Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Bendarroch]

Talking of tax cases ... how is Neil Lennon doing?

http://www.dailyreco...me-blow-1173612

That's pyoor different so it is.

Rangers avoid tax - the morals of the nation are in peril. Think of the hospitals, think of the forces...

Plastics avoid tax - shrewd, understandable, who can blame them, f**k the hospitals and the forces...

Edited November 23, 2012 by Bendarroch

[Bairnforever1992]

That's pyoor different so it is.

Rangers avoid tax - the morals of the nation are in peril.

Plastics avoid tax - shrewd, understandable, who can blame them, f**k the hospitals and the forces...

Rangers liquidated for nothing doh!

[flyingrodent]

Look ... it was a tax avoidance scheme. We all know that. It was used by lots of people and lots of companies and it was all legal. The Tribunal established that fact.

Now, we can all have a view as to whether tax avoidance schemes are moral or immoral. But while they are legal they will get used. Just look how many well-known people have been using various schemes such as film companies for just that purpose.

The only issue we are left with now is the SPL/SFA investigation into dual contracts. My view is that this decision will make that much more difficult and will open the SFA/SPL to being challenged in the Court of Session if they try to strip any titles. The result of the Tribunal has made this into a high risk strategy for the SPL/SFA. My guess is that it will fizzle out with a strongly worded statement and nothing more.

I take your point here, and maybe it's because I had a court job many moons ago, but I always thought we as a nation took a vague interest in justice.

I feel like I've been coming at this from totally the wrong angle. I've been thinking of it as primarily a matter of football justice.

After checking the dissenting opinion, I now think the football issue is a comical triviality, and that it'll be a travesty of justice if nobody winds up in prison.

[Monkey Tennis]

Let me get this right

HMRC wrongly accuse Rangers of stealing £49M

Rangers get a little upset over this and understandably don't feel like cooperating with said accusers, but as a good will gesture offer said accusers £10M so they can get on with playing football

Even by your standards Tedi, that constitutes a brilliantly fantastical interpretation of events.

As you well know, the £10m offer was not a goodwill gesture; it was an attempt to pay much, much less than the sum Murray thought he'd been caught out for. Despite his noises this week, it's abundantly clear that Murray also thought Rangers would lose this case - pretty compelling evidence that they should have done.

Had Rangers really wanted to "get on with playing football", they wouldn't have delayed and obstructed the process at every turn.

[Paquis]

I take your point here, and maybe it's because I had a court job many moons ago, but I always thought we as a nation took a vague interest in justice.

I feel like I've been coming at this from totally the wrong angle. I've been thinking of it as primarily a matter of football justice.

After checking the dissenting opinion, I now think the football issue is a comical triviality, and that it'll be a travesty of justice if nobody winds up in prison.

In terms of football justice ..... as the EBT scheme was legal, any other club could have used it. As such, Rangers derived no advantage.

In terms of morality I think we need to be intellectually honest here. The vast majority of people will take whatever steps are available to them to reduce the amount of tax they pay. I know that I certainly do. That could be as simple as getting tax relief on pension contributions or charitable donations. Some people and companies have more opportunity to take advantage of tax avoidance schemes than ordinary people. But that does not change the 'morality'.

I really don't see how anyone can wind up in prison. The dissenting opinion represents a minority viewpoint. Dr. Poon is entitled to that view. But it does not represent a finding in law.

[Paquis]

Even by your standards Tedi, that constitutes a brilliantly fantastical interpretation of events.

As you well know, the £10m offer was not a goodwill gesture; it was an attempt to pay much, much less than the sum Murray thought he'd been caught out for. Despite his noises this week, it's abundantly clear that Murray also thought Rangers would lose this case - pretty compelling evidence that they should have done.

Had Rangers really wanted to "get on with playing football", they wouldn't have delayed and obstructed the process at every turn.

The £10m offer was a calculated gamble. Murray knew that fighting the case was going to cost a lot of money in legal and other fees. Several millions as it transpired. He also knew there was a risk that he could lose the case. The higher the risk the more he would be willing to settle for. That he 'only' offered £10m suggests that he estimated his risk of losing at around 10% - 20%. Had he thought he had a 50% chance of losing then he would have offered a lot more.

[Monkey Tennis]

In terms of morality I think we need to be intellectually honest here. The vast majority of people will take whatever steps are available to them to reduce the amount of tax they pay. I know that I certainly do.

I could be wrong here Paquis, but I'm guesing that like me, you're no multi-millionaire. I'm also guessing that you've taken part in no scheme which has sailed as close to the wind legally as this one.

The 2-1 verdict suggest there's a debate over the legality of this scheme. Morally, there is no debate whatever.

[Paquis]

I could be wrong here Paquis, but I'm guesing that like me, you're no multi-millionaire. I'm also guessing that you've taken part in no scheme which has sailed as close to the wind legally as this one.

The 2-1 verdict suggest there's a debate over the legality of this scheme. Morally, there is no debate whatever.

As I said earlier, 2-1 isn't a draw. It is a win for Murray Group.

Morality is a much more subjective issue.

I pay as little tax as I can get away with although, as you point out, I have not taken part in any of these more 'imaginative' schemes.

[Monkey Tennis]

The £10m offer was a calculated gamble. Murray knew that fighting the case was going to cost a lot of money in legal and other fees. Several millions as it transpired. He also knew there was a risk that he could lose the case. The higher the risk the more he would be willing to settle for. That he 'only' offered £10m suggests that he estimated his risk of losing at around 10% - 20%. Had he thought he had a 50% chance of losing then he would have offered a lot more.

That's laughable logic mate. Had he identifed a risk of 80%, would he have offered £40m?

The fact that he offered as substantial a sum as he did, indicates strongly that he felt he was in desperate trouble and completely gives the lie to his claims that this week's verdict was to be anticipated.

[Monkey Tennis]

As I said earlier, 2-1 isn't a draw. It is a win for Murray Group.

Of course it's not a draw, which is why I didn't call it one.

That learned individuals could not reach a unanimous decision over a long period of time however, suggests there's a debate. That's the bit I said.

[flyingrodent]

In terms of football justice ..... as the EBT scheme was legal, any other club could have used it. As such, Rangers derived no advantage.

In terms of morality I think we need to be intellectually honest here. The vast majority of people will take whatever steps are available to them to reduce the amount of tax they pay. I know that I certainly do. That could be as simple as getting tax relief on pension contributions or charitable donations. Some people and companies have more opportunity to take advantage of tax avoidance schemes than ordinary people. But that does not change the 'morality'.

I really don't see how anyone can wind up in prison. The dissenting opinion represents a minority viewpoint. Dr. Poon is entitled to that view. But it does not represent a finding in law.

Your attitude is considerably more charitable than mine but then, paying tax isn't optional for me. Nor is it optional for anyone I know and certainly, these kinds of exotic, bullshit scams for jamming your pockets full of cash are unlikely to be available for most P&B regulars.

Still, at least these articles about Dave feeling hard-done-by can give us a bit of a laugh. The giant, clanking brass balls on the man are absolutely unbelievable.

[Paquis]

That's laughable logic mate. Had he identifed a risk of 80%, would he have offered £40m?

The fact that he offered as substantial a sum as he did, indicates strongly that he felt he was in desperate trouble and completely gives the lie to his claims that this week's verdict was to be anticipated.

Well, I think you have two viewpoints here.

First, I think Murray reckoned his chances of winning the case were pretty good but not 100%. Remember, he had access to a lot of legal opinion both when setting up the EBTs and when the case came along. With a potential liability of £90+ million, offering £10 million is a pretty confident step.

However, I do think that HMRC were also pretty confident which is why they declined to settle. That said, when you are spending public money on your case it is easy to go all the way.

[Paquis]

Your attitude is considerably more charitable than mine but then, paying tax isn't optional for me. Nor is it optional for anyone I know and certainly, these kinds of exotic, bullshit scams for jamming your pockets full of cash are unlikely to be available for most P&B regulars.

Still, at least these articles about Dave feeling hard-done-by can give us a bit of a laugh. The giant, clanking brass balls on the man are absolutely unbelievable.

No, paying tax is not optional. The issue is not whether or not you pay tax but how much you pay.

I don't have a lot of time for Murray. For me, he is and always has been a chancer of the first order.

[bennett]

is it the Rangers way to say something then only to retract it at a later date ? Do you remember your 2nd post on this thread ?

How you have changed your tune since your former dead club has won it's appeal EH !

So Benny do you still believe that your former club used EBT's illegally effectively cheating ?

First of all i'd like to thank you for this, as it proves that i did indeed post in this thread from early days despite accusations from Norman to the contrary.

Anyway on to the quote in question "We live in hope but i reckon that we've used the EBT's wrongly so we'll get f**ked"

I've highlighted part of it which says to me that you've deliberately taken it out of context, obviously i can't remember posts from almost a year ago but it shows the power of false information which was force fed to us through our impartial media that i had doubts.

To call it cheating shows that you are fishing.

[Monkey Tennis]

Well, I think you have two viewpoints here.

First, I think Murray reckoned his chances of winning the case were pretty good but not 100%. Remember, he had access to a lot of legal opinion both when setting up the EBTs and when the case came along. With a potential liability of £90+ million, offering £10 million is a pretty confident step.

However, I do think that HMRC were also pretty confident which is why they declined to settle. That said, when you are spending public money on your case it is easy to go all the way.

Ok, I don't accept your view of how lightly Murray would just offer £10m on the off chance of defeat; but even if I did, it wouldn't explain why his group were so unco-operative with the investigation.

Can you offer an explanation for that?

[Mason Boyne]

Can't give away tickets for the piggery

https://touch.livingsocial.com/cities/69/deals/523320-celtic-f-c-premium-match-day-experience

[flyingrodent]

No, paying tax is not optional. The issue is not whether or not you pay tax but how much you pay.

I don't have a lot of time for Murray. For me, he is and always has been a chancer of the first order.

I never had a strong opinion on the man before but now, I'd say he's about on a level with guys who mug grannies for money for crack.

In fact, no - at least crackheads can claim to be compelled beyond their will by a force outwith their control. Sir Dave, on the other hand, is a scheming, mendacious crook.

Still, at least it's not my club he destroyed.

[Monkey Tennis]

I never had a strong opinion on the man before but now, I'd say he's about on a level with guys who mug grannies for money for crack.

In fact, no - at least crackheads can claim to be compelled beyond their will by a force outwith their control. Sir Dave, on the other hand, is a scheming, mendacious crook.

Still, at least it's not my club he destroyed.

I firmly believe Murray to be an absolutely despicable shit of a man.

If I got the choice between seeing Rangers being stripped of titles, or seeing him go to jail, I'd struggle to choose. I Think I'd ask Heidi Poon to decide for me.

[SS-18 ICBM]

I firmly believe Murray to be an absolutely despicable shit of a man.

If I got the choice between seeing Rangers being stripped of titles, or seeing him go to jail, I'd struggle to choose. I Think I'd ask Heidi Poon to decide for me.

"That'll do for me."

[Bearwithme]

Your attitude is considerably more charitable than mine but then, paying tax isn't optional for me. Nor is it optional for anyone I know and certainly, these kinds of exotic, bullshit scams for jamming your pockets full of cash are unlikely to be available for most P&B regulars.

Still, at least these articles about Dave feeling hard-done-by can give us a bit of a laugh. The giant, clanking brass balls on the man are absolutely unbelievable.

Maybe you could reduce the amount of tax you pay e.g. by the use of an ISA. Or are folk who uses ISAs evil?