should not have been the largest creditor and allowed to vote against the CVA. There needs to be a full investigation into HMRC and some others over this.
You obey the law of the land and this is how you get treated, heads should roll.
There is a key difference between how HMRC operates and how the law operates.
If you are up in court on a criminal charge then it is up to the Crown to prove guilt. You are innocent until proven guilty.
Not so with HMRC. They can basically send you a demand for tax, no matter how ridiculous, and it is then up to you to prove that you do not owe that tax. You are guilty until proven innocent.
0 -
No Tedi .. they were not wrong in issuing the tax bill .. Old Rangers were wrong not to face up to it and insist on the courts sooner to settle the matter ... but we all know why they chose to try and barter.
That's why they they chose to have secretive side letters and fail to inform anyone as to what they were up to ...
Cheats ... pure and simple no matter what the verdict was.
When HMRC issued the tax bill, they were fishing. Pure and simple. It happens quite often and across a range of companies.
A business faced with such a bill then has a choice. They either try to reach a compromise settlement with HMRC or they engage extremely expensive tax lawyers and accountants and fight it.
Murray Group offered a settlement. That is fairly normal practice. What is interesting is why HMRC chose not to accept it. Clearly an error of judgement on their part. But it happens. The firm I used to work for (retired from actually) was audited by the IRS in New York. The IRS leaked information to the Wall St. journal saying that we were going to have to pay millions in back tax. The result ...... we won and they had to pay us around $10 million. I personally got $12k back.
The side-letter are only relevant if they provide evidence that Murray Group was avoiding tax. They did not. Whether they were secretive or not is neither here nor there. Most businesses do not routinely divulge all their correspondence into the public domain.
Your allegation of cheating is not supported by any facts. It is clearly wishful thinking on your part.
-1 -
I suggest that you've got the wrong end of the stick here. HMRC losing the tribunal proves only one thing - that two out of three judges weren't convinced by the proof that HMRC were able to present*.
Again - the court does not decide whether Rangers actually diddled the taxpayer. The court decides whether HMRC can prove that Rangers diddled the taxpayer. HMRC thought they had a strong case - they were wrong. Happens every day, all over the world.
Nonetheless, let's think about this proposition you're making. You're saying that prosecutions that fail are proof that no prosecution should ever have been brought, because prosecutions are very expensive.
Have you thought through the implications of that? Maybe you should get on the phone to Crown Office - they lose tens of thousands of cases every year, after all. If Crown Office think they've got a 60% chance of convicting you for murder, should they sack it off because it's not worth the expense?
And recall here - HMRC are required to chase up proven tax dodgers** like your old club.
Really, get a grip. The logical conclusion of your argument is that no prosecution should be brought unless there is a 100% chance of conviction. You're just hilariously wrong, aren't you?
*When considering this point, it's worth recalling that one of the judges complained that your club were intentionally withholding evidence.
**Your old club are proven tax dodgers.
No, you are wrong (not for the first time). The burden of proof rested on the appellants (i.e. Murray Group) and not on HMRC (page 38, para 159). Thus, Murray Group were able to provide sufficient proof to convince the Tribunal of the legality of the EBT arrangements.
0 -
Firdt of all,there has been a lot of anger directed at David Murray on everything that has happened at the club. Now answer this;if as you state that HMRC "look pretty good" why did they not look so good at the first tier tribunal when the finding went in the PLCs favour. All the arguments being put forward by you still does not change the verdict nor indeed does all three judges noting that the PLC was unhelpful. That opinion of theirs still had no bearing on the verdict.
HMRC do not look 'pretty good'. They lost
0 -
lol, their decision is, eh, a decision. Nothing more. It is NOT Law and if you think that you probably think the old club lives............
We make the following Findingsof Law as affecting the general arrangements and confirming in Law as well as in
Fact the trust structure and loan arrangements –
Page 58, Para 232.
0 -
However they have outdone themselves over this "loan" defense, it's utterly shameful. It would seem that two of the three on the appeals panel, along with Traynor and King on RC tonight are the only ones that think these payments were "loans"
Thing is, the 'two of the three on the appeals panel' are the only ones that matter. Their decision is law. Your opinion is neither her nor there.
0 -
No you will not .. your new club has been informed that you can use the proper appeals channel ... if not you will face penalties from UEFA/SFA .. so seriously doubt your triumphalist pish.
Actually we can. The Court of Session asserted its supervisory power over Scottish football when we took the SFA to court and the SFA was forced to acknowledge that.
The SFA would be in contempt of court if they tried to prevent Rangers (or anyone else) from asserting their right to seek remedy from the court.
For the same reason, UEFA/FIFA would be unable to punish an individual club. Any sanctions, therefore, would have to be against Scottish football as a whole.
0 -
Since the verdict of the FTTT on The Rangers "big tax case" was made public on Tuesday 20th November 2012, we have had over the top declarations from many in the Scottish mainstream media that the former club had "won" the case. Now we also have many of the former incumbents of the club, which existed until this year, climbing out from under the rocks they disappeared under to declare a great victory for the former club and looking to blame all and sundry for the death of Rangers.
Let's take a step back and look at the overall picture. The first tier tribunal hears appeals against decisions relating to tax made by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs. Rangers appealed a claim by HMRC, which resulted in one of the most high profile cases Scotland and possibly the UK has ever seen.
The FTTT decision was made on the basis of a 2:1 verdict, the decision was not unanimous and which may, lets not forget, still be appealed. Ultimately, we are all aware that Rangers operated a scheme which allowed them to offer packages to attract players who would not otherwise have been obtainable. What Rangers have "won" is a potential reduction in the tax liability due to be paid.
What we have seen following the issue of the decision is the reemergence of the men who were ultimately responsible for the death of Rangers Football Club, not as you would think to show remorse for their previous actions but in fact to attempt to lay blame at the door of HMRC and all those who apparently were ruthless and vindictive in their attempts to destroy the club.
First of all there is the man who was at the top of the tree for decades, the man who called all the shots, the man that spent far out with his means in the pursuit of success, the man who systematically destroyed Rangers and who had a hugely detrimental impact on the whole of Scottish Football, it is of course David Murray. Here is a man that claimed to have been duped by someone who had less credibility than Chemical Ali but also claimed he was confident all along of "winning the big tax case".
If he was so confident why did he seemingly refuse to accept any potential liability at the time the club was up for sale? Before Craig Whyte came along the club had been up for sale since around 2007 yet no one would consider buying due to the potential problems they faced. If David Murray was so confident, as well as sticking to his statement of only selling to someone who could take Rangers forward, why did he not agree to sell the club to such an individual or consortium on the understanding that he would be responsible for any liabilities as a result of "the big tax case"?
We then have Paul Murray throwing his sixpence worth in, demanding investigations and having to ask himself "were people acting with a degree of malice towards Rangers?" and even more alarmingly, though in the grand scheme of things probably not surprising, seeking some sort of damages claim against, well, everyone by the sounds of things. This is a man who was part of the hierarchy who, it seems, overseen and approved their reckless spending sprees over the years. A man who apparently attempted to buy the club on the proviso that David Murray would take on the potential tax liability. His Blue Knights consortium were found out to be nothing more than bravado and bluster, he then slinked off into the wilderness with his tail between his legs. He now has the audacity to ask why it took so long for a decision to be reached and also mentioning in recent statement "moral and legal" responsibilities.
Perhaps Mr. Murray could confirm why investigating officers had such difficulties obtaining documents relevant to the investigation? Maybe if they had been forthcoming a bit quicker the result could have been determined much sooner than it was?
Instead of these blowhards in suits coming out claiming victories and mentioning morals, what they should be doing is addressing the fans of the club they destroyed and apologizing for their actions over the decades. The cause of death of Rangers Football club was not due to the actions of HMRC it was due to the utter failure and complete mismanagement by the club custodians. Regardless of the big or even wee tax case, the club went into administration owing a reported £55 million pounds to over 270 creditors. Despite the club introducing a scheme which gave them the upper hand over their competitors, they still attempted to live out with their means and as a result were liquidated.
HMRC have a statutory duty on behalf of the public purse to pursue what they regard as tax avoidance. That's exactly what they did in the case of Rangers, its exactly what they did in the case of the Jersey based K2 scheme which "benefited" the likes of Jimmy Carr and resulted in the Prime Minister stating "some of these schemes we have seen are quite frankly morally wrong". The chancellor, during his budget speech no less, describing illegal tax evasion and legal but aggressive tax avoidance as "morally repugnant" and various other MP's stating their objections to such schemes. Yet here we are in our little country seeing a media outrage at HMRC's attempts to claim back money which they feel is due.
During the course of this whole circus that has been "the big tax case" ordinary fans have become familiar with terms and phraseology that you would never have before heard in the pubs or in the stands but discussions over EBT's, creditors, PAYE, VAT, Administrators and eventually liquidators were almost as common place as who was playing up front or who was in the treatment room. The FTTT decision, although clearly a major news story has no real impact on the current state of Scottish football, it refers to an entity that no longer exists, so why football "journalists" are focusing on the result is beyond me and most other reasonable minds. These media hacks would be better spending what little time they have left in their positions reporting on what is happening to our game now and what might happen in the future. They made no attempt at all to uncover the real truth of what caused the destruction of Rangers so they should stay well clear of peddling more lies and attempting to report on issues that they clearly do not understand.
These media whores had an opportunity to investigate and report on the dealings of Rangers Football Club for years, yet they decided to ignore the real stories and instead splash the moonbeams all over their back and front pages. They had an opportunity to help address the real issues and even potentially avoid the club being liquidated but they failed miserably. They have a chance to redeem themselves by actually asking questions and reporting on the current goings on at The Rangers Football Club Limited incorporated 29/05/12 or maybe have a wee look at Rangers Football PLC incorporated 16/11/12, will they do that? Of course they won't, what they will do is regurgitate whatever the relevant PR people tell them, write columns completely devoid of fact and ignore the real stories that are staring them in the face and allow those fronting the team playing in Division 3 to continue in their attempts to fleece genuine fans of their hard earned cash.
So ask yourself, with all these headlines of VICTORY who actually won in this whole farce?
I agree with much that you post above.
However, make no mistake, David Murray is clearly planning to go after HMRC, its leaker and the bloggers that benefited. That makes perfect sense for him. First of all, HMRC are now vulnerable, second, illegal activity occurred. But the major benefit for Murray is to distract attention from his own conduct. By making HMRC his target he is setting them up as the villains and painting himself as just another victim.
There are many villains in this whole saga starting with David Murray. Things have been said, allegations and assumptions have been made and there has been a rush to judgement by many which has been shown to be both premature and ill-advised. Certain journalists would be well advised to shut their mouths and crawl back under their rocks.
As a Rangers supporter, however, there are some good things that have come from this mess. First, we have seen just how massive and loyal the Rangers support is. 37,000 season tickets sold tells its own story. Also, as a support we are more united than ever. I think there is a genuine sense of optimism that we are on the way back with a club that is financially sound, a broad based ownership and a management that appears to be considerably more competent than the David Murray regime.
0 -
And you honestly believe Murray wants to wash his dirty laundry in expose his business history in court? Under oath?
to the power of .f**k me, where have the Amigos been hiding YOU?
Lads! Lads! I've found another one!
He doesn't need to. Prosecution of the purveyor and recipients of stolen information is a quite different matter to Murray's business history.
I would have thought that would be evident even to you.
0 -
That would require some sort of proof, not some Internet Bampot talking bollox. But hey, off you go.....let us know how you get on.
David Murray already alluded to it in his statement after the result of the Tribunal.
0 -
Who is going to sue them? David Murray?
Is David Murray really interested in accounting for his business affairs at Rangers in an open, public forum?
I would have thought that a criminal complaint that the bloggers knowingly received stolen information would be sufficient.
0 -
These bloggers have been quite conspicuous by their absence though,wouldn't you say. RTC couldn't get that site closed down quick enough.
I am reliably informed that the contents of that site were copied before it was closed down.
0 -
I dare say that the bloggers you mention will have legally protected themselves by the use of the word "allegedly"
and the fact fact that that conclusion wasn't unanimous could be another reason that Murray / MIH might not take this further..............the HMRC might of course appeal the decision too.Agree that the timescale of the decision was far too long.
If the bloggers can be shown to have received confidential information directly from one or more HMRC employees then, I believe, this is treated as receipt of stolen goods.
Should Murray and others (especially MPs or MSPs) choose to go after HMRC aggressively then HMRC's best way of defending itself might be to throw the leaker and any bloggers that received information to the wolves.
All speculation of course.
0 -
No that doesn't really help Rangers and it wasn't the point she was making. Long sections of he dissent are devoted to the idea that the whole EBTS scheme s a sham with numerous example of payroll and EBTs being used interchangeably. The bonus thing was another example. The whole opinion scolds HMRC lawyers for not taking he argument that the scheme was a sham instead they agreed that the payments to EBTs were loans. In some ways the judge is making the case that HMRC failed to make, attacking the payments as a whole instead of concentrating on the side-letters and their implications of a contractual payment.
I understand what you are saying. But whether or not the EBT scheme was a sham is not relevant to the dual contracts issue. Her argument does not help the SPL case that dual contracts existed.
0 -
Hey let me be honest. Would I rather Rangers were in the top league on merit and admin hadn't happened? f**k yes.
Would I prefer a CL gig or a Europa cup gig to a slot in the Ramsdens Cup? f**k yes again.
However, admin has brought about 2 things.
1. A bit of financial sanity. OK so some may challenge that we're still overpaying for players but look at the EBT list. I mentioned it before but what we paid players was utterly insane. £370K EBT plus wages for Egil Østenstad? That was fucking bonkers. I'm taller than him and, at 52, about as mobile as when we signed him. I'd have done as good a job on even half his dosh. Even a quarter. This is the REAL Ibrox scandal.
2. This season has really galvanised The Bears. Yes, we have turned up in numbers and that is to our credit. More importantly, we're inteerested in who we're playing next; how the opposition are doing; how the league looks, and how the young players are performing. We are all keen on the likes of Aird, Mackay, McLeod and Naismith to go out and play for the jersey and they have all responded brilliantly.
In 40+ years of supporting Rangers I have never known us to be so keen on just football, respecting our opposition and backing our weans. I'd prefer that we'd not put ourselves in this position but I am absolutely certain that our fans and our players have been a credit to us so far.
Personally, I think Rangers are going to emerge stronger and more unified from this mess. I think that there is a sense of purpose and optimism amongst the support. I also think that going to a broader ownership model is a plus and I am cautiously optimistic that Green is putting in place some high quality management.
I think that there may come a time when certain clubs will; regret their actions over the past 6 months.
0 -
As I keep reading this judgement, the SPL's case against Rangers grows weaker and weaker.
From the majority perspective, they have found that players received loans not wages. What this means is that Rangers had no obligation to submit these contracts to the SFA or the SPL because they would not have been considered contracts for participation at football.
But Heidi Poon does not help the SPL case either:
From page 120 (minority decision):
XVI) For bonus payments to the footballing employees, there appeared to be aschedule agreed for the start of each season and lodged with SFA as a matterof normal practice. The bonus entitlement should be the same for eachplayer in the team squad in accordance with the schedule agreed. It wouldappear that the bonus and appearance money for players with a sub-trust hadbeen paid via the trust mechanism while other players without a sub-trustreceived their entitlement through payroll.
So what Poon is saying is that the SFA knew how much was being paid contractually and that this was declared to the SFA. The issue, therefore, is not that there were two contracts but rather how money was being paid (i.e. to a sub-trust or by payroll).
0 -
In the statement I've seen they have said they are considering an appeal.
(They have no automatic right to appeal and any appeal must be on a point of law.)
Don't you go bringing up technicalities
0 -
Watching Newsnicht. There seems to be some humming and hawing about how long the FTTT took to hear the case. The answer to that is simple, Rangers and Murray stonewalled investigators withheld documents (including the side letters) and generally made it difficult for the investigation to proceed.
Tom English was going on about the dissenting opinion and that he SPL could base their dual contract investigation on that but quite simply it is legally irrelevant (until an appeal). The SPL need to tread carefully and make legally sound judgements within their own rules. The SFA already got a bloody nose from a court for over-stepping the mark.
The dissenting opinion is just that, an opinion. It does not have force of law which the Tribunal finding does have. Were this to end up inthe Court of Session, the judge is likely to give more weight to the majority opinion than the minority one.
The sensible thing to do here is for the SPL to walk away from this one. There is very little to be gained by pursuing it and quite a lot to lose.
0 -
Counsel for HMRC tried to argue in front of the Tribunal the payments were contractual and amounted to wages for playing football. The Tribunal did not accept this argument. Specifically they said (page 55):
"Thus we cannot accede to Mr Thomson’s proposition that payment of monies into the trust represents payment of emoluments or earnings".
If they were indeed loans as the Tribunal found (p56 -57):
"We consider that the employees benefiting did not obtain an absolute legal entitlement to the monies. Having regard to the legal effect of the trust and loan structure, the employees’ entitlement or, rather, expectation is to no more than a loan"
Then there was no need to register that fact with the SFA or SPL. Therefore, there were no dual contracts and the players were not improperly registered. Furthermore, the existence of EBTs had been fully disclosed in Rangers annual reports for a number of years.
It will take quite a feat of mental gymnastics for the SPL to argue that the Tribunals findings 'in law' are wrong and that Rangers should be stripped of their titles. Furthermore, to do so will inevitably lead to the matter ending up in the Court of Session. I think it unlikely that the CoS would overturn the verdict of a duly constituted Tribunal containing experst in the matter. Thus, there is a high risk of the SPL losing and being made to look petty, vindictive and foolish in the process.
0 -
The entire idea of a loan is that they will be repaid at some point.
Benfica have just scored, btw - YAS!
Which is why the Tribunal ruled that they are recoverable.
0 -
I'm a tax payer - answer the question, please.
I answered the question. The Tribunal ruled that they were loans. No tax is due on a loan. Whether they are paid back is a private matter between the lender and the borrower.
0 -
And about to be the subject of intense interest from Murray's lawyer's. And not shamed, bungling lawyers such as those so revered on here.
Yep. I'm no lawyer but isn't receiving illegally obtained confidential information treated as handling stolen goods?
0 -
Of course it's a fucking issue - either it's a 'loan' or it's not.
It is a loan because the Tribunal has ruled that it is a loan.
End of Story
0 -
Bump.
Why do you care? Were you the one lending the money?
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
Then you may wish to sign the e-petition
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143