Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[AberdeenBud]

Ola!

So just back from an utterly fantastic week in Lisbon with the missus ( Would thoroughly recommend it as a destination for a diverse city break), since I'm not going to read the last 50 pages or so, what have I missed apart from the BBC reaffirming the Death of RFC in Scots Law?

Please say Hans Christian Bennet has returned with more stories to entertain us all?

[No8.]

Ola!

So just back from an utterly fantastic week in Lisbon with the missus ( Would thoroughly recommend it as a destination for a diverse city break), since I'm not going to read the last 50 pages or so, what have I missed apart from the BBC reaffirming the Death of RFC in Scots Law?

Please say Hans Christian Bennet has returned with more stories to entertain us all?

Bad Day just came out as a big Tim Minchin fan.

[AberdeenBud]

So no word from Benny?

I think someone should contact a (failed) social worker or lawyer.

[aofjays]

Bad Day just came out as a big Tim Minchin fan.

He's missed out "motherfucking". Some fan. Bet he doesn't even go to the concerts.

[AberdeenBud]

Wow, I see Charlotte has leaked Sir Minty of Monnbeams FTTT witness statement!

[captain kirk]

Wow, I see Charlotte has leaked Sir Minty of Monnbeams FTTT witness statement!

Minty admitting his tax dodging scheme gave deadco an advantage in getting players

Q. As regards football players, was it a success in getting good football players, do you think?

Minty: As a club, we have been very successful, because we've been able to attract players of a certain standard that, perhaps, we may not have been able to do otherwise.

Ps "As a club" not company.

[AUFC90]

Minty admitting his tax dodging scheme gave deadco an advantage in getting players

Q. As regards football players, was it a success in getting good football players, do you think?

Minty: As a club, we have been very successful, because we've been able to attract players of a certain standard that, perhaps, we may not have been able to do otherwise.

Ps "As a club" not company.

Why would a club be present at tax tribunal ? Is it maybe because club and company are one and the same ?

[AberdeenBud]

On his introduction he explains to the FTTT that he has a knighthood and 2 honorary doctorates from 2 universities.

Rattled.

[captain kirk]

Of course it gave an advantage, a completely legal advantage.

It was not a tax dodge but a tax avoidance scheme.

That's yet to be decided.

[AUFC90]

That's yet to be decided.

Yep, sure is. We all know( including tedi) that they were wages. Proving it? Well that's a different matter.

[AberdeenBud]

Of course it gave an advantage, a completely legal advantage.

It was not a tax dodge but a tax avoidance scheme.

So completely legal that liability was admitted in a great number of cases and it's ultimate legality is yet to be determined by a UTTT.

[AberdeenBud]

Minty admitting his tax dodging scheme gave deadco an advantage in getting players

Q. As regards football players, was it a success in getting good football players, do you think?

Minty: As a club, we have been very successful, because we've been able to attract players of a certain standard that, perhaps, we may not have been able to do otherwise.

Ps "As a club" not company.

No sporting advantage.

[Fotbawmad]

Of course it gave an advantage, a completely legal advantage.

It was not a tax dodge but a tax avoidance scheme.

What about the fact he's already pled guilty to most of the EBTs? Sporting advantage, or just an administrative error?

[AberdeenBud]

That is the judgement in law as it stands, the ongoing appeal makes no difference to this.

Must say you and King seem to be pinning a lot of hope of this appeal which is puzzling given the fact that HMRC have yet to win an EBT case and have lost another 2 since losing the Rangers case.

Nonsense;

Litigation involving EBTs

HMRC has been successful in litigating cases which have involved EBTs as part of the arrangement(s) entered into by a company/employer. The most significant of these cases is HMRC Commissioners v PA Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ. 1414 where the Court of Appeal decision upheld HMRC's arguments that an arrangement intended to deliver a bonus through an EBT was subject to tax and NICs as earnings.

HMRC considers that the Court of Appeal judgment supports its view that arrangements to avoid PAYE and NICs through the use of EBT structures do not work. HMRC's view in relation to EBTs is published in Spotlight 5 (see the link below). For many EBTs, the allocation is the point at which the funds go into a sub-trust for the individual employee or their family but ultimately when the charging point for PAYE and NIC arises will depend on the facts of the

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/ebt-news0812.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you're struggling without Vicky Benny to prop you up now Tedi.

Tedi needs a strong Benny.

[AberdeenBud]

What they have done is admitted liability on a few tax bills, basically they agreed with them, on the ones they did not admit liability on they were found not guilty.

No sporting advantage gained and I will take the word of a law lord over some no mark on an internet forum thanks all the same.

What about a Knight of the Realm, would you take his word?

[Guest]

[aofjays]

I think you will find that PA holdings withdrew their appeal, who knows what would have happened if this had not happened, the fact remains in the cases where HMRC have been forced to fight they have lost and lost a lot of tax payers money in the process.

HMRC spotted the loophole and closed it in 2010 and are now trying for retrospective punishments which are simply wrong.

So you admit you were talking pish? This is progress.

[wunfellaff]

I am glad that you also think HMRC have little chance of winning and this is really a waste of taxpayers money, indeed we are making progress.

I don't know tedi.... the fact rangers paid non employees an employees benefit trust must not go down well at the appeal.

Boumsong got 200 grand afore he was an employee. Don't think that is particularly legal, or will you say it is ok ?

We await the teds verdict.

[captain kirk]

I think you will find that PA holdings withdrew their appeal, who knows what would have happened if this had not happened, the fact remains in the cases where HMRC have been forced to fight they have lost and lost a lot of tax payers money in the process.

HMRC spotted the loophole and closed it in 2010 and are now trying for retrospective punishments which are simply wrong.

Hmrc chasing tax they believe should have been paid is wrong?!

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Nonsense;

Litigation involving EBTs

HMRC has been successful in litigating cases which have involved EBTs as part of the arrangement(s) entered into by a company/employer. The most significant of these cases is HMRC Commissioners v PA Holdings Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ. 1414 where the Court of Appeal decision upheld HMRC's arguments that an arrangement intended to deliver a bonus through an EBT was subject to tax and NICs as earnings.

HMRC considers that the Court of Appeal judgment supports its view that arrangements to avoid PAYE and NICs through the use of EBT structures do not work. HMRC's view in relation to EBTs is published in Spotlight 5 (see the link below). For many EBTs, the allocation is the point at which the funds go into a sub-trust for the individual employee or their family but ultimately when the charging point for PAYE and NIC arises will depend on the facts of the

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/news/ebt-news0812.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you're struggling without Vicky Benny to prop you up now Tedi.

Tedi needs a strong Benny.

HMRC have been successful in winning cases concerning bonus payments but have lost a good few cases where they are disputing earning. The cases where Rangers admitted liability were for the payment of bonuses and there was some testimony about players wanting European bonuses as EBTs and being told that it couldn't happen.

HMRC still lost the bulk of the cases and there victories on bonus payment for which I think Rangers admitted liability were small in terms of the overall amount sought.

By the way has anyone looked into the code names used by the court and tried to work out who's who. Barry Ferguson gets outed by the judge and I think a few more. Surprised a blogger hasn't been on it writing a Cluedo style post of Who Killed Rangers