AberdeenBud Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 What about the ones you were "found guilty" on? Regards Chelsea and Arsenal and the clubs who settled(No8..) I agree it is unfair that they essentially got an easy deal. You would really need to look at the detail of how the EBT's were implemented at those clubs. HMRC were obviously confident of a win in all cases v Rangers but not with the others. It could just be that they administered the plan better. They also didn't undertake a campaign of intimidation, obfuscation and dishonesty in a(successful) attempt to delay and obstruct the investigation at every turn. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaintee Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 and there we have the crux of the matter, despite all the not guilty verdicts, you and so many like you, blinded by hate had completely allowed yourself to believe that Rangers were guilty before any rulings had been made and when these rulings inevitably found against your entrenched beliefs you are still here stomping and stamping your feet like a petulant child. Before these verdicts were delivered I remember asking many of those that were so sure of themselves if they would accept the verdicts in full, the majority said yes and the majority lied. Sorry I have no pity. What about all the guilty verdicts? Its a bit like saying I was accused of 120 rapes but I was only foung guilty of 80. Shameless logic. RANGERS ARE GUILTY 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 This will be the same Dunfermline that took a cheque from the RFFF for £80,000 in payment for the money owed for tickets. This will be the same Dunfermline that then demanded £80,000 from the Newco for the same tickets!! And Rangers were forced to pay this meaning we paid for the tickets twice. Sorry, bit confused, not keeping up etc. Why did fans pay this £80k when it was bloggers that owed Dunfermline the money ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 My Old Presbyterian Granny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CityDave Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Still waiting for an answer since this morning on why Rangers fans didn't bother their arses to save their club. The HMRC would have done this or that rejected the CVA anyway is irrelevant since no one would have believed that was going to happen right back in January or February of that year, that's not an relevant answer Tedi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aofjays Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I see this getting peddled a lot, they admitted a tax liability on a handful of cases that were basically not administered properly, the truth is that the ones were the vast majority of money was involved were perfectly legitimate, which is why we have HMRC constantly appealing and not the other way around.....they lost. You lot are just like HMRC, 'not guilty eh, that's not fair, am no accepting that, Appeal Appeal Appeal' The only person you are fooling with this tripe is yourself (and I'm not 100% sure of that). -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Just popped in to see if Tedi has had his daily meltdown yet?...and.....yip! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I see this getting peddled a lot, they admitted a tax liability on a handful of cases that were basically not administered properly, the truth is that the ones were the vast majority of money was involved were perfectly legitimate, which is why we have HMRC constantly appealing and not the other way around.....they lost. You lot are just like HMRC, 'not guilty eh, that's not fair, am no accepting that, Appeal Appeal Appeal' So you admit that in some cases, Rangers were operating EBT's outwith their scope? In laymans terms, illegally? That ignores completely the "wee tax case". I agree with the poster who stated it would be funny if after the final appeal it turned out you had administered it all correctly and died for nothing. It would be a hilarious pyrrhic victory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the 67 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I see this getting peddled a lot, they admitted a tax liability on a handful of cases that were basically not administered properly, the truth is that the ones were the vast majority of money was involved were perfectly legitimate, which is why we have HMRC constantly appealing and not the other way around.....they lost. You lot are just like HMRC, 'not guilty eh, that's not fair, am no accepting that, Appeal Appeal Appeal' You are making a dick of yourself.... I find this amusing.....please continue. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Look, news!! Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 14m14 minutes ago Morning of evidence from HMRC who said notion of not paying tax through EBT scheme was a "fantastically silly proposition." Chris McLaughlin @BBCchrismclaug 14m14 minutes ago HMRC also said it would be "catastrophic for the public purse" if this scheme is all that's needed to avoid paying tax. #EBT #Rangers I am very much in sympathy with HMRC here. The whole notion of EBTs is ludicrous now and was ludicrous then. HMRC is on the money when it says it was a, "fantastically silly proposition." If this is their line of reasoning, though, then they should GTF and stop costing 'hard-working taxpayers' more money. This case has never been about the reasonableness or otherwise of EBTs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 So you admit that in some cases, Rangers were operating EBT's outwith their scope? In laymans terms, illegally? That ignores completely the "wee tax case". I agree with the poster who stated it would be funny if after the final appeal it turned out you had administered it all correctly and died for nothing. It would be a hilarious pyrrhic victory. Regardless of any verdict it was an attempt to cheat at football (among other things). I'm still resentful that the penalty for that was not appropriate but glad that it ultimately killed the club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 It was the trustees that loan the money, how many times. Where did the trustees get the money? What was it for? What did Billy Dodds think he was receiving? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I am very much in sympathy with HMRC here. The whole notion of EBTs is ludicrous now and was ludicrous then. HMRC is on the money when it says it was a, "fantastically silly proposition." If this is their line of reasoning, though, then they should GTF and stop costing 'hard-working taxpayers' more money. This case has never been about the reasonableness or otherwise of EBTs. I actually agree with this. There are countless legal forms of tax avoidance that HMRC are fully supportive of. EBTs were just another of them. The whole point was that the system had been abused rather than utilised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the 67 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Where did the trustees get the money? What was it for? What did Billy Dodds think he was receiving? To be fair to wee Billy Dodds....he needed as much cash as he could get..... have you seen his ears????those fuckers are our of order... I would imagine going private to get those things pinned back would have cost him a fortune. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 What happens on the 13th of July??? If you are going to try and correct people, at least make sure you get your facts right. The Ulster Boyne Celebrations happen on Monday the 13th Of July. As I said if you are going to try and be funny at least get your facts right. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I am very much in sympathy with HMRC here. The whole notion of EBTs is ludicrous now and was ludicrous then. HMRC is on the money when it says it was a, "fantastically silly proposition." If this is their line of reasoning, though, then they should GTF and stop costing 'hard-working taxpayers' more money. This case has never been about the reasonableness or otherwise of EBTs. I actually agree with this. There are countless legal forms of tax avoidance that HMRC are fully supportive of. EBTs were just another of them. Thus far we are in clashing agreement. The whole point was that the system had been abused rather than utilised. Well this in the nub. The FTT disagreed with you as did the UTT. No-one can predict what the CoS will say, though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Thus far we are in clashing agreement. Well this in the nub. The FTT disagreed with you as did the UTT. No-one can predict what the CoS will say, though. You may have misunderstood. My point was meaning that HMRC were saying it had been misused, therefor that is what they had to prove. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Why don't you ask him? No need. The BBC already did that and Billy made it crystal clear that he regarded such payments as wages and that they were given to him, very unequivocally on those terms. Technically legal or otherwise, this was a con, a trick to entice better players than would otherwise be possible by enabling them to duck their tax obligations. To do it fully, they had to register their players with the football authorities in deceitful terms. Any decent football fan or even citizen would find the practice distasteful in the extreme. Imagine seeking to defend it because you support a particular team. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 You may have misunderstood. My point was meaning that HMRC were saying it had been misused, therefor that is what they had to prove. In that case I we're entirely in agreement. Sake. Who'd have ever guessed that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 No need. The BBC already did that and Billy made it crystal clear that he regarded such payments as wages and that they were given to him, very unequivocally on those terms. Technically legal or otherwise, this was a con, a trick to entice better players than would otherwise be possible by enabling them to duck their tax obligations. To do it fully, they had to register their players with the football authorities in deceitful terms. Any decent football fan or even citizen would find the practice distasteful in the extreme. Imagine seeking to defend it because you support a particular team. Financial doping. 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.