Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[cyderspaceman]

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

Yes. It is not a loophole. A loophole enables the circumventing of a regulation. An ISA does what it says on the tin.

Edited May 15, 2015 by cyderspaceman

[Jacksgranda]

You've now asked two of us what we'd do as individuals. I'm suggesting that that's not particularly relevant here.

I actually asked you if we're going to be picky, and he chipped in with his opinion. I replied to THE KING's post. I didn't ask him what he would do, I quoted my original question.

If you don't think it's relevant, why not say that in your original reply to my hypothetical scenario?

[hellbhoy]

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.

Just to clarify the proper use of the EBT scheme Grandpa.

It is legally defined as a lump sum pension fund, you and your company pay into the scheme each pay day and that money paid in isn't taxed by the HMRC. You keep paying into the scheme until you retire and then you receive a lump sum retirement payout that gets taxed by the HMRC but not at the higher amount they might have done if it were wages.

Benefits of a properly run scheme is to borrow money from the fund to pay for goods or services in the UK without paying any UK tax because the money is from an offshore account. Not only that you will avoid any interest from banks or lenders for borrowing thousands of pounds. Say you borrowed £20K from the EBT scheme and not the bank for a housing extension, you'll save countless thousands in borrowing interest and also you won't have to pay any UK tax for the extension saving you thousands in UK tax. Who wouldn't use a legal loophole like this ?

Now the money you borrow will have to be paid back into the EBT scheme before you retire so that when you retire the HMRC can then tax your lump sum retirement fund accordingly.

This system ran for years very legit until some smart fuckers found out you could use it to avoid paying any tax by giving out countless loans which where legal in the EBT scheme but without the need to ever pay it back which the HMRC took exception too and are now ending EBT schemes, the dilemma is the ethical use of a loan that has no intent to be ever paid back and can it be deemed a loan if there is no repayment of any kind ever. Rangers never even paid back a penny from all the loans they gave out.

[Monkey Tennis]

I actually asked you if we're going to be picky, and he chipped in with his opinion. I replied to THE KING's post. I didn't ask him what he would do, I quoted my original question.

If you don't think it's relevant, why not say that in your original reply to my hypothetical scenario?

Ok, not a particularly important distinction, but yes, you directed the original question in a different direction, rather than asked someone else anew.

I'd thought my original answer made it abundantly clear that how I as an individual would behave in a given scenario is not necessarily the best objective measure of what is moral.

My mistake.

[Jacksgranda]

Just to clarify the proper use of the EBT scheme Grandpa.

It is legally defined as a lump sum pension fund, you and your company pay into the scheme each pay day and that money paid in isn't taxed by the HMRC. You keep paying into the scheme until you retire and then you receive a lump sum retirement payout that gets taxed by the HMRC but not at the higher amount they might have done if it were wages.

Benefits of a properly run scheme is to borrow money from the fund to pay for goods or services in the UK without paying any UK tax because the money is from an offshore account. Not only that you will avoid any interest from banks or lenders for borrowing thousands of pounds. Say you borrowed £20K from the EBT scheme and not the bank for a housing extension, you'll save countless thousands in borrowing interest and also you won't have to pay any UK tax for the extension saving you thousands in UK tax. Who wouldn't use a legal loophole like this ?

Now the money you borrow will have to be paid back into the EBT scheme before you retire so that when you retire the HMRC can then tax your lump sum retirement fund accordingly.

This system ran for years very legit until some smart fuckers found out you could use it to avoid paying any tax by giving out countless loans which where legal in the EBT scheme but without the need to ever pay it back which the HMRC took exception too and are now ending EBT schemes, the dilemma is the ethical use of a loan that has no intent to be ever paid back and can it be deemed a loan if there is no repayment of any kind ever. Rangers never even paid back a penny from all the loans they gave out.

Aye, now that you've explained it, I remember it was explained before!

So it was a pension scheme.

You borrow money from your EBT to buy a car/build an extension/go on a round the world cruise etc, but you're supposed to pay it back in before your retirement.

And the EBT schemes operated by Rangers/MIH didn't fulfil this obligation.

Would HMRC be informed about loans paid out from an EBT? Would an EBT not be shown on your personal tax return? Would a loan from your EBT not be shown on your tax return (I'm guessing "no" here, although it could be shown "as introduced income")?

[Jacksgranda]

Ok, not a particularly important distinction, but yes, you directed the original question in a different direction, rather than asked someone else anew. I'd thought my original answer made it abundantly clear that how I as an individual would behave in a given scenario is not necessarily the best objective measure of what is moral. My mistake.

I certainly didn't take that out of your original answer, if that was your intention it was too subtle for me, I'm afraid.

[bennett]

Nothing like a good dose of revisionism just in time for the weekend.

...and the QC has reinvented himself as an expert in taxation.

[Monkey Tennis]

I certainly didn't take that out of your original answer, if that was your intention it was too subtle for me, I'm afraid.

I'm just a bit baffled by your attitude towards people who try not to pay what they would ordinarily be due to, in tax.

It's damaging and wrong. As someone who clearly understands how power and wealth is so ill-divided in this country, I fail to see how you can be fine with this ugliest of manifestations of it.

[Jacksgranda]

I'm just a bit baffled by your attitude towards people who try not to pay what they would ordinarily be due to, in tax. It's damaging and wrong. As someone who clearly understands how power and wealth is so ill-divided in this country, I fail to see how you can be fine with this ugliest of manifestations of it.

That's the key word. If there is a legal way of not paying tax then it is not ordinarily due. I refer you to my post nr 191465 "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"

[Monkey Tennis]

That's the key word. If there is a legal way of not paying tax then it is not ordinarily due. I refer you to my post nr 191465 "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"

There was nothing whatever ordinary about how Rangers rewarded millionaires, regardless of its legality or otherwise.

As I said, I find your willingness to interpret such things leniently, baffling.

[Jacksgranda]

There was nothing whatever ordinary about how Rangers rewarded millionaires, regardless of its legality or otherwise. As I said, I find your willingness to interpret such things leniently, baffling.

Now that's baffling!

It was legal - it's implementation may be deemed immoral (there doesn't appear to have been any paying back of these loans or any attempt to get them paid which may be illegal) but it was perfectly legitimate.

[The_Kincardine]

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

I still have two more pages to wade through but this is just the most stupid post I have read.

HMRC lost the LTT.

HMRC lost the UTT.

The third round will be at the Court of Session. The rest of your post is utter tripe apart from this wee gobbit, " incomplete victory".

It gives me some comfort to know that The Rangers had "incomplete victory" in The Championship this season!

[Monkey Tennis]

Now that's baffling!

It was legal - it's implementation may be deemed immoral (there doesn't appear to have been any paying back of these loans or any attempt to get them paid which may be illegal) but it was perfectly legitimate.

How so?

Notions of legality and legitimacy needn't be synonymous.

My objection is chiefly moral and I don't see how a defence along similar lines can begin to be constructed.

That's maybe why you've not tried.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Monkey Tennis

[Jacksgranda]

How so?

Notions of legality and legitimacy needn't be synonymous.

My objection is chiefly moral and I don't see how a defence along similar lines can begin to be constructed.

That's maybe why you've not tried.

Well, we're arguing at cross purposes - you're all moral, and I'm legal.

Where do you put your savings?

The meagre amounts of money I've kept out of the hands of the tax man I put into the Credit Union. Does that make me morally superior to someone who puts their savings in a high interest savings account?

[The_Kincardine]

My objection is chiefly moral

Monkey in high dudgeon. Statements like this can only end up in discussion about the schools and hospitals that could have been built if only Rangers had paid their taxes.

[Jacksgranda]

Monkey in high dudgeon. Statements like this can only end up in discussion about the schools and hospitals that could have been built if only Rangers had paid their taxes.

Is that not where Brora Rangers play?

[Monkey Tennis]

Well, we're arguing at cross purposes - you're all moral, and I'm legal.

Where do you put your savings?

The meagre amounts of money I've kept out of the hands of the tax man I put into the Credit Union. Does that make me morally superior to someone who puts their savings in a high interest savings account?

Let's not pretend that some meaningful comparison can be drawn between what we each do with our meagre monies and how the very wealthy are often able to behave.

[Monkey Tennis]

Monkey in high dudgeon. Statements like this can only end up in discussion about the schools and hospitals that could have been built if only Rangers had paid their taxes.

Nah, I've never gone for that stuff.

It's a bit simplistic and easy to parody.

However, the suggestion that it's immoral for very rich people to find imaginative ways to avoid contributing fully to a society they do very well from, does not strike me as contentious.

[Jacksgranda]

Let's not pretend that some meaningful comparison can be drawn between what we each do with our meagre monies and how the very wealthy are often able to behave.

Of course not, let's not pretend that. Morality only comes into it when rich folk are involved, not what we plebs get up to.

[Monkey Tennis]

Of course not, let's not pretend that. Morality only comes into it when rich folk are involved, not what we plebs get up to.

Don't be silly now.

Neither of us have entered into anything remotely comparable to an EBT that meant we received wages as 'loans' nobody wanted back.

And I've absolutely no difficulty in suggesting that it is morally worse when those who already have lots of money, work hard at taking yet more from others.

However, we're back to discussing what you or I might do. It's a pretty imperfect way of addressing what's moral.