Johnny van Axeldongen Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 Come to think of it, when was the last time anyone saw Chick Young? He was on Sportsound this evening getting excited about the Brian Kennedy non-story. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 As some will know there is an alternative take on the EBTs and the BTC which could still be won by Rangers. There's probably about as much chance of Rangers winning the tax case as David Edgar being the next Pope. Every quiet day simply takes us closer to the HMRC time-bomb exploding in Duff and Phelps' pus. Tick. Tock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 They weren't as has been suggested written into the players' contracts of employment. They were totally separate and administered offshore in Guernsey. The letters to players referred to by the Sun (and which SFA would have had to rightly investigate if they amounted to a contract of which they were not aware) may not exist. The Sun getting a story wrong? It'd also have to be demonstrated in a technical and official sense that they were football payments. IIRC in England there have been cases of them being claimed as payment for image rights use, for community engagement activities, etc. etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWatt Posted February 28, 2012 Share Posted February 28, 2012 There's probably about as much chance of Rangers winning the tax case as David Edgar being the next Pope. Every quiet day simply takes us closer to the HMRC time-bomb exploding in Duff and Phelps' pus. Tick. Tock. HMRC has litigated twice on the taxability of loans from EBTs and lost on both occasions. The courts have essentially ruled that EBTs were a legitimate form of tax planning prior to HMRC's clampdown in December 2010. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booker-T Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I certainly hope so. The end of Rangers and the beginning of the end of Celtic. why is that cabbage head? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 HMRC has litigated twice on the taxability of loans from EBTs and lost on both occasions. The courts have essentially ruled that EBTs were a legitimate form of tax planning prior to HMRC's clampdown in December 2010. How much has the HMRC wasted (of our taxpayers cash) chasing these cases through the courts? And to do it again Isn't this the equivalent of being on trial for the same crime 3 times now? They must surely think something is different about Rangers from the 1st 2 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 HMRC has litigated twice on the taxability of loans from EBTs and lost on both occasions. The courts have essentially ruled that EBTs were a legitimate form of tax planning prior to HMRC's clampdown in December 2010. No-one disputes that EBTs were a perfectly legal way to manage one's affairs prior to 2010 - if they were run properly. The question is, did Rangers run them properly. That's what the case is about - if they were run improperly, then they're not legal and therefore not a legitimate form of tax planning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booker-T Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 where have all the Rangers fans gone? have they amended their profiles to show support to other teams or have they all moved to follow follow? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booker-T Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 As Rangers can not pay for BAU activities the larger tax case may not be the killer blow 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Excellent advertising opportunity coming up soon. Get your company's logo printed on bin liners and then hand them out to the players on their way into Murray/Ticketus park. Plenty of media exposure when the ex-players drag their possessions out in them when the cost cutting begins..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdinburghPar1975 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Did i see something about the Rangers players voting against accepting A deferred payment of their salary? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I dreamt last night that : Craig Whyte said "he was putting the liquid into liquidation " I was walking past Ibrox and one of their fans was shouting "those HMRC b*****ds have ignored the list". The ground started morphing into an artist's impression of flats and a Wetherspoons. Finally, the pedestrian Clyde tunnel which I was using to get back across the river had been turned into an underground assault course. Cheese toasties before bed + reading this thread = liquidation dreams. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeeperDee Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 As Rangers can not pay for BAU activities the larger tax case may not be the killer blow BAU? :S 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Apparently last night the news interviewed Davis whilst he was away with the Ireland team, one of the questions that they asked was if they had agreed to a 25% wage cut that the players are being asked to take. He refused to answer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 How much has the HMRC wasted (of our taxpayers cash) chasing these cases through the courts? And to do it again Isn't this the equivalent of being on trial for the same crime 3 times now? They must surely think something is different about Rangers from the 1st 2 No.......the HMRC are arguing that the EBT was used illegally. Their argument is that Rangers used the Employee Benefit Trust to pay the players bonuses/part salaries. This basically amounts to being paid for what is their job description.......which should be subject to tax. Rangers used the Employee Benefit Trust as a Employer Benefit Trust............that's the HMRC's argument. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 I dreamt last night that : Craig Whyte said "he was putting the liquid into liquidation " I was walking past Ibrox and one of their fans was shouting "those HMRC b*****ds have ignored the list". The ground started morphing into an artist's impression of flats and a Wetherspoons. Finally, the pedestrian Clyde tunnel which I was using to get back across the river had been turned into an underground assault course. Cheese toasties before bed + reading this thread = liquidation dreams. and just a sprinkling of magic mushrooms on that cheese toasty perhaps ?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensburgh Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 and just a sprinkling of magic mushrooms on that cheese toasty perhaps ?! he's a plastic whistle fan, so it would be magic truffles, surely :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tio Pepe Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 (edited) No.......the HMRC are arguing that the EBT was used illegally. Their argument is that Rangers used the Employee Benefit Trust to pay the players bonuses/part salaries. This basically amounts to being paid for what is their job description.......which should be subject to tax. Rangers used the Employee Benefit Trust as a Employer Benefit Trust............that's the HMRC's argument. Such Trusts have to be discretionary. Any arrangement that guarantees cash and/or the date that cash will be paid is, de facto, not discretionary. Edited February 29, 2012 by Tio Pepe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 As some will know there is an alternative take on the EBTs and the BTC which could still be won by Rangers. EBTs have been used by over 5,000 businesses in the UK and some english clubs until they became illegal in December 2010. At the FTT, Rangers argued that the EBTs were correctly administered and that the club met all their legal responsibilities and complied with all tax laws. They weren't as has been suggested written into the players' contracts of employment. They were totally separate and administered offshore in Guernsey. The letters to players referred to by the Sun (and which SFA would have had to rightly investigate if they amounted to a contract of which they were not aware) may not exist. The Sun getting a story wrong? The letters need not exist for an SFA investigation - if players were paid over and above the contracts that WERE lodged with the SFA and SPL, then it would still be in breach of the rules. If they weren't written into the contracts, then it's a no brainer. they must have been written somewhere! Of course if they were lodged with the SFA along with the contracts then it should be very easy to clear up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 The letters need not exist for an SFA investigation - if players were paid over and above the contracts that WERE lodged with the SFA and SPL, then it would still be in breach of the rules. If they weren't written into the contracts, then it's a no brainer. they must have been written somewhere! Of course if they were lodged with the SFA along with the contracts then it should be very easy to clear up. If they were paid over-and-above for "football purposes" or "football activities" or whatever the wording would be, IIRC. Which they would have been, obviously, but in an official sense i.e. wording. 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.