strichener Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: That HMRC raised £800M elsewhere ergo they were right to pursue Rangers is the argument of the brain dead. They are even too embarrassed to share how much they have squandered. That they get a share of the creditors' pot would be true irrespective of any court action and all they have done is reduce the pot and line the pockets of BDO and their lawyers. Dreadful stuff from HMRC. No, you have it round the wrong way. HMRC took a hard-line against EBTs which resulted in it raising £800m. That Rangers did not partake in the EBTSO is the reason that they were taken to a tribunal. That BDO continue to defend the actions of the company in liquidation is absolutely nothing to do with HMRC. A quick look at the BDO report shows that since liquidation started they have spent 200k on Counsel costs, I would be surprised in HMRC had spend £7m which is what they are likely to get out of Rangers for these cases alone. Edited August 12, 2016 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, strichener said: That BDO continue to defend the actions of the company in liquidation is absolutely nothing to do with HMRC. An extraordinary statement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 (edited) 26 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: That HMRC raised £800M elsewhere ergo they were right to pursue Rangers is the argument of the brain dead. They are even too embarrassed to share how much they have squandered. That they get a share of the creditors' pot would be true irrespective of any court action and all they have done is reduce the pot and line the pockets of BDO and their lawyers. Dreadful stuff from HMRC. HMRC can now chase the players and other recipients for the full amount owed by Rangers. A lot more than the amount minty offered. Edited August 12, 2016 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Just now, stonedsailor said: HMRC can now chase the players and other recipients for the full amount owed. A lot more than the amount minty offered. That's because the law changed - not because HMRC pissed money away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Just now, The_Kincardine said: That's because the law changed - not because HMRC pissed money away. That will be filed under "true but irrelevant". The Rangers case was about setting precedent and scaring other institutions into complying. Money well spent. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Just now, stonedsailor said: That will be filed under "true but irrelevant". The Rangers case was about setting precedent and scaring other institutions into complying. Money well spent. This was the trope beloved of posters on here but absolutely nothing has come of it and the government changed the rules. The 'precedent' boat sailed a while ago. That you've missed the boat again is hardly surprising. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said: This was the trope beloved of posters on here but absolutely nothing has come of it and the government changed the rules. The 'precedent' boat sailed a while ago. That you've missed the boat again is hardly surprising. Even if you are correct about the precedent, I don't remember seeing any other companies or individuals having a judgement made with regards to EBTs being declared as income, the fact that the HMRC have probably convinced many more to settle their tax bills without going through the courts or HMRC being able to cite to the Rangers case when it does reach court makes it all worthwhile. When was precedence set in this matter before? If there was legal precedence set before then why was it not cited in the Rangers case? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 26 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said: An extraordinary statement. A meaningless phrase. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Kinky how do you feel about your club leaving your former heroes with crippling tax bills? Do you think the club should step up to the mark and help these guys? It's not their fault Rangers stiffed the tax man. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 1 minute ago, stonedsailor said: Kinky how do you feel about your club leaving your former heroes with crippling tax bills? Do you think the club should step up to the mark and help these guys? It's not their fault Rangers stiffed the tax man. They should have taken proper advice and been canny with their money. Plus EBTs are/were immoral, irrespective of the legality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Just now, The_Kincardine said: They should have taken proper advice and been canny with their money. Plus EBTs are/were immoral, irrespective of the legality. But should the club, who told the players these schemes were legitimate, step up to the plate and pay the bills? Could you point me in the direction of the case where precedence was set on EBTs being classed as remuneration prior to the Rangers case please? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 An extraordinary statement. You will have to substantiate this. In what way have HMRC forced BDO to lodge an appeal with the Supreme court? Perhaps you can point me to where in the insolvency act it forces the liquidators to appeal a judgement? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 50 minutes ago, stonedsailor said: But should the club, who told the players these schemes were legitimate, step up to the plate and pay the bills? Could you point me in the direction of the case where precedence was set on EBTs being classed as remuneration prior to the Rangers case please? The players had their own advisors. We'll see how things go. The matter remains under appeal, for one thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, Bearwithme said: The players had their own advisors. We'll see how things go. The matter remains under appeal, for one thing. Rangers had a porn baron to advise them, surely then they should accept responsibility on that fact alone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 35 minutes ago, Bearwithme said: The players had their own advisors. We'll see how things go. The matter remains under appeal, for one thing. To be fair, even Peter Sutcliffe was allowed an appeal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said: They should have taken proper advice and been canny with their money. Plus EBTs are/were immoral, irrespective of the legality. I know I shouldn't play along with your recent nonsense, but I will anyway. It's heartening to see your recognition of the immoral nature of the EBT scheme. Your lack of sympathy for the shafted players seems unfair though. Your suggestion that HMRC should accept a fraction of what they're owed and deserve criticism for not doing so, remains senseless. You understand that HMRC wished to clamp down on such schemes. You also understand that unlike most creditors, HMRC are big and strong enough to not have to just get what they're given. I think it's telling that no other Rangers fans are coming to your aid on this one, despite how desperately you're in need of some help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romeo Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Bearwithme said: The players had their own advisors. We'll see how things go. The matter remains under appeal, for one thing. ^^ Wisnae the deid clubs fault 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 36 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said: I know I shouldn't play along with your recent nonsense, but I will anyway. It's heartening to see your recognition of the immoral nature of the EBT scheme. I've never said otherwise. It was a daft way of remunerating players and Minty's profligacy was shameful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 1 minute ago, The_Kincardine said: I've never said otherwise. It was a daft way of remunerating players and Minty's profligacy was shameful. Well stop suggesting that HMRC should have tacitly allowed it then, by being all accommodating of his attempt to wriggle from their hook. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 Just now, Monkey Tennis said: Well stop suggesting that HMRC should have tacitly allowed it then, by being all accommodating of his attempt to wriggle from their hook. I've not said that. I've just being sensible in stating that HMRC's pursuit of Rangers through the courts has been counter-productive, especially given that The Gvt changed the law on EBTs. I'm thinking of we taxpayers here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.