Kamenitza Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Very long but worth a read if you have the time. The hoover, the runaways and a judicial nod is as good as a wink on the Rangers Tax Case Some selected quotes :- I have seen a few Tax Tribunal decisions in my time, but this one is unusual in a number of regards. Partly for what is says– Partly for what it doesn't say and partly for how it says what it has to say. For a start, it is very unusual to have a verdict that is two to one in these cases. It is even more unusual to have one where the two opinions– assenting and dissenting— are at such odds and are so diametrically opposed to one another in substance. It is also unusual to have the majority verdict substantially shorter and less detailed than the minority point of view. There is something else that is unusual but I will come back to that later. I can see the logic in both sides of the argument as opined on, and having read the decision several times now, I conclude that had I been sitting in judgement (had I been daft enough to sit in judgement) I would have had no choice but to come down on the side of the majority. Yes I would have said that MIH and Rangers were not liable for tax. Let me explain why— and then let me explain why I think the judgement is written the way it is and what I take from the undercurrent of the decision as it relates to the big wide world. Now, I said at the start there was something else odd about this judgement. It is this. Normally where you get a dissenting judgement or even two dissenting judgements, the majority or assenting judges write on the dissenting judgements and explain why they cannot adopt that line, why they don't accept this point or that, and perhaps, more crucially, they point out what parts of the evidence they cannot accept or have a different view on as their dissenting colleagues. They may also agree or disagree on the credibility of witnesses as described by the dissenting judge. In short, they very professionally and very politely criticise the dissenting judgement But not in this case. There is nothing from the majority which states in detail that they disagree with the propositions and conclusions reached by Dr Poon with regard to that evidence or her interpretation of certain events. They have explained why they feel compelled to reach the legal decision that they did– but they then give her free reign on anything beyond that with ne'er a word in dissent. And that is very weird indeed. An MSP now wants a full independent judicial or parliamentary enquiry into the whole HMRC investigation so that all of the salient facts and conduct can be brought out in the open for all to see. I doubt anyone from MIH will be voting for him again 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 £15 million is but a starting point for HMRC's reckless approach to the public purse. How much could be added to the sums if you consider the revenues HMRC have lost by forcing Rangers to downsize? Rico will be catatonic when he realises what's happened. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 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. Ridiculous is the correct word. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 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. The reason they were allowed rejection of the CVA was that they put forward the potential of the EBT case for voting purposes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS-18 ICBM Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 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. Why are former fans of Rangers FC (R.I.P.) so upset about the starring role that Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs played in the demise and ultimate death of their club? Rangers fans now have a brand new club with no debt and a great opportunity to change and dispose of much of the negative baggage (sectarianism, riots, etc, etc) of the past that resulted in the club being known as one of the most infamous football clubs on earth. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Did rapeepul miss the asterisk on page 1872 of the judgement? I'll reprint it here to help: it is confirmed by 2 of the 3 of us that ebts were kind of maybe a 'loan'.* *All 3 of us are in agreement that the trophies 'won' during this period were also only on loan and give full encouragement to the SFA and The SPL to 'ask' for them back 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 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. Whatever we may disagree on, I'm in full agreement here. Open the can of worms and let's see what horrors spill out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Why are former fans of Rangers FC (R.I.P.) so upset about the starring role that Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs played in the demise and ultimate death of their club? Rangers fans now have a brand new club with no debt and a great opportunity to change and dispose of much of the negative baggage (sectarianism, riots, etc, etc) of the past that resulted in the club being known as one of the most infamous football clubs on earth. Hi Adolf Bye Adolf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Whatever we may disagree on, I'm in full agreement here. Open the can of worms and let's see what horrors spill out. Then you may wish to sign the e-petition http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/42143 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Should Rangers be expelled from the SFL of using EBT side letter contracts by improperly registering players payments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Should Rangers be expelled from the SFL of using EBT side letter contracts by improperly registering players payments. Don't talk nonsense. At least try to educate yourself before spouting this crap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Sevco fans still celebrating their meaningless moral victory then ? :lol: Rangers still dead ? Chuckie still spouting shite ? Anything interesting happened today ?..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Don't talk nonsense. At least try to educate yourself before spouting this crap. East Stirlingshire got expelled for improperly reregistering Michael Andrews cause he was on loan. East Stirlingshire have been expelled from the Scottish Cup after fielding an ineligible player in their fourth-round win over Buckie Thistle, the Scottish Football Association have confirmed. Falkirk goalkeeper Michael Andrews played in last week's 1-0 victory for Shire despite the registration documents for his loan extension failing to appear at Hampden. The Irn-Bru Third Division club insisted they sent the papers to the SFA and Scottish Football League before Christmas. However, at an emergency meeting this afternoon the SFA board members determined the club should be expelled from the competition. Highland League side Buckie Thistle now face a fifth-round tie against Brechin. An SFA statement read: "Following a breach of Cup Competition rule 39.1b, East Stirlingshire have been expelled from the Scottish Cup competition. "The club were found to have fielded an ineligible player, Michael Andrews, in the above match. "The club will also lose any fourth round sponsorship monies owed. "All misconduct decisions from the original match stand. "Buckie Thistle now advance to round five." So Rangers used EBT's they can be expelled from the league for improperly disclosed payments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 East Stirlingshire got expelled for improperly reregistering Michael Andrews cause he was on loan. East Stirlingshire have been expelled from the Scottish Cup after fielding an ineligible player in their fourth-round win over Buckie Thistle, the Scottish Football Association have confirmed. Falkirk goalkeeper Michael Andrews played in last week's 1-0 victory for Shire despite the registration documents for his loan extension failing to appear at Hampden. The Irn-Bru Third Division club insisted they sent the papers to the SFA and Scottish Football League before Christmas. However, at an emergency meeting this afternoon the SFA board members determined the club should be expelled from the competition. Highland League side Buckie Thistle now face a fifth-round tie against Brechin. An SFA statement read: "Following a breach of Cup Competition rule 39.1b, East Stirlingshire have been expelled from the Scottish Cup competition. "The club were found to have fielded an ineligible player, Michael Andrews, in the above match. "The club will also lose any fourth round sponsorship monies owed. "All misconduct decisions from the original match stand. "Buckie Thistle now advance to round five." So Rangers used EBT's they can be expelled from the league for improperly disclosed payments. Like I said, you need to educate yourself. You have clearly been asleep these last few days and missed all the fun. The Tribunal found that players received recoverable loans. I am unaware of any SFA rule which requires loans to be disclosed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Don't talk nonsense. At least try to educate yourself before spouting this crap. Agree,that is stupid talk 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H Wragg Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 The Tribunal found that players received recoverable loans. I am unaware of any SFA rule which requires loans to be disclosed. I am genuinely confused as to whether or not Rangers are correct in their calls for the SPL investigation to be scrapped as they now have 'no case to answer' following the big tax case verdict. My reading of the situation is that although they have been found not liable for tax they could still be deemed to be in breach of football rules for not declaring all payments made to players for footballing activities, be it in the form of salaries or these loans. The waters are further muddied for me by a bloke in my work's insistance that ALL payments to players were declared in Rangers' accounts. Could someone clear up this specific point for me, preferably without wearing blue or green tinted specs whilst doing so? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 (edited) But the PLC were not proven tax dodgers at anytime,HMRC gave an assessment of tax owed,the PLC appealed that assessment and subsequently that appeal was upheld. Verdict in favour of The Rangers Football Club Plc. So in that respect the PLC were not proven tax dodgers,if you are alluding to Whyte withholding PAYE then you are changing track somewhat. What about the DOS case they were liquidated owing tax for Tore Andre Flo? Edited November 23, 2012 by Umbungo1874 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 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. They only had to be owed 26% of the debt to be able to vote down the CVA you don't need to be the largest creditor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bendarroch Posted November 23, 2012 Share Posted November 23, 2012 Lucky b*****d, it has been a long time since I had enough hair left on my heid for any of this windswept shite What music did you have playing in the background? Berlin? Nah, mate, didn't think of Lou Reed at the time. God Save the Queen sprang to mind, then Land of Hope and Glory, but I eventually settled on Orange Juice Blues (by The Band). It is old, but it is beautiful and its colours they are fine. Seemed about right... 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.