Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Monkey Tennis]

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.

Rubbish.

The parallel you're attempting to draw is utterly spurious, for the reasons outlined by cyderspaceman.

[p&b is a disgrace]

It's not the use of EBT's that HMRC are contesting. It's whether the Rangers operated the scheme in an effective manner.

[Jacksgranda]

Exactly, yet you claim that any focus on morality here, amounts to "claptrap". It's a thoroughly bizarre stance.

Really? If I could apply any of these schemes to my tax affairs I would. I leave my tax affairs in the hands of my accountant - I'm sure he applies a little artistic licence to reduce my tax liability, hence allowing me to avoid tax.

I have no problem with that.

If I earned thousands and thousands of pounds, I would be looking to pay as little tax as was (legally) possible. If I paid an accountant £1,500 a month, say, I'd be expecting him to reduce my tax bill by about £25,000 annually, minimum. (I don't even earn £25,000 p.a)

This last wee while the bulk of my income has been taxed at source - I'm quite happy with that, it saves me having to shovel 25% off to pay to the tax man twice a year, even if it means I'm probably paying more tax than I would if I were getting paid as a self employed "consultant".

99% of the laws are for 1% of the people, too.

[Monkey Tennis]

Really? If I could apply any of these schemes to my tax affairs I would. I leave my tax affairs in the hands of my accountant - I'm sure he applies a little artistic licence to reduce my tax liability, hence allowing me to avoid tax.

I have no problem with that.

If I earned thousands and thousands of pounds, I would be looking to pay as little tax as was (legally) possible. If I paid an accountant £1,500 a month, say, I'd be expecting him to reduce my tax bill by about £25,000 annually, minimum. (I don't even earn £25,000 p.a)

This last wee while the bulk of my income has been taxed at source - I'm quite happy with that, it saves me having to shovel 25% off to pay to the tax man twice a year, even if it means I'm probably paying more tax than I would if I were getting paid as a self employed "consultant".

Ok. Er, congratulations.

People who work hard at avoiding meeting their tax obligations are, in my view behaving in an immoral way.

When the people in question are rich anyway, the offence is greater.

[Jacksgranda]

Ok. Er, congratulations. People who work hard at avoiding meeting their tax obligations are, in my view behaving in an immoral way. When the people in question are rich anyway, the offence is greater.

So if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill, you would refuse it?

[Monkey Tennis]

So if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill, you would refuse it?

If I didn't, my behaviour would be immoral.

If I were very rich, my behaviour would be yet worse.

[hellbhoy]

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.

Sanctimonious clap trap ?, morality ?, No none of those two things where in my post Grandpa, I was merely pointing out why the HMRC were pursuing the tax dodging cnuts.

Interesting point though why aren't the HMRC chasing them for complete tax evasion on the EBT scam itself. After all not a single penny from the scheme was ever paid in tax, but that all falls apart when it comes to Minty's defence, legally they were loans so to speak so can't be called tax evasion or avoidance.

Where the HMRC are chasing them down on is the abuse of the EBT scam they ran for over a decade. If they can proof MIH breached the rules & regulations of the EBT scheme by using the loans as wages then they will hammer Minty and the EBT recipients for tax avoidance because the recipients of the EBT scam did pay PAYE & NI through the club paying part or most of their wages at the time.

[bennett]

Ok. Er, congratulations. People who work hard at avoiding meeting their tax obligations are, in my view behaving in an immoral way. When the people in question are rich anyway, the offence is greater.

Yer baws, we'd all love to get away with less/not paying it.

[Jacksgranda]

Sanctimonious clap trap ?, morality ?, No none of those two things where in my post Grandpa, I was merely pointing out why the HMRC were pursuing the tax dodging cnuts.

Interesting point though why aren't the HMRC chasing them for complete tax evasion on the EBT scam itself. After all not a single penny from the scheme was ever paid in tax, but that all falls apart when it comes to Minty's defence, legally they were loans so to speak so can't be called tax evasion or avoidance.

Where the HMRC are chasing them down on is the abuse of the EBT scam they ran for over a decade. If they can proof MIH breached the rules & regulations of the EBT scheme by using the loans as wages then they will hammer Minty and the EBT recipients for tax avoidance because the recipients of the EBT scam did pay PAYE & NI through the club paying part or most of their wages at the time.

I didn't say you did, otherwise I would have quoted you.

I must admit I'm a bit vague as to how these EBT schemes work, not moving in that sort of tax bracket, if they were so legit, why aren't we all paid that way?

What is the rationale behind them - apart from not paying tax? Are they like a pension scheme? If they are, would it not have been simpler paying into a pension plan? Although I suppose pension plan payments are paid out of taxed income, and EBTs aren't taxed.

Why weren't they closed down immediately, instead of running for years and years.

I've heard that a lot of these tax avoidance schemes are dreamed up, and administered by, by ex HMRC employees. Don't know how true that is, seems plausible, gamekeeper turned poacher.

Perhaps we should all be lobbying our elected representatives to have all tax avoidance schemes closed down, including the ones which benefit our elected representatives.

[hellbhoy]

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?

This is where the corrupt associations have helped the club keep their tainted titles and cups.

Firstly the former dissolved SPL has ruled upon their breaching of the rules and actually found them guilty of cheating, BUT ?, the associations also put into their rules that no retrospective punitive measures could be meted out because they weren't caught in the act of cheating at the time ???

Conclusion !, they did in fact cheat for over a decade and were given a whopping £250K fine which they gave to the oldco/dying club and not what they see as the same club, BUT ?, they weren't caught in the act of doing so at the time so couldn't be stripped of their tainted silverware and why the orcs can boast "no sporting advantage" because of the fucked up associations rules won't punish them for past rule breaking/breaches.

Even if the HMRC win the case finally the club will not even be punished at all because the SPL has dealt with the matter according to their rules and has also dissolved so therefore will not be able to retrospectively remove their ill gotten gains because the SPL does not exist any more. Possibly one of the reasons why league reconstruction took place, to bury the cnuts cheating.

[THE KING]

So if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill, you would refuse it?

Definitely, if your boss said I can cut your tax in half just sign up fot this perfectly legal scheme,youd be like..eh f**k off.

[Monkey Tennis]

Yer baws, we'd all love to get away with less/not paying it.

Even if that's true, it doesn't make it morally right.

[Jacksgranda]

Definitely, if your boss said I can cut your tax in half just sign up fot this perfectly legal scheme,youd be like..eh f**k off.

That's not what I said.

If I was/had been offered a 50% tax reduction scheme I would have sought a second opinion, and possibly a third.

I asked "if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill", would you refuse it?

[Jacksgranda]

Orks still trying to justify tax evasion.. cheating dead club RIP

Who's justifying tax evasion?

[cyderspaceman]

This is where the corrupt associations have helped the club keep their tainted titles and cups.

Firstly the former dissolved SPL has ruled upon their breaching of the rules and actually found them guilty of cheating, BUT ?, the associations also put into their rules that no retrospective punitive measures could be meted out because they weren't caught in the act of cheating at the time ???

Surely most cheats don't get found out until after the event. (Unless they're not very good at it. )

Cheating over an extended period of time, say ten years, should be punished MORE harshly, not less.

No retrospective punishment, eh. Wot about Lance Armstrong?

[THE KING]

That's not what I said.

If I was/had been offered a 50% tax reduction scheme I would have sought a second opinion, and possibly a third.

I asked "if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill", would you refuse it?

Tax avoidance is legal so Id still say no.

[Jacksgranda]

Surely most cheats don't get found out until after the event. (Unless they're not very good at it. )

Cheating over an extended period of time, say ten years, should be punished MORE harshly, not less.

No retrospective punishment, eh. Wot about Lance Armstrong?

Like Legia Warsaw, you mean? Thank goodness Celtic were on their toes, there.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Jacksgranda

[Monkey Tennis]

That's not what I said.

If I was/had been offered a 50% tax reduction scheme I would have sought a second opinion, and possibly a third.

I asked "if you were presented with a legal way of reducing your tax bill", would you refuse it?

Why are you reading significance into what an individual would do if presented with the chance?

Many of us would do all manner of 'wrong' things, if given an apparently sanction free opportunity. That has no bearing on what constitutes what is 'right'.

[Jacksgranda]

Why are you reading significance into what an individual would do if presented with the chance? Many of us would do all manner of 'wrong' things, if given an apparently sanction free opportunity. That has no bearing on what constitutes what is 'right'.

I'm not reading significance into anything.

I asked a simple question.

He amplified it.

I replied.

[Monkey Tennis]

I'm not reading significance into anything.

I asked a simple question.

He amplified it.

I replied.

You've now asked two of us what we'd do as individuals.

I'm suggesting that that's not particularly relevant here.