The_Kincardine Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 You never heard of making an example of someone? Similar to how we point and laugh at you for your outdated British nationalism, misplaced sense of superiority and dreadful "all about the rangers" patter. You find it helps put others off following the same dangerous path. Some cyclist forgot to shave his legs this morning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 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. A decision in the Court of Session regarding UK tax will be followed in English cases in the FTT and UTT. 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. If a tax case has been decided in the Supreme Court in either country the lower courts in the other country will be bound by it.Anyway, I did say that I "thought" there were other cases, I don't know if there are. I do think it is more likely that HMRC are appealing it because they will use it as a precedent to settle other cases, though. I don't think they're doing it for the shits. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 From the sun RANGERS have received a cash boost after winning their long-running legal fight with Neil Alexander. An independent SPFL tribunal awarded the former Ibrox goalkeeper £84,000 in December after ruling that the club had breached his contract 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Answer the fucking question rather than regurgitating shite we have all heard before. Even if I gave you the "fucking" answer there is no way on God's green Earth there is even the slightest whiff of a chance you'd notice it. The fact that you have now adopted a new truth that Joseph Goebbels would be jealous of, the club is now some sort of mythical entity that can't be legally put to death. So to answer your question how can a club now have legal representation when it can't and won't be recognised by the judicial system ?, it's the company that operates the club that has all the legal shit to deal with seeing as the club is merely a tool that the company uses/operates as a trading device/mechanism. Yer mask slipped again didn't it Kinky ?, you can't even keep the Gestapo party line the club is separate from the legal pish and it's the company that runs the club that has to deal with legal shenanigans because it has abused the club in some manner and that the club will be the victim of someone else's mismanagement. So it will be someone else facing any legal shite for using the company that owns the club and has used the club for any illegal activities. So if you think what I have posted is a lot of pish then we'll all know you are a bare faced liar that it is the very same club you still support. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 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. This is why I said, "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." I am actually surprised that people aren't angry as f**k at HMRC over this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Even if I gave you the "fucking" answer there is no way on God's green Earth there is even the slightest whiff of a chance you'd notice it. The fact that you have now adopted a new truth that Joseph Goebbels would be jealous of, 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Aye, those horrid fuckers at HMRC pursuing potential tax evasion from upstanding knights of the realm, whit they like? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint john Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 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 ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 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. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 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 ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chimneyman Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 Just wait until The Rangers and their 500 million fans take their money elsewhere. The Scottish economy will be fucked! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted May 14, 2015 Share Posted May 14, 2015 (edited) 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 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. 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.