dirty dingus Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Today's the day the The Teddy Bears F.C. have ....................... their cash knicked 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I suspect this morning that the board will announce before the EGM that they have taken the extra £5m, state the reasons why, which will show what they have spent it on. Will King and Co be in the same room as Lambias and shareholders today? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 He lost £20m which is what he claimed he lost. SARS took that £20m and declared it as £20m income for tax purposes the same as they did for all his large purchases including the painting which kicked this whole thing off, basically king declared his income at low level for a number of years and SARS pointed to the large purchases and said if you spent this then you must have earned it. Sounds like you've been on swallow swallow again listening to your favourite bigoted blogger Tinfoil Heed......here you go...... .SARS spokesman Adrian Lackay said yesterday the taxman stood by its tax assessment for 1990 to 2001. "There is nothing wrong with the tax assessments. They are based on benefits King received from the assets - not the assets themselves." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Sounds like you've been on swallow swallow again listening to your favourite bigoted blogger Tinfoil Heed......here you go...... .SARS spokesman Adrian Lackay said yesterday the taxman stood by its tax assessment for 1990 to 2001. "There is nothing wrong with the tax assessments. They are based on benefits King received from the assets - not the assets themselves." That does not prove your point. Look it is fairly simple, if King received a penny from Rangers then it would be in the accounts, there would be a receipt for it, please show me the payment to king in the accounts. Agree with Tedi on this one. It was poorly reported in the South African press by someone who misinterpreted the "£20m income that was invested in Rangers" as "£20m income from Rangers". I think in the end he got some benefit from losing it as he was able to write it off as a loss, reducing his tax bill in the end, but he didn't receive the money back from Rangers. King basically made a c*nt of trying to con the tax man. He let his ego get the better of him and couldn't help himself but to splash his cash. Edited March 6, 2015 by Ross. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 That does not prove your point. Look it is fairly simple, if King received a penny from Rangers then it would be in the accounts, there would be a receipt for it, please show me the payment to king in the accounts. I don't have access to Dave Kings receipts, but, SARS spent years forensically examining them and they say he recieved income from Rangers to the tune of R200 .Now Kings mouthpieces will tell you he lost his £20m investment in Rangers, correct.BUT he got about £13m income from Rangers also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (Taxed on benefits from those assets) King holds that he cannot be taxed on assets he does not own and it is on these grounds that he will take the case to the Income Tax Court. But SARS contends he can be taxed if he obtains benefits from those assets... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 You have access to the accounts...they are all online Let it go mate. He is a crackpot. There is only one King. Looking forward to having our club back and attending every game at Ibrox. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 He lost £20m which is what he claimed he lost. SARS took that £20m and declared it as £20m income for tax purposes the same as they did for all his large purchases including the painting which kicked this whole thing off, basically king declared his income at low level for a number of years and SARS pointed to the large purchases and said if you spent this then you must have earned it. I'm not entirely sure I follow. Did SARS have anything to do with him 'losing' that money or do you mention them in relation to something else ? Are you saying SARS are responsible for the 'assumption' that King received money ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I've finished my selection boxes, think I'll watch the Wizard of Oz. I'm going wait until they die to pull my cracker. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shizzlemanizzle Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 I'm going wait until they die to pull my cracker. Christmas sock at the ready! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 fucking hell 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Are the dead yet? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Does the fact his name is King trigger some inbuilt psychological control phrase inside the staunchly Royalist berrz? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 SARS are are basically saying in order for Mr king being able to afford to buy expensive things then he must have more earnings than he claimed, you do not receive income from a painting that hangs on your wall but you must have had the money to buy it so we will declare the money for you. OK, so the South African Tax Man thinks that Mr King might not have declared all his earnings and they point to him making extremely large purchases as evidence of this !? Who do you believe - SARS or King ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shizzlemanizzle Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Does the fact his name is King trigger some inbuilt psychological control phrase inside the staunchly Royalist berrz? I know you're joking but I really do think there is an element of this for a small (large) minority (majority) of The Rangers fans. They really are that stupid. God save the king! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 OK, so the South African Tax Man thinks that Mr King might not have declared all his earnings and they point to him making extremely large purchases as evidence of this !? Who do you believe - SARS or King ? SARS are notoriously glib and shameless 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Presumably they're also to blame for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SARS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 fucking hell ImageUploadedByPie & Bovril1425637220.087544.jpg That can't be real.....surely?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Mint on Davy,,, .But Murray has moved to rubbish King’s claims of non-disclosure and said today: “There’s no foundation at all to it whatsoever, there’s been no financial information held from him.” All the latest from Ibrox The former Ibrox supremo continued: “In all the times he was a director and I was chairman he had every opportunity to participate in regular board meetings and when he wasn’t there he could have phoned in. “He had the chance to approve annual audited accounts. He received the board papers always in South Africa and he had all the detailed financial commercial information. “He had every opportunity to either attend the board meetings or phone in with any questions. On not one occasion did he ever question anything. “In the period of time I was chairman there would have been 32 or 33 board meetings, all minuted, all detailed - and not one note of complaint.” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmy boo Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 There is one glaring error in that article by Spiers.....He says rangers have suffered enough!!!! 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.