Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[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

[Jacksgranda]

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.

Far be it from me to disagree with a judge, but I would suggest that this wasn't a tax avoidance scheme but a tax evasion scheme.

[cyderspaceman]

Far be it from me to disagree with a judge, but I would suggest that this wasn't a tax avoidance scheme but a tax evasion scheme.

Yes, that seems weird. Are they not "tax avoidance schemes" until a judge says " Naw, that's tax evasion. Pay up." ?

Also, if it is deliberate evasion from the outset ,there are criminal proceedings.

[Jacksgranda]

Yes, that seems weird. Are they not "tax avoidance schemes" until a judge says " Naw, that's tax evasion. Pay up." ?

Also, if it is deliberate evasion from the outset ,there are criminal proceedings.

"Tax avoidance is perfectly legal until I say it isn't!" is a bit "Through The Looking Glass" if you ask me.

[cyderspaceman]

As far as I am aware all evasion is classed as deliberate.

An ISA is a tax avoidance loophole that HMRC are fully aware of, the way I see EBT`s are that they were also a loophole that HMRC were not fully aware of and that they decided to close in 2010, they also decided to retrospectively send out tax bills for what they saw as money they were due but not deliberately evaded and certainly not criminal activity, Rangers appealed the majority while admitting some liability as did a fair few other companies who were sent similar bills and the rest is history.

Anyone using EBT`s after 2010 would imo be guilty of evading.

I do not really agree with retrospective tax bills for legal tax avoidance, regardless of the perceived morality, it is a bit like HMRC deciding tomorrow that they do not like ISA`s anymore and retrospectively sending out bills to millions of people.

ISAs are not a tax avoidance loophole. They were introduced by the government, not dreamt up by some highly paid financial bods. HMRC would be fully aware of them unlike the avoidance schemes or evasion tactics employed by some individuals and companies.

eta Yes, all evasion is deliberate. I was merely emphasising the point.

Edited May 15, 2015 by cyderspaceman

[cyderspaceman]

"Tax avoidance is perfectly legal until I say it isn't!" is a bit "Through The Looking Glass" if you ask me.

This is the point. They don't ask. They just go ahead using their interpretation of the rules.( Footballers break what seem s*****htforward rules but still argue with the referee.) Maybe the rules should be clearer and simpler but those in power benefit too much from them to go changing said rules.

eta WTF! "straight" has been censored I must have typed s t t a i g

Edited May 15, 2015 by cyderspaceman

[Herman Hessian]

s*****htforward

bigot !

heh...

[cyderspaceman]

I think a loophole is a fair description.

Call them Tax avoidance scheme if makes you feel easier, it does not bother me.

HMRC were aware of the EBT scheme just like they are aware of ISA`s, who invented either scheme is irrelevant, both were legal.

I don't think it's irrelevant. The authorities will investigate schemes dreamt up by others. They will not investigate whatever they set up themselves.

[THE KING]

Far be it from me to disagree with a judge, but I would suggest that this wasn't a tax avoidance scheme but a tax evasion scheme.

I'll stick with the judge thanks.

[madmitch]

The BBC explains the difference between avoidance and evasion in 90 secs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31324023

Using their definition The Rangers were evading tax.

Edited May 15, 2015 by madmitch

[THE KING]

Have the Rangers Tax experts contacted the EU commision yet to tell them that they cant do anything about Avoidance yet?

...

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3062128/Apple-warned-face-1-5bn-bill-guilty-tax-avoidance.html

..Apple warns it could face £1.5bn bill if found guilty of tax avoidance in EU

[Jacksgranda]

99% of tax avoidance schemes are for 1% of tax payers

[Jacksgranda]

ISAs are not a tax avoidance loophole. They were introduced by the government, not dreamt up by some highly paid financial bods. HMRC would be fully aware of them unlike the avoidance schemes or evasion tactics employed by some individuals and companies.

eta Yes, all evasion is deliberate. I was merely emphasising the point.

You don't pay tax on the interest, so it is a tax avoidance scheme.

[Monkey Tennis]

99% of tax avoidance schemes are for 1% of tax payers

Exactly, yet you claim that any focus on morality here, amounts to "claptrap".

It's a thoroughly bizarre stance.