Umbungo1874 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 They did pay all taxes due...Ennglish clubs cost the tax payer hundreds of millions using these schemes but the taxman was willing to deal with them..So why did our first minister not ask why a Scottish was dealt differently? FFS its an easy enough question. When did they pay the tax due on the Wee Tax Case I think you will find at the end up it was about 6 million they still owed for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 It does not answer the question at all. You asked why HMRC acted as it did and why Salmond didn't intervene - as I said, I think HMRC acted properly, and it's a fact that government ministers aren't allowed to intervene directly in tax disputes or any similar matter. Any intervention by the First Minister would be a pretty clear breach of the ministerial code, no different than if he'd tried to intervene to prevent someone accused of a crime from being prosecuted. If you have good reasons to disagree with either of these answers, feel free to explain them. (BTW I realise that you want the answers "Because HMRC hated Old Rangers for some unknown reason" and "Because Salmond hated Rangers", and won't accept anything much less wacky. Nobody is going to give you those answers though, not least because they're very silly). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Nonsense. Rangers used a legal tax avoidance scheme.....they were not alone. In 2010 HMRC closed the loophole which allowed this scheme to operate, then they wrongly tried to apply retrospective punishment, it was always doomed to failure, complete waste of taxpayers money. This isn't the case, Ted. If it was, the Oldco wouldn't have admitted to running numerous non-compliant schemes, and they wouldn't still be on the hook for more of them. Really, this is quite an important point - you actually were running schemes that violated the law, and your lawyers admitted that you'd done it in court and accepted the penalty. That in itself confirms that HMRC were correct to pursue you. And since your lawyers admitted that these schemes were illegal at the time and accepted the penalty, this can't possibly be "retroactive punishment" - it's just "punishment" or, as it's more commonly known, "justice". HMRC couldn't prove that the entire thing was a fraud, of course, but what you're saying here boils down to Prosecutors shouldn't pursue suspected criminals if they're not absolutely certain that they can secure a conviction. Which is a daft thing to be saying, if you think about it. Edited July 11, 2014 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Hector pursues scumballs tax cheats all the time. Note to fellow Bears: Even though we won the FTT and the UTT voted in Oldco's favour and even if the LNS inquiry agreed we gained, "No sporting advantage" the mind of the average P&B diddy and plastic is made up. We are regarded simply tax-cheating scum. There is no way to argue against it rationally so we just have to accept the view, shrug our shoulders and move on. Anything else become petty tit-for-tat minutiae. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Note to fellow Bears: Even though we won the FTT and the UTT voted in Oldco's favour and even if the LNS inquiry agreed we gained, "No sporting advantage" the mind of the average P&B diddy and plastic is made up. We are regarded simply tax-cheating scum. There is no way to argue against it rationally so we just have to accept the view, shrug our shoulders and move on. Anything else become petty tit-for-tat minutiae. 1999: Rangers open a discounted option scheme (DOS) specifically for payments to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer. 2011: 1 April - Rangers announce a £2.8m tax liability over an issue relating to 1999-2003 (the DOS) This tax liability has still not been payed so explain how this is not cheating Tax? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20417847 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 On the ones that were not administered correctly I agree but on the ones that were, they tried to dish out retrospective punishments, that's what those tax bills were, it really cannot be denied. HMRC could not prove the entire thing was fraud because it simply wasn't, how many cases do you want HMRC to lose before you finally get this? HMRC pay top-dollar for the best forensic accountants and company lawyers that they can buy, Tedi. Do you think that they'd chase you over a decade, all the way to an appeal, if they really thought that their entire argument was as weak as you're claiming it was? I suppose that it's always possible that HMRC's investigators pursued you out of malice, or monomania or whatever. On the other hand, if the accountants and lawyers presented a case to the court that they knew to be invalid, then they're all in violation of their own profession's regulatory code and are liable to be disbarred from practicing, possibly permanently. Do you think all these people were willing to risk their entire careers, just to put one over Rangers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Note to fellow Bears: Even though we won the FTT and the UTT voted in Oldco's favour and even if the LNS inquiry agreed we gained, "No sporting advantage" the mind of the average P&B diddy and plastic is made up. We are regarded simply tax-cheating scum. There is no way to argue against it rationally so we just have to accept the view, shrug our shoulders and move on. Anything else become petty tit-for-tat minutiae. So the dead club left no taxes unpaid? That is what you are saying. Correct? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 HMRC pay top-dollar for the best forensic accountants and company lawyers that they can buy, Tedi. They don't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 If you cant answer the questions just say so. I ve been away for a few days and just wondered why Scotlands first minister allowed a Scottish club being treated differently to pass without any comment Thought it was the company, nothing to do with "the club"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So the dead club left no taxes unpaid? That is what you are saying. Correct? Sorry Bing. When I thought I was dealing with rational people I forgot about you. That is not at all what I am saying and how you gain that from my post is beyond. Seeing as I mentioned, 'fellow bears' it's good to see you join in. We always kent who your big team was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Sorry Bing. When I thought I was dealing with rational people I forgot about you. That is not at all what I am saying and how you gain that from my post is beyond. Seeing as I mentioned, 'fellow bears' it's good to see you join in. We always kent who your big team was. We are regarded simply tax-cheating scum. There is no way to argue against it rationally Yep, how did I think you were saying Rangers were not tax cheating scum.....foolish me. I blame my stoopidness on my long association with the dead club Not easy for us Bears, that had investments in a club, then watched it die, whilst usurpers try to claim 'continuity' and not give the value back to the correct company for the assets they stole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 The_Arsehole has spoken P&B ers.... Why are cabbages like The_Arsehole and ra peepul so upset, I only see one angry person here, Jonnybhoy and he isn't wearing grey and green hoops. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Green and grey hoops... oh the bantz.. tell us more about rolls royce and sevco. Oh goodness, Jonnybhoy. Yer dander is fairly up tonight. Come on, regale us with more of your wit and erudition. Seems ages since we had some of your insightful and acerbic good humour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So reading through the last page i've learned that HMRC apparently acted correctly throughout this sorry episode. Leaking confidential information to celticminded bloggers is acting correctly. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 The_Arsehole no grammar or spelling mistakes to make ya feel intellectually superior today?? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidation Are you on the old fire water again? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I have never claimed it was malice, monomania or any other daft ideas at play, dunno why you feel the need to go down this path with me. My argument has always been that companies will always try to exploit loopholes in order to avoid paying tax, if this is done legally then I really have no problem with it, HMRC should be looking to close these loops if they are too advantageous, again I have no issue with this, however to then try to retrospectively apply punishments after the horse has bolted is simply wrong. This is what HMRC tried to do and this is why they lost, it seems to me your anti Rangers bias is not allowing you to see this extremely simple logic. Okay, let's assume for argument that you're right here. Who knows? You may be. If, as you're saying, HMRC based their case on attempting to bust you with "retrospective punishments" and thought they could slip this past the court on the sly without anyone noticing, this would be both a major schoolboy error and a career-ending balls-up. It'd be such a massive balls-up that really, it can't conceivably happen unless clever people in senior positions at HMRC were basically acting out of sheer spite. Further, it'd be such a massive balls-up that any half-competent judge should've spotted it at the very first hearing, a decade ago, and at every hearing since. Which is why I was talking about malice and monomania. If you're contending that HMRC attempted to do you on obviously non-applicable retrospective punishments, what you're saying is that everyone involved - the accountants, the lawyers and the judges, at every stage - must have been hopelessly incompetent beyond belief*. Is that what you're saying? *It also implies that Sir Dave's legal team are shockingly poor, if it's taken them a decade to get a partial result in such and open-and-shut case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Oh goodness, Jonnybhoy. Yer dander is fairly up tonight. Come on, regale us with more of your wit and erudition. Seems ages since we had some of your insightful and acerbic good humour. Zaliukas Ill start the sentence for ya.. Rolls Royce is like the rangers cause..... Excellent, JB. You're getting so good at this humour stuff. Can you please post more often? We miss you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) Again, these are your suggestions, not mine, you have a habit of doing this. It's true, I do. On the other hand, there really is no other way that what you're saying can be true, if it didn't happen much like that. Edited July 11, 2014 by flyingrodent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 "rangers are like Rolls Royce cause...... OK you have gone from trying to being funny to simply being perplexing. Which of RR's causes would you like to link to Rangers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing (2) Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So reading through the last page i've learned that HMRC apparently acted correctly throughout this sorry episode. Leaking confidential information to celticminded bloggers is acting correctly. And the leaks from the myriad of stock exchange companies in control at Ibrox is what? 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.