[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Ouch.

Round one to Ashley.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

It might be repetition, it might also be dull, and it might also be true!

The rangers better be hoping that the three bears (snigger) have deep pockets and don't buy too many expensive christmas presents for their families this year.......

I can certainly see them having to sell a couple of their better players in January to make ends meet. If that happens, then they could well start to struggle to keep pace.

I'd love to see Hibs stick in a cheeky low bid for Waghorn.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

This was the basis that the LNS enquiry proceeded on. They asked for a judgment whatever the outcome of the UTT was.

The validity of the LNS commission wasn't dependent on the FTT appeal. The SPL's brief was very clear on this.

It is not possible to read the paragraph below from the commission and come to that conclusion. You clearly are desperate for the truth to be otherwise, but no amount of slithering and squirming is going to make a very clear statement mean the complete opposite.

"The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood (ie that the decision of the FTT stood - Rangers use of EBTs was within the law), without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC (ie ignoring the possibility that the decision of the FTT could be overturned at appeal). Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful (the possibility of the use of EBTs being unlawful was ignored - wrongly as is now the case)."

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Sorry, I've clearly misinterpreted what you meant. I thought you meant 'irrespective' as in it did not matter whether the appeal was accepted or rejected, rather than assuming it would be rejected (which is what the SPL instructed).

So you must agree then that the findings of the LNS commission are no longer valid, since the scope it considered turned out to be incorrect.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

The_Kincardine, on 13 Nov 2015 - 00:05, said:

The SPL knew it was under appeal (to the UTT) and asked for a judgment irrespective of the outcome of the appeal.

Actually, they were very specific in asking for the exact opposite.

"The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful."

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

The stench of panic emanating from Ibrox is really ramping up quite nicely.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

ARMAGEDDON II

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

Can anyone actually provide an example of where someone has been dragged through the courts for being a bit immoral? As far as I'm aware, courts tend to stick to things like whether or not the law has been broken.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

printer, on 11 Nov 2015 - 11:54, said:

Indeed, and I maybe didn't word my post well enough, I was trying to clarify/point out that the tax due was actually that of the employees.

Rangers didn't actually evade tax, they put in place a scheme which enabled their employees to evade paying it on their remuneration.

Again, No. Both the employees and employer gained financial advantage from the illegal non-payment of income tax and national insurance contributions, but it is the employer that is culpable. From the court ruling:

'an employer who makes a payment of earnings or emoluments to or on account of an employee is obliged to deduct tax in accordance with the PAYE Regulations.'

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

printer, on 11 Nov 2015 - 11:06, said:

It wasn't Rangers who avoided paying tax. It was the employees.

No, it is the employers responsibility to remove income tax at source.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

THE KING, on 11 Nov 2015 - 10:44, said:

Tax justice crusader on why HMRC are right...

.

.

- See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/11/08/rangers-ebt-why-the-court-of-session-got-it-right/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+org%2FlWWh+%28Tax+Research+UK+2%29#.dpuf

It's great to see the justice system take a common sense approach to this, rather than pander to the weasely conniving of accountants threading their way through loopholes.

All tax cheats should be treated with the same disdain.

[Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!]

williemillersmoustache, on 11 Nov 2015 - 08:09, said:

Not happy about the SFA being taken to court

If it helps expose (and hopefully eliminate) the incompetence and corruption within the governance of Scottish football, we should all club together to buy Ashley a golden throne.