Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[saint john]

This, chap, is why you should not make blithe statements such as, "I think HMRC continue to appeal the Rangers case because there are a number of other EBT cases which are awaiting the outcome."

The First and Upper Tax Tribunals are UK-wide courts. HMRC have lost in both rounds. Thereafter, cases are heard in The Court of Session (Scotland) and Court of Appeal (England). Those courts operate under the different legal bases of Scotland and England. Neither you nor I nor anyone else (polling The QC) has any clue if a Court of Session judgement sets a precedent for The Court of Appeal.

Ergo, even if HMRC win on their third try against Rangers it may make f**k all difference to other organisations they are pursuing who, as you suggested, are largely based in England.

Until I hear/see/read that judgments in Scotland's Court of Session are regularly used as precedent in England's legal system then I maintain that HMRC taking this case beyond the UTT is nothing but malign.

This might help!!!

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/two-jurisdictions-a-shared-inheritance

[hellbhoy]

Jesus f**k QC. The 'fact' is that Flash and I had a decent exchange over this. I asked:

Explain how a judgement in The Court of Session sets a precedent in England's Court of Appeal.

He answered:

It would be unusual, although not unheard of, for the Court of Appeal not to follow a tax case decision from the Court of Session.

That was all. A sensible question responded to by a sensible poster No mention of Goebbels or The War and not one set of knickers fankled.

This was your initial post asking a question.

Almost certainly you won't be able to explain how winning a tax case against Rangers will help HMRC in other cases. In framing an answer explain which other Scottish clubs they are investigating and say how a judgement in The Court of Session sets a precedent in England's Court of Appeal.

Bold and in red is where you went wrong from the initial question. The Gestapo party line from Govan HQ and the suits in the associations is that the club is separate from the company who has the legal shit to deal with.

So in simple terms "NO CLUB" will ever under go any investigation or legal action because it is the company who owns and operates the club that will be held liable for all the companies misgivings by misusing or mismanaging the club. The club is merely a tool the company uses to (don't giggle) make money from the financial sector that is sporting activities.

The clubs reward for good management is to win trophies and titles for the fans whilst making money ( ) for the owners from operating the club in association competitions.

This is why you Rangers fans are so fucking thick to a man at times by allowing yourselves to be willingly conned but can't keep up the pretence for too long about the club being separate from the owners who now use a company to operate and run the club. Got it now ?

[The_Kincardine]

This was your initial post asking a question.

Bold and in red is where you went wrong from the initial question. The Gestapo party line from Govan HQ and the suits in the associations is that the club is separate from the company who has the legal shit to deal with.

You are fucking havering, frankly.

Flash gave a decent and sensible reply. I cannot fathom why you can't simply accept that. I do.

[hellbhoy]

Aye, those horrid fuckers at HMRC pursuing potential tax evasion from upstanding knights of the realm, whit they like?

Tax according to orc philosophy

A, Any money Rangers can tax from the government is money invested into the Queen's 11 and it's her money, right.

B, That's for other people to worry about.

C, Fcuk all to do with the club, it's the company that deals with it.

D, It's better spent on players to put them scum in their rightful place, in our shadow.

E, It's a warchest.

F, It's to be avoided.

G, The players buy things with the money and it gets taxed when they buy shit, right ?

[chimneyman]

Just wait until The Rangers and their 500 million fans take their money elsewhere. The Scottish economy will be fucked!

[hellbhoy]

You are fucking havering, frankly.

Flash gave a decent and sensible reply. I cannot fathom why you can't simply accept that. I do.

Yes flash did give a sensible reply to your legal requirements in the field of companies.

I am pointing out that you can't keep up the charade about the club is separate from the company by making and asking questions as if the club has any legal obligations by any judicial system as if you still view the club as a company that trades in football.

So Kinky, you are supposed to post according to your warped view it's still the very same club that the club has no legal representation at all in any way shape or form. This is because you can have many companies owning and operating the club nowadays, but it will always be the company who owns the club, and operates the club that will have all the legal shit to deal with. If the company goes broke then the associations will allow new owners to make a company to once again clone and own and operate the club.

[THE KING]

Indeed Im a backward w****r that thinks its against the ASA rules to have a sale.

Indeed

Edited May 15, 2015 by THE KING

[THE KING]

Rumours of the following announcements tomorrow.

DK to be passed fit and proper.

The board will refuse the request for the EGM.

Neil Alexander has lost his appeal for £86k and will have to pay Rangers legal fees.

Probably all shite.

No need to use (probably) in one of your posts.

[nsr]

Just wait until The Rangers and their 500 million fans take their money elsewhere. The Scottish economy will be fucked!

The The Rangers fans don't contribute to the economy. None of them have jobs.

[cyderspaceman]

Just wait until The Rangers and their 500 million fans take their money elsewhere. The Scottish economy will be fucked!

This would imply that they and their money (ha!) go somewhere else, preferably far, far away. I think we could live with that.

[Jacksgranda]

Because Rangers FC were by far the worst offenders in abusing the scheme by avoiding the full amount paid to players for services rendered in the loans. All the other EBT scams by others never even came close to the amount of tax your dead club avoided paying. At least the other companies abusing the system paid actual TAX through the scheme to keep the HMRC of their backs. Most other companies syphoned of a couple of million or two but your dead club went way out of it's way to rip the pish right out of a legal pension scheme to pay out countless tens of millions of money the HMRC were due to players the dead club could never have signed without conning the HMRC.

This isn't about Scottish football clubs, this is about companies trying to rip off the Government by avoiding the full amount of tax they should be paying into the public coffers. In your dead clubs case ?, they were by far the worst offenders and even laughed about it that the HMRC couldn't or wouldn't catch them and even increased the amount they paid players whilst under investigation ffs.

Avoiding tax is perfectly legal - spare me any sanctimonious clap trap about morality.

Evasion is illegal. Perhaps HMRC are trying to prove that these EBTs were evasion rather than avoidance? I can't see that being an easy task.

[Jacksgranda]

I'm not aware of any other Scottish clubs that they are investigating. There will probably be other companies, though.

Is it not the case that where UK tax law is involved, it is conventional for decisions in Scotland to be used as precedents in England and vice versa, unless there is a specific legal difference that decided the case?

I thought decisions in Scottish cases involving UK tax were routinely quoted in English cases of the same nature, but I could be wrong.

I seem to vaguely remember reading this somewhere, but wasn't 100% sure it was correct.

[cyderspaceman]

Rumours of the following announcements tomorrow.

DK to be passed fit and proper.

The board will refuse the request for the EGM.

Neil Alexander has lost his appeal for £86k and will have to pay Rangers legal fees.

Probably all shite.

Being reported in the Scottish Sun. Nowhere else, it seems.

[THE KING]

Avoiding tax is perfectly legal - spare me any sanctimonious clap trap about morality.

Evasion is illegal. Perhaps HMRC are trying to prove that these EBTs were evasion rather than avoidance? I can't see that being an easy task.

Everyone knows avoidance is legal, doesn't mean they cant force you to pay it though.

[Jacksgranda]

Everyone knows avoidance is legal, doesn't mean they cant force you to pay it though.

HMRC can't force you to pay legally avoided tax.

However, they can try to recover what you thought was legally avoided tax if it can be proved to be not avoided but evaded.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Jacksgranda

[THE KING]

Only if they can prove that it is evasion instead.

HMRC can't force you to pay legally avoided tax.

However, they can try to recover what you thought was legally avoided tax if it can be proved to be not avoided but evaded.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27356896

Three members of the band Take That may have to pay back millions of pounds in tax after a tribunal ruling.

Gary Barlow, Howard Donald and Mark Owen - along with manager Jonathan Wild - were among about 1,000 people who put money into schemes purportedly supporting the music industry.

But tribunal Judge Colin Bishopp ruled the partnerships had actually been set up for tax avoidance purposes.

Edited May 15, 2015 by THE KING

[Insaintee]

You'd be absolutely correct by thinking that the new club/company is not liable for the old club/companies debts, they are two legally recognised separate entities by law. One is being wound up and liquidated and the other wants to join it before it is wound up.

Apparently the HMRC are going to pursue the recipients of the EBT scam to recoup their money due from unpaid taxes.

Should that happen, expect to see side letters galore appear.

Another thought is that The "independant" inquiry cleared the club due to them not being found Guilty. If they are found guilty then what then for those titles?

[Insaintee]

This, chap, is why you should not make blithe statements such as, "I think HMRC continue to appeal the Rangers case because there are a number of other EBT cases which are awaiting the outcome."

The First and Upper Tax Tribunals are UK-wide courts. HMRC have lost in both rounds. Thereafter, cases are heard in The Court of Session (Scotland) and Court of Appeal (England). Those courts operate under the different legal bases of Scotland and England. Neither you nor I nor anyone else (polling The QC) has any clue if a Court of Session judgement sets a precedent for The Court of Appeal.

Ergo, even if HMRC win on their third try against Rangers it may make f**k all difference to other organisations they are pursuing who, as you suggested, are largely based in England.

Until I hear/see/read that judgments in Scotland's Court of Session are regularly used as precedent in England's legal system then I maintain that HMRC taking this case beyond the UTT is nothing but malign.

HMRC had incomplete victory in the second round. In the third round, the judges thought the second round judgements made no sense and order a refight over the cases rangers where no conviced on. The third round is/was tried in Englandand will most certainly have implications for English law.

Of course trying to convict guilty people is nothing but malign

[shull]

I agree with N. N. N.

[aDONisSheep]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27356896

Three members of the band Take That may have to pay back millions of pounds in tax after a tribunal ruling.

Gary Barlow, Howard Donald and Mark Owen - along with manager Jonathan Wild - were among about 1,000 people who put money into schemes purportedly supporting the music industry.

But tribunal Judge Colin Bishopp ruled the partnerships had actually been set up for tax avoidance purposes.

Is this the same Judge Colin Bishopp as this one;

"Although the professional football team known as

Rangers had played in the Scottish Premier League until 2012, the collapse led to the

ejection of the team from that league, and a team known as Rangers now plays in the

Scottish Third Division."

or this

"....but it should nevertheless

not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of

an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common

purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its

shareholders. "

I like him, he's my favourite judge

Yours

aDONis